The Supreme Court pulled down the death penalty for a man accused of raping and killing a 4-year-old girl in Madhya Pradesh.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India has nullified its decision on the death sentence of a rapist and a murderer convict Mohd. Firoz, of a 4yr old girl in Madhya Pradesh.
On Wednesday, a three-member panel of Judges UU.Lalit, Judge S. Ravindra Bhat, and Judge Bela M. Trivedi issued an order that the prescribed maximum sentence may not be the decisive factor in recovering an offender from maiming. After examining the evidence in the case, the panel concluded that the prosecution was very persuasive to rule out the possibility of hypotheses other than the defendant’s guilt.
In 2014, the Court of Justice of the Seoni Court in Madhya Pradesh was ordered to register crimes in various sections of the IPC and sentence them to life imprisonment in one of them. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur has sentenced Maud to death. Philoz Khan of the same year.
The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant Philoz’s appeal and upheld his death sentence. Following the death penalty, the SC Panel decided that it was appropriate to change the death penalty to life imprisonment under section 302 of the IPC. The Panel argued that imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness and seriousness of the crime, based on Section 376A of the IPC.
“One of the basic principles of restorative justice, developed by this court over the years, provides criminals with the opportunity to repair damage and become socially useful individuals when released from prison. It is also a decisive factor in restoring the criminal’s criminal inconvenience, so the court in that ruling” Supreme court said in its judgment.
“EVERY SINNER HAS A FUTURE”
Emphasizing the principles of restorative justice, the panel said in a hearing by British writer OscarWilde, “The only difference between saints and sinners is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. That’s it.” It is important to give criminals the opportunity to repair the damages caused and become socially useful persons after being released from prison. Therefore, the court finally” considered the balance between retaliatory justice and restorative justice, while the accused was imprisoned for 20 years, not for the rest of his natural life, for a crime. I believe it should be sentenced. Under Section 376A.”
also read: Nadia gang rape case: CBI team visits hanshkali and collects forensic samples from defendant’s home.
