SC gives no relief to repeat child abuser

Emboldened by the light sentences he got for two earlier rapes, a serial child rapist went on to violate and kill two more minors in cold blood soon after he had served out the prison terms. The SC recently ruled that death was the only punishment for the pervert. Mohan Anna Chavan was no ordinary criminal. He was convicted in 1989 and sentenced to two years and 10 years by trial courts in Thane and Satara respectively for raping two minor girls in separate incidents. He came out of prison in July 1999 after serving the prison term, but without leaving behind his depravity.

In December 1999, five months after his release from prison, he set his eyes on two more young girls — Neelam and Gauri — and lured them to a secluded place promising them sweets. He raped the children and murdered them one after the other. He threw Neelam’s body into a well in a paddy field and concealed Gauri’s body after strangulating her.

The villagers, who had seen the children last in his company, spotted him the next morning and captured him. The police was called. The accused allegedly confessed to the crime and even helped recover the bodies.

Unlike the last time when he got away lightly, a Satara trial court considered the circumstancial evidence against Chavan to be a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused and awarded him death sentence classifying the case under “rarest of rare” category. The Bombay high court affirmed the death sentence finding the evidence strong enough to nail the convict for the ghastly crime.

Rejecting Chavan’s appeal against conviction and death sentence, a three-judge Bench of the apex court comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and M K Sharma said, “The case at hand falls in the rarest of rare category. The past instances highlighted above, and the depraved acts of the accused call for only one sentence that is death sentence.” It said undue sympathy to impose adequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law. “It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed,” said Justice Pasayat, writing the unanimous judgment for the Bench.

The court said leniency in imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order could be a futile exercise. “The social impact of the crime, for example where it relates to crime against women other offences involving moral turpitude which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and require exemplary treatment,” the bench said.

The Times of India 20 May 2008 P. 15 Delhi
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in