Libertatem Magazine

Every time Social Re-Integration of Convict is Not Possible

Contents of this Page

Brief Facts:

The appellant Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik is a cousin of complaint Mahendra Namdeorao Wasnik who lives with his wife Kanta and daughter Vandana who is 3 years of age at time of incident. The appellant visit complainant house to meet complaint’s  father Namderao, who was ailing ,after having a cup of tea he left to meet his friend and thereafter returned in evening and appellant informed Kanta that he is taking Vandana to bus stand buy her some biscuits but as the time passed neither of them returned, Mahendra was at his work place after his return Kanta informed Mahendra about whole day whereabouts and non return of Vandana, Mahendra with help of some villagers go out for a search of his daughter but could not find them . Next morning Vandana dead body was found in one of the villagers field , after the police complaint and post-mortem report is was revealed that Vandana was raped as well as sodomized and had died due to asphyxia.Search for accused was instigated and was arrested by the Amravati Police under Section 41(1)of the Code Criminal Procedure as the appellant was not guilty so trial procedure was initiated and investigation report was examined and death penalty was awarded by district court subject to confirmation it was submitted to Hon’ble High Court under section 366 of CrPC. Aggrieved to the said Judgment appeal to the High Court.


  • Death sentence should not be granted on basis of circumstantial evidence
  • One of the rarest of rare cases where awarding death sentence is Unjustified.


The High Court dismissed the appeal and gave the judgment of Life Imprisonment though he agreed with the contention taken on behalf of the convict that ordinarily death sentence should not field, in a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, but there is no said rule or principle that capital punishment cannot be granted on basis of circumstantial evidence. In such cases there must be some exceptional cases were to meet the end of justice court would be bound to give such extreme punishment. Second, Contention of rare of the rarest case ailing, by the Court, this was not rarest of the rare case where the Court would find that any other sentence except death penalty inadequate and the level of crime villagers was extreme which demanded Capital Punishment only. So, learned trial court was fully justified in law and on the facts of the present case, in awarding the workplace penalty of death for an offence under Section 302,376,377 of IPC along with other punishments for other offences. The Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under the impugned judgment.

Social re-integration must be on Prior basis but not at the cause of End of Justice.

Criminal is also Entitle for Life of Dignity by social re-integration but this is not possible when the crime for which accused is convicted is of heinous in nature, then capital punishment is required to meet the end of justice. As Justice must be the priority of the court then social re-integration, social re-integration is a must for the criminal who is guilty of their offence but the criminal who was not guilty, the social re-integration cannot mould them also to be a better human. In the rarest of the rare case when capital punishment is unjustified and inadequate it can be reduced.

About the Author