Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
15
C
ou
CRIMINALCONFIRMATIONCASENO.01OF2015
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY,
NAGPURBENCH,NAGPUR.
TheStateofMaharashtra,
throughPoliceStationOfficer,
PoliceStation,Parwa,Taluka
Ghatanji,DistrictYavatmal.
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
ig
h
ShatrughnaBabanMeshram,
aged21years,Occupation
Labour,R/oZatala,Taluka
Ghatanji,DistrictYavatmal.
...RESPONDENT
....
ba
y
Smt.BhartiDangre,PublicProsecutorfortheappellant/State.
ShriT.G.Bansod,Advocatefortherespondent.
....
WITH
CRIMINALAPPEALNO.321OF2015
om
ShatrughnaBabanMeshram,
aged21years,Occupation
Labour,R/oZatala,Taluka
Ghatanji,DistrictYavatmal.
(InCentralJail,Nagpur).
...APPELLANT/ACCUSED
VERSUS
TheStateofMaharashtra,
throughPoliceStationOfficer,
PoliceStation,Parwa,Taluka
Ghatanji,DistrictYavatmal.
...RESPONDENT
....
ShriT.G.Bansod,Advocatefortheappellant/accused.
Smt. Bharti Dangre, Public Prosecutor with Shri M.K. Pathan, Additional
PublicProsecutorfortherespondent/State.
....
rt
2conf01.15
CORAM:B.R.GAVAIAND
PRASANNAB.VARALE,JJ.
C
ou
DATEOFRESERVINGTHEJUDGMENT:29THSEPTEMBER,2015.
DATEOFPRONOUNCINGTHEJUDGMENT:12THOCTOBER,2015.
JUDGMENT:(PerPrasannaB.Varale,J.)
ig
h
TheConfirmationCaseNo.01of2015arisesoutofthereference
bythelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,YavatmalinSpecialCase(POCSO
Act) No. 11 of 2013 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to
originalaccused.
ba
y
2.
Appeal No. 321 of 2015 challenging the judgment and order dated 14 th
August,2015therebyconvictingtheappellantfortheoffencespunishable
underSection302oftheIndianPenalCodeandsentencingtodeath,also
om
convicting for the offence punishable under Section 376A of the Indian
PenalCodeandsentencingtodeath,convictingfortheoffencepunishable
underSection6oftheProtectionofChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct,2012
(POCSO)andsentencingtosufferRigorousImprisonmentforlifeandtopay
fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for
threemonths.
3.
Onperusalofthematerialplacedonrecord,theprosecutioncase
emergesasfollows
Ontheunfortunatedayi.e.on11thFebruary,2013,thevictimwho
3conf01.15
rt
was a child of two years of age, was in the lap of her grandfather. The
C
ou
ig
h
tobetakenbytheaccusedonthegroundthatthefatherofthevictimisyetto
come from work. In spite of such resistance, the accused took away the
victimwithhim.Thefatherofthevictimhadbeentoattendsomereligious
functioninthetemplenamelyDattaMandir.Onhisreturn,whenhefound
thatthechildwasnotinthehouse,hemadeanenquirywiththegrandfather
ba
y
i.e.Pundlikaboutthechild. Pundlikinformedthattheaccusedtookaway
the child from his house. The father of the victim Maroti, grandfather
PundlikandoneShrawanMeshramproceededforthesearchofthechildin
thevillage.Theyfoundthevictimchildwaslyingatapartiallyconstructed
om
includingbitesonlipsandcheeksandswellingonherprivatepart. They
immediately rushed to the private medical officer Dr. Jafar at Kurli by
arranginganautorickshaw. Dr.Jafardeclaredthatthevictimwasbrought
dead.ThevictimwasthenbroughtbacktovillageZatala.Inthemeantime,
aninformationwasreceivedinthePoliceStationandAPIShriVanjarialong
withhisotherstaffmembersrushedtothevillageZatala.Hesawthedead
bodyofthevictimandtook ittoSubDistrictHospital,Ghatanji. Maroti,
fatherofthevictimlodgedareportatPoliceStation,Parwaandonhisreport,
4conf01.15
rt
CrimeNo.11/2013wasregistered. Astheinvestigatingagencywassetin
C
ou
ig
h
wornbytheaccusedwerealsoseized,thesamplesofbloodofthevictim
werealsocollectedandvisceraandtheothermaterialwereforwardedtothe
ba
y
om
4.
Oncompletionoftheinvestigationprocess,chargesheetcameto
SincethecasewasexclusivelytriablebythelearnedSessionsJudge,thesame
committedtothelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,Yavatmal.Theaccused
waschargedfortheoffencepunishableunderSections376(1)(2)(f)(m),376
A,302oftheIndianPenalCodeandunderSection6oftheProtectionof
ChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct,2012.Theaccusedpleadednotguiltyand
claimedtobetried. Hisdefencewasoftwofolds;oneoftotaldenialand
otherwasoffalseimplicationandthedefencetheoryputupwasthatthe
fatherofthevictimhimselfkilledthevictimsoastopleasetheGoddess.In
5conf01.15
rt
short,acaseofhumansacrificewasputupbytheaccusedasdefence.The
C
ou
prosecution,initssupport,examined13witnesses.ThelearnedAdditional
Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the
conclusionthattheprosecutionwassuccessfulinprovingtheincriminating
circumstances and also successful in establishing chain of proved
circumstanceslendingtonootherconclusionthantheguiltoftheaccused.
ig
h
The learned Sessions Judge thus found that the accused is guilty of the
offenceschargedagainsthimandfurtherfoundthatthecasebeingabrutal
rapeandmurderofhelplessminorvictimchild,thesamefallsinthecategory
ba
y
Sincethedeathpenaltywasimposed,thelearnedtrialJudgepreferredthe
mattertothisCourtforconfirmationofthesaidsentence.Theappellantalso
assailed the said finding by way of an appeal assailing the order of
conviction.Both,ConfirmationCaseandtheAppeal,areheardanddecided
om
byustogether.
5.
Smt.BhartiDangre,thelearnedPublicProsecutor,insupportof
6conf01.15
rt
wherenolesserpunishmentthanthedeathpenaltycanbeawardedtothe
C
ou
appellant/accused. ThelearnedPPalsoreliesonthevariousjudgmentsof
theApexCourtaswellasthisCourtinsupportofhersubmission.
6.
Percontra,ShriBansod,thelearnedCounselfortherespondent
(originalaccused)submitsthatthelearnedSessionsJudgeutterlyfailedto
ig
h
foremostdutyoftheprosecutiontoestablisheachandeverycircumstance
withclinchingevidenceagainsttheaccused.ShriBansodalsosubmitsthat
ba
y
therearemanymissinglinksintheevidencebroughtbytheprosecution.He
furthersubmitsthatthelearnedSessionsJudgealsofailedtoconsiderthe
defence put up by the appellant/accused. The learned Counsel for the
appellant/accusedthensubmitsthatassumingbutnotadmittingthatthere
om
issomeevidenceagainsttheappellant/accused,thesameisnotsufficient
enough to award a capital punishment to the appellant/accused. Shri
Bansod then submits that the appellant/accused was in his prime youth
when the unfortunate incident took place and it is alleged that the
appellant/accusedistheauthorofthesaidcrime. Consideringthesefacts,
an opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant/accused to
rehabilitate and reform him in his life. In stead of adopting such an
approach, the learned Sessions Judge awarded the death penalty to the
appellant/accused. Thus, it is an alternative submission of the learned
Counselfortheappellant/accusedthattheappellant/accusedbeawardeda
7conf01.15
7.
C
ou
rt
lesserpunishmentifhispleaofacquittalisnotacceptedbythisCourt.
WiththeassistanceofthelearnedCounsel,wehavegonethrough
ig
h
accused and the deceased last seen together and the dead body of the
deceasedbeingfoundseenthereafter,thepanchwitnesses,thewitnesseson
scientificaspectsandthepolicepersonnelcarryingoutvariousformalitiesof
theinvestigationaswelltheInvestigatingOfficer.
