On December 4, 2024, the Chhattisgarh High Court overturned the death sentence previously given to Dipak Baghel for the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a seven-year-old girl in 2021, commuting it to life imprisonment. The ruling was based on considerations including the convict’s potential for reformation and his social background, despite the gruesome nature of the crime.
The crime in question occurred on February 28, 2021, when Baghel, then 29, took the young victim and her brother to attend a local function. He deceitfully separated the siblings, leaving the brother at the event while taking the girl to a secluded spot along the railway tracks in Somni, where he sexually assaulted her and subsequently murdered her by crushing her head with a large stone. He then disposed of her body on the railway tracks, presumably to eliminate evidence.
Following the incident, an FIR was lodged against Baghel, leading to his arrest. The investigation by local police concluded with sufficient evidence, including DNA reports and testimonies from the victim’s family, which led the trial court to convict Baghel under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 363 (kidnapping), and 366 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Consequently, the trial court sentenced him to death, prompting a mandatory review by the High Court under Section 366 of the CrPC for sentence confirmation.
During the appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC by Baghel’s legal team, the High Court, comprised of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, meticulously reviewed the case. They affirmed the conviction, stating, “Thus, after appreciating the entire ocular and medical evidence on record, we do not find any illegality in appreciation of oral, medical, and circumstantial evidence or arriving at a conclusion as to the guilt of the appellant by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court.”
However, on the issue of sentencing, the High Court diverged from the trial court’s decision. The bench critiqued the initial sentencing for not adequately considering the possibility of Baghel’s reformation. They noted, “The trial Court has not taken into consideration the probability of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated and has only taken into consideration the crime and the manner in which it was committed.”
The court also considered a report from jail authorities that described Baghel’s conduct in custody as typical, without any additional jail offences. His age, social background, and membership in the Other Backward Class (OBC) were pivotal in the High Court’s reasoning. They concluded, “These are the incriminating circumstances, but there is no evidence on record that the appellant cannot be reformed or rehabilitated… his chances of being reformed or rehabilitated cannot be ruled out.”
Thus, the High Court determined that the case did not fall into the “rarest of the rare” category required for upholding the death penalty, as established by Supreme Court precedents. Instead, they opted for life imprisonment, stating, “We are of the opinion that this is not the rarest of rare cases in which a major penalty of sentence of death awarded has to be confirmed.”
