Mohd. Firoz v/s State Of Madhya Pradesh Case Law Explanation
I will provide you with all information about the recent judgment that was
passed by the supreme court on Mohd. Firoz v/s state of Madhya Pradesh. I will
speak in detail about the recent supreme court decision, and try to explain it
in the simplest manner possible.
Bench: Justice Uday U Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Appellant: Mohd. Firoz
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Appellant counsels: Senior Counsel
Mr. B.H. Marlapalle
Respondent counsels - Advocate Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran
Judgment/ order date - 19/04/2022
The case was originally filed by Bibisidhika, the mother of Mohd. Firoz
challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order and common judgment
of the high court of judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 15/07/2014.
After bibisidhika expired, Firoz was substituted as the appellant by this court
following the order passed on 21/10/2021.
The case began in 2013 when two accused Md. Firoz Khan and Rakesh Chaudhary
visited a home to provide accommodation to the said unknown person for a day.
Upon being denied by the victim's mother, Rakesh Choudhary left, while Firoz
khan seized the opportunity to kidnap the four-year-old playing in the courtyard
of the house.
The victim's family had registered a missing complaint at the local police
station. The next day, the girl was found lying unconscious in the field in MP's
ghansaur district. The victim died in Nagpur during the treatment in April 2013
while the postmortem report confirmed the occurrence of rape upon the girl
The accused Rakesh Choudhary was arrested on 20th April 2013 and the
appellant-accused firoz was arrested on 23rd April 2013 from husainabad, police
station mojahidpur, balsaur, Bhagalpur, Bihar.
The accused Mohd. Firoz was charged for the offenses under sections 363, 366,
376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), and 302 of IPC and under sections 5(i), 5(m), and Section
6 of the protection of children from the sexual offenses act, 2012 (hereinafter
referred to as the POCSO Act), and
The accused Rakesh Choudhary was charged for the offenses under sections 363 and
366 with respect to section 34 and under section 109 of IPC and under Section
16/17 of the POCSO Act.
After both the accused denied their guilt and demanded a trial, the prosecution
examined 34 witnesses to prove their guilt. Both denied the accusations leveled
against them in their further statements recorded under section 313 of the Cr.PC
said they were falsely implicated in the case.
Session Courts Judgement
The sessions court at seoni after appreciating the evidence on record convicted
both the accused for the offences charged against them and awarded the death
sentence to the accused firoz for the offense under section 302 of IPC and
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years and pay fine
of Rs. 2000/- for the offense under section 363, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offense
under section 366 of IPC, to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.
2000/- for the offences under sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) of IPC and under
sections 5(i)r/w 6 & 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.
The sessions court directed the accused Rakesh choudhary to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 07 years and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for the
offences under section 363/34, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
10 years and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offences under section 366/34 and to
undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under
section 109 of IPC and for the offences under section 16/17 of POCSO Act.
Appeal before High Court
The accused Mohd. firoz had also filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 2920
of 2013 and the accused rakesh choudhary had filed an appeal being Criminal
Appeal No. 3132 of 2013 before the high court.
The high court impugned common judgement and order dated 15.07.2014 allowed the
criminal appeal No. 3132 of 2013 filed by the accused rakesh choudhary and
acquitted him from the charges levelled against him, high court dismisses Mohd
firoz's criminal appeal and confirms his death sentence. Having been aggrieved
by the same, the appellant has filed this appeal.
A three-member bench issued the order observing that maximum punishment may not
always lend itself to repairing the psyche of the offender. The bench reviewed
the evidence in the case and found it to be very conclusive so as to rule out
any other possibility other than the guilt of the accused. Having regard to
section 376A of the IPC, the SC panel found it appropriate to commute the death
penalty for life imprisonment under section 302 of the IPC. It stated that this
sentence would have been appropriate in light of the severity and gravity of the
The panel emphasized the principle of restorative justice by quoting british
novelist Oscar Wilde's statement, "The only difference between a saint and a
sinner is that each has a past and every sinner has a future". Courts have noted
that it is important to give offenders an opportunity to repair the damage they
caused and to become productive members of society when they are released from
prison. Thus, the court ruled, "While balancing retributive justice with
restorative justice, we believe it appropriate to impose upon the
defendant-appellant the penalty of twenty years' imprisonment instead of life
imprisonment for the offence under section 376A."
On Wednesday, the supreme court revoked the death sentence of rape and murder
convict mohd. firoz. According to the apex court, Madhya pradesh high court's
ruling in jabalpur in 2014 was illegal, as 'every sinner has a future'.
Law Article in India
You May Like
Legal Question & Answers
Please Drop Your Comments