HC strikes down death penalty handed down to Nashik man for rape, murder of minor

A division bench of justices Sarang Kotwal and Sandesh Patil observed that the accused had been denied an opportunity to defend himself during the trial

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday struck down a lower court’s order handing a death penalty to a Nashik resident for allegedly raping and murdering a seven-year-old girl, observing that the accused had been denied an opportunity to defend himself during the trial.

Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

“At every single stage, there was a violation of the procedure of fair trial,” said a division bench of justices Sarang Kotwal and Sandesh Patil, while remanding the matter back to the lower court for a fresh trial.

The Nashik sessions court had earlier convicted Vilas Mahale of raping and murdering a seven-year-old girl from his village near Vani in Nashik district in 2017, and sentenced him to death.

The court also convicted his brother, Pravin, and parents, Annasaheb and Shailabai, for destruction of evidence and sentenced them to seven years’ imprisonment. Annasaheb died during the pendency of the appeal.

According to the prosecution’s case, the incident occurred on April 24, 2017, when the girl was on her way to a grocery store. Vilas allegedly gave her some money and asked her to buy tobacco for him. When she returned from the store and went to his house to give him the tobacco pouch, he allegedly raped her before brutally killing her. He then hid her body in the house and left the village, the prosecution claimed.

Vilas was eventually apprehended and prosecuted for the crime, along with his brother and parents. However, all of them filed appeals in the high court, challenging their convictions.

When the bench took up their appeals for hearing, their lawyers pointed out that Vilas was not properly represented and defended during the trial. They argued that there was a failure of justice and he should either be acquitted or the matter be remanded for a fresh trial.

The government lawyer appearing in the case conceded that the main accused was not afforded a fair trial and requested the court to remand the matter for a fresh trial. The bench accepted the request.

“Throughout the trial, right from the time of framing of the charges and examination of the important witnesses, the accused No.1 (Vilas) was not represented by any advocate,” the bench said. “Therefore, there is a clear violation of the principles of fair trial. The accused No.1 was denied an opportunity to defend himself. This is in violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The bench also observed that the sessions court had proceeded with “unnecessary hurry” to conclude the trial. “Undoubtedly, it was a serious case and the trial needed to be expedited; but that could not be done at the expense of principles of fair trial,” the bench said, while ordering a fresh trial in the case.