A bench of Justices J Chelameswar, Shiva Kirti Singh and A M Sapre while sentencing the man for 25 years considered the fact that there may be probabilities of such crime being repeated in case the convict is allowed to come out of the prison on completing life imprisonment of 14 years.
"The occurrence is of the year 2011 when the appellant was said to be about 27 years old. Considering the fact that the deceased, a helpless child fell victim of the crime of lust at the hands of the appellant and there may be probabilities of such crime being repeated in case the appellant is allowed to come out of the prison on completing usual period of imprisonment for life which is taken to be 14 years...
The bench said the facts of this case did not make out a "rarest of rare" case so as to confirm the death sentence of the appellant.
"The death penalty is therefore not confirmed," the court said, noting the submission of counsel for the convict who sought 20 years in jail while Madhya Pradesh government which earlier sought confirmation of death sentence but later demanded jail term for the entire natural life.
Counsel for state government highlighted factors like
brutality, helplessness of the victim, unprovoked and pre-meditated attack as well as societal concern in respect of a particular brutal or heinous crime.
"The judicial innovation of bridging the gap between death sentence on the one extreme and only 14 years of actual imprisonment in the name of life imprisonment on the other, in our view serves a laudable purpose as explained in judgments and does not violate any positive mandate of law in the Indian Penal Code or in the Code of Criminal Procedure," the bench said.
The trial court had held Lodhi guilty of committing the murder of a seven-year-old minor girl, kidnapping, attempting to rape her and destruction of evidence relating to the crime.
It had sentenced him to death for offence under section 302 of IPC, life for offence under section 364 (kidnapping in order to murder) of IPC, seven years for offence under section 363 (kidnapping) of IPC, and seven years for rape of minor which was confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app