Showing leniency towards a convict involved in brutal murders may undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law, the Supreme Court has said while confirming the death sentence on a man who raped and murdered two minor girls almost a decade ago.
"Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure such serious threats," a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam observed in its recent judgment
"If for extremely heinous crime of murder, perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, the most deterrent punishment is not given then the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance," the apex court said.
The court passed the observation while dismissing the appeal filed by Mohan Anna Chavan, who had challenged the death penalty imposed on him by a sessions court for raping two minor girls.
The Bombay High Court had earlier confirmed the death sentence on him following which he appealed in the apex court.
The apex court noted that Chavan did not deserve any leniency as he had a notorious track record of raping minor girls and was convicted twice for such heinous offences.
Chavan, was earlier sentenced to two years' imprisonment on June 12, 1989 for kidnapping and raping a minor girl and on July 28, 1989 for nine years in connection with the rape of another minor girl.
In the present case, Chavan lured the two victims with sweets to nearby hills and raped them. The offence was committed on December 13 1999 soon after he returned to his village in Satara district from Mumbai after serving the two earlier sentences.
After raping and killing the two, Chavan dumped the body of one of the victim into a well and concealed the body of the other in bushes.
Rejecting the plea of the accused that he should not be given a death sentence on conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the apex court said, in criminal law, the punishment is fixed according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct.
"The proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle and, in spite of errant notions, remains a strong influence on the determination of sentences," the apex court said.
The bench said that in cases warranting death penalty, the courts are required to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges.
"Offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment," the apex court observed.
"Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal, but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment," the apex court said.
The case of Chavan falls in the category of 'rarest of rare' cases warranting imposition of death penalty, the bench said.
"The depraved acts of the accused call for only one sentence that is death sentence," the apex court remarked while upholding the death penalty on Chavan.
© 2026