President Murmu rejects mercy plea of man convicted for rape, murder of two-year-old in Maharashtra

The recent decision by President Droupadi Murmu to reject the mercy plea of a man convicted for the heinous rape and murder of a two-year-old in Maharashtra underscores a critical aspect of India's justice delivery system: the ultimate constitutional recourse available to death row convicts and the President's pivotal role in it. This marks the third such rejection by President Murmu since she assumed office on July 25, 2022, signaling a clear stance on such grave crimes.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

In India, the judicial process for capital offenses is exhaustive, beginning with trial courts, progressing through High Courts, and culminating in the Supreme Court. A death sentence, once confirmed by the apex court, is not immediately executed. The convict has a final constitutional avenue: the mercy petition. This petition can be filed before the Governor of the state (under Article 161) and the President of India (under Article 72). The case in question involved a man convicted of the brutal rape and murder of a two-year-old child in Maharashtra. Such crimes evoke profound public outrage and demand the highest degree of judicial scrutiny and punishment. After exhausting all judicial appeals, the convict filed a mercy plea, which has now been rejected by President Murmu.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

Several key stakeholders are involved in this complex process. Firstly, the **Judiciary** (Trial Courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court) plays the primary role in adjudicating the case, determining guilt, and awarding the sentence, including capital punishment, typically under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine established in *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* (1980). Secondly, the **President of India** is the ultimate constitutional authority empowered by Article 72 to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, or commute sentences. While this power is discretionary, the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which processes these petitions. The **Ministry of Home Affairs** thoroughly examines the petition, considering the court records, the convict's background, and the social impact of the crime, before tendering its advice to the President. The **Victim's Family** represents the aggrieved party, seeking justice and closure, while the **Convict** is the individual whose fate is being decided, having exhausted all legal remedies.

**Why This Matters for India (Significance):**

This decision holds significant implications for India. It reinforces the **Rule of Law** and the state's commitment to ensuring justice, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes against vulnerable sections of society, like children. The rejection of mercy pleas in such cases often reflects a strong societal demand for retribution and deterrence. It also highlights the **President's constitutional role** as the final arbiter in matters of life and death, underscoring the gravity and responsibility associated with the office. Politically, such decisions can reflect the government's stance on capital punishment and its approach to law and order. Socially, it sends a strong message that perpetrators of crimes against children will face the full force of the law, potentially acting as a deterrent.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions:**

The power of pardon is a constitutional prerogative rooted in the concept of justice tempered with mercy. **Article 72 of the Indian Constitution** grants the President the power to:

1. **Pardon:** Completely absolve the convict of all sentences and disqualifications.

2. **Reprieve:** Stay the execution of a sentence for a temporary period.

3. **Respite:** Award a lesser sentence in special circumstances (e.g., pregnancy).

4. **Remission:** Reduce the period of sentence without changing its character.

5. **Commutation:** Substitute one form of punishment with a lighter form (e.g., death sentence to life imprisonment).

Similarly, **Article 161** grants similar powers to the Governor of a state, but with some differences (e.g., Governor cannot pardon a death sentence, though they can commute or remit it). The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments like *Maru Ram v. Union of India* (1980) and *Kehar Singh v. Union of India* (1989), has clarified that the President does not act personally but on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, the Court in *Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India* (2014) ruled that inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions can be a ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of timely decisions. The legal framework for these crimes is primarily the **Indian Penal Code (IPC)**, particularly Section 302 for murder and Section 376 for rape, and the **Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012**, which provides stringent punishments for child sexual abuse.

**Future Implications:**

President Murmu's consistent rejection of mercy pleas in cases of severe crimes, particularly against children, sets a precedent for her tenure. This approach could be interpreted as a firm commitment to upholding justice for victims of heinous crimes. It also contributes to the ongoing national debate surrounding capital punishment in India, especially in the context of increasing calls for stricter penalties for crimes against women and children. The decisions reinforce the gravity of the President's office and its role in the final stage of the criminal justice system, ensuring that deserving cases meet their constitutional end. This firm stance might also influence future policy discussions regarding judicial discretion in sentencing and the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent.