Rajaram @ Rajkumar v The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 

“ No doubt that appellant's act was brutal as he has committed rape upon the victim of four years and three months of age and after committing rape also throttled her treating her dead and thrown the victim in such a place where she could not be searched and left the spot but it is also clear that he has not committed brutality ” 

Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra   

Source:  Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra commuted the death sentence of a 20-year-old tribal man convicted of raping a 4-year-old child to life imprisonment, citing lack of brutality in execution and mitigating socio-economic factors. 

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Rajaram @ Rajkumar v The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Rajaram @ Rajkumar v The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Case? 

• On October 25, 2022, a four-year-old girl came to stay at her relative's house in Khandwa district, Madhya Pradesh. 
• On the night of October 30-31, 2022, while the child was sleeping inside the hut with another family member, she mysteriously disappeared between 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM.  
• The family conducted an extensive search in nearby areas and informed relatives, but the child could not be located.  
• A 20-year-old man named Rajkumar alias Rajaram, who worked at a local dhaba, had visited the complainant's hut that evening requesting a cot to sleep on. When the family discovered both the child and the accused were missing the next morning, suspicion fell upon him.  
• Following his arrest and interrogation, the accused disclosed the location where he had left the victim.  
• The child subsequently recovered from a mango orchard in an injured and unconscious condition with severe injuries to her private parts and neck.  
• Medical examination confirmed that the victim had suffered sexual assault, and forensic evidence including DNA analysis linked the accused to the crime. 
• The trial court convicted Rajkumar under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, awarding him the death penalty for the rape of the minor child. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while acknowledging the heinous nature of the offence, distinguished between acts that are "barbaric and brutal" versus those that are "barbaric but not brutal" in determining the appropriateness of capital punishment.  
• The court recognized that the appellant had committed rape upon a victim of merely four years and three months of age, and had thereafter throttled her, believing her to be dead, before abandoning her in a secluded location.  
• The bench observed that while the act was undeniably barbaric, it did not rise to the level of brutality that would warrant the death penalty under the "rarest of rare" doctrine.  
• The court considered several mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's young age of 20 years, his tribal background, lack of education, humble socio-economic status, and absence of any prior criminal record.  
• The court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish through conclusive medical evidence that the victim had suffered permanent disability as claimed by the trial court.  
• Balancing the aggravating circumstances of the offence against the mitigating factors related to the offender's background and circumstances, the court concluded that life imprisonment would be the appropriate punishment rather than capital punishment. 

What is Commutation of Death Penalty ? 

• Commutation of death penalty refers to the legal process where a death sentence is reduced or converted to a lesser punishment, typically life imprisonment, without requiring the consent of the convicted person. 
• Section 5 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provides for commutation of sentence.  
• This provision provides that the “Appropriate Government” may without the consent of the offender commute the punishment under this Sanhita to any other punishment in accordance with Section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
  • Under Section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the "Appropriate Government" has the power to commute a sentence of death to life imprisonment without the consent of the offender.  
  • In such cases, the Central Government is deemed the appropriate authority when the offence relates to matters under its executive power. 
  • Furthermore, Section 475 restricts the release of a person whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, mandating that at least 14 years of imprisonment must be served. 
  • Section 476 further clarifies that the Central Government may also exercise these commutation powers in death sentence cases. 

Cases Referred  

• Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran vs. State of M.P., (2024) 5 SCC 782 
  • This case established the distinction between "barbaric and brutal" versus "barbaric but not brutal" in rape cases involving minors. 
  • The Supreme Court held that for death penalty, the rape must be both barbaric and brutal, not merely barbaric. This precedent was used to argue that the appellant's act, while barbaric, was not brutal enough to warrant capital punishment. 
• State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, (2011) 7 SCC 437 
  • This landmark judgment laid down comprehensive guidelines for imposing death penalty, emphasizing the "rarest of rare" doctrine.  
  • The Court established that aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be balanced, with life imprisonment being the rule and death sentence being an exception. The judgment provides detailed criteria for determining when capital punishment is appropriate. 
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 
  • This Constitution Bench judgment established the foundational "rarest of rare" doctrine for death penalty cases.  
  • The Court held that death sentence should only be imposed when life imprisonment appears altogether inadequate. 
  • It laid down specific mitigating circumstances to be considered, including the accused's age, probability of reformation, and mental condition. 
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 
  • This case summarized the Bachan Singh guidelines and provided four key principles for death penalty consideration.  
  • The Court emphasized that extreme penalty should be inflicted only in gravest cases of extreme culpability.  
  • It established the requirement of drawing a balance sheet between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 
• Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, (2019) 7 SCC 716 
  • This case was cited by the prosecution to support the death penalty conviction.  
  • The judgment discusses various factors relevant to sentencing in serious criminal cases. It also addressed the evidentiary standards required for conviction in cases involving sexual offenses against minors. 
• Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 2020 
  • This case was referenced by the prosecution in support of death penalty for rape and murder.  
  • The judgment established important precedents regarding evidence evaluation in sexual assault cases. 
  • It dealt with the application of circumstantial evidence in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.