The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the death sentence given to a convict in the 2016 sexual assault and murder case of a four-year-old boy, replacing it with a 25-year prison sentence without the possibility of remission. 

In its ruling, a bench of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K V Viswanathan acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime, describing it as diabolical. However, the court also considered the mitigating factors and concluded that the case did not meet the criteria of "rarest of rare" cases.

The bench emphasized that the possibility of reformation could not be entirely dismissed in this instance.

"Having regard to the nature of the offence, a sentence of imprisonment for a prescribed period without remission would alone be proportionate to the crime and also not jeopardise the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system," it said, "a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission would be a just dessert".

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on an appeal filed by convict Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar, who had challenged the Gujarat High Court's April 2019 verdict.

The high court had confirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by a trial court for the offences punishable under various sections of the IPC, including murder besides the Protection of Children from Sexual offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

According to the prosecution, Padhiyar kidnapped the four-year-old boy, sexual assaulted and murdered him in April, 2016, in Gujarat's Bharuch district.

"Without doubt, the crime committed by the appellant was diabolic in character. He enticed the innocent child by tempting him with ice-cream and brutally sodomised and murdered the four-year old. The appellant also mercilessly strangulated the deceased," the top court said.

The mitigation report submitted to the Supreme Court revealed that the appellant, Padhiyar, was 24 years old at the time of the incident, had no prior criminal record, and came from a low socio-economic background. 

The bench noted that a report from the superintendent of Vadodara Jail indicated that the appellant's behavior in prison had been entirely normal and his conduct was commendable. Additionally, a report from a mental health hospital confirmed that the appellant currently showed no signs of psychiatric issues.

"Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out. The option of life imprisonment is also not foreclosed," the bench said.

"The deceased, aged between three-and-a-half and four years, was a small child, just out of toddlerhood and at the preschool stage. This is very significant because when the appellant has from the neighbourhood of the house of the deceased taken the deceased one would expect that the small child would be brought back and dropped at the house," it said.

It was also noted that the convict provided no explanation regarding the events that transpired after he spent time with the child. Furthermore, it was not part of the convict's defense that he had handed the child over to someone else or dropped him off at home.

The Supreme Court observed that it is well-established that if the accused was last seen with the deceased, especially when the time gap between the last seen and the death is brief, the accused must provide a plausible explanation of how they parted ways with the deceased, and this explanation must be satisfactory.

While upholding the convict's conviction for offences, including murder and violations under the POCSO Act, the bench set aside the death sentence for the offence under Section 302 (murder) and replaced it with rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without remission.

In partially allowing the appeal, the bench also set aside the ₹20,000 fine imposed by the trial court, taking into account the convict's socio-economic condition.