3 accused to be hanged for rape-murder of 28 yr old victim

A sessions court in Pune pronounced the death sentence for three convicts who were guilty under six offences including kidnapping, gang rape, criminal conspiracy and murder of 28 year old software engineer Nayana Pujari. Additional sessions judge Lata Yenkar ruled that the case qualified for the & quot rarest of rare& quot doctrine propounded by the Supreme Court for awarding death sentences. The death sentence is subject to confirmation by the Bombay high court. The victim was kidnapped on the evening of October 7, 2009 from the Kharadi-Mundhwa bypass while she was waiting for transport to return home from office. Two days later, her badly mutilated body was found in the Zarewadi forests in Khed taluka. She was gangraped before being strangled and her body was later disposed of. The accused withdrew Rs 61,000 cash from her bank account by using her ATM card at three places, and also took her ornaments worth Rs 72,000. The judge also sentenced the trio to rigorous imprisonment for life for gang-raping the victim. They were also handed seven years' rigorous imprisonment each for kidnapping Nayana and robbery with intent to commit murder and another two years for misappropriation of the woman's belongings. The judge ordered the release of the fourth accused, Rajesh Chaudhari for meeting all the conditions of pardon granted by the court and for co-operating with the investigating agency. In her order, Yenkar ruled, & quot Considering the facts and circumstances, the inhuman conduct of the accused, the fact that the murder was committed in a brutal, gruesome and diabolical manner, the helpless condition of the victim and the impact of the crime on the society and the community at large, I have no hesitation to hold that the case comes within the 'rarest of rare' doctrine. The investigation has been done in a fair and proper manner by investigating officers Deepak Sawant and Vishwanath Ghanwat, who have taken special efforts in doing a credible job.& quot The judge observed that the accused can hardly claim the benefit of mitigating circumstances as they did not commit the crime under any mental or emotionally disturbed state of mind. & quot Earlier too, they have committed such offences and there is no probability that they would not commit such crimes again& quot , she said.