Inthefirstcategoryofwitnesses,PW1MarotiPendor,fatherof
ba
y
8.
the victim, PW2 Pundlik Masram, grandfather of the victim and PW9
ChandrakantBijapwar,ownerofgroceryshopwouldfindtheirplace.PW3
Ravindra Masram and PW4 Raju Dhadewar are the panch witnesses on
om
variouspanchnamas,suchasspotpanchnama,seizureoftheclothesofthe
victim,effectingarrestoftheaccused,seizureoftheclothesoftheaccused,
seizureofvisceraetc.PW5GaneshGhose,PW8RameshYedmeandPW11
PrakashUddhaoraoKshirsagararethepolicepersonnelwhotookpartinthe
processofinvestigation,suchascarrierofdeadbody,carrierofmuddemal
propertyetc. PW12RameshMendheistheNaibTahsildarwhoprepared
themapofthespot.PW13PanjabVanjari,theAPIandistheInvestigating
Officer.PW6Dr.JafarandPW7Dr.LingawararetheMedicalOfficerswho
areonthescientificaspectssuchasmedicalexaminationofthevictimand
medicalexaminationoftheaccused.PW10isDr.Gadgeandthroughthis
8conf01.15
C
ou
9.
rt
witness,postmortemnotesareproved.
victim child. PW2 Pundlik states that PW1 Maroti is his soninlaw;
whereas Vaishali is his daughter. He further states that the couple was
initially residing at a place TekadiRampur, District Adilabad and four
ig
h
monthspriortotheincident,theyshiftedtoZatalawhereinPW2andhis
familywereresiding. ThecouplestartedresidingnearthehouseofPW2
Pundlik and was doing labour work. He further states that the victim
deceasedSrushtiwasthedaughterofPW1MarotiandVaishali;whereasthe
accusedisthesonofhiscousinbrother.Hethenstatesthaton11thFebruary,
ba
y
2013 at about 07:30 p.m., both the grand daughters namely Srushti and
Drushti were in his lap. The accused came there and informed that the
fatherofSrushtihadcomefromworkandaskedhimtobringSrushti.PW2
Pundlikalsostatesthatinspiteofhisresistanceonaccountthatthefatherof
om
Srushtiwasyettoreturnbackfromhiswork,theaccusedpaidnoheedand
tookawaySrushti.Hefurtherstatesthataftersometime,healongwithhis
wifewenttothehouseofPW1MarotiandaskedastowhetherSrushtiwas
broughttohimbytheaccused.PW1Marotirepliedinnegative.Therefore,
Pundlik,PW1MarotiandoneShrawantooksearchofSrushti. Whenthey
wereontheirwaytowatertank,oneVikasMasraminformedthemthathe
saw accused with Srushti going towards Anganwadi. On receiving this
information, Pundlik, Maroti and Shrawan proceeded to the site of
constructionoftheAnganwadi andonreachingthere, they found Srushti
andaccusedwerelyinginthepremisesofAnganwadi. Hethenstatesthat
9conf01.15
rt
thejeanspantofSrushtiwaslyingaside;whereasTshirtwasonherperson.
C
ou
HefurtherstatesthattheyfoundSurshtihadsustainedbitingwoundsonher
lips,cheeks,chestandhipandalsofoundthattherewasbleedingfromthe
privatepartofSrushti.HealsostatesthattheyimmediatelytookSurshtito
their house and thereafter immediately she was taken to one Dr. Jafar of
village Kurli. Dr. Jafar declared her dead. Then they came back to their
ig
h
inhispresenceandanotherpanchArvindSidam.Hethenstatesthaton13th
February,2013,hisstatementwasrecordedbythepoliceaswellason08th
ba
y
March,2013intheCourt.
10.
wasmadetosuggestthatthewitnessisdeposingfalseandalsoanattempt
om
wasmadetosuggestthatthevictimSrushtiwaskilledbyhimfor getting
certainbenefitashumansacrificetopleasetheGoddess. Thewitnesshas
PW1Marotiisthefatherofthevictim. Marotistatesthatthe
C
ou
11.
rt
10conf01.15
victimchildSrushtiwashisdaughterandshewasoftwoyearsofage. He
deposesthathewasresidinginahousenearthehouseofhisfatherinlaw
PW2 Pundlik and on 11th February, 2013, there was a programme of
MahaprasadinDattaMandirandhehadgonetothetempleatabout07:00
ig
h
p.m.andcamebackabout07:30p.m.Hefurtherstatesthatonfindingthat
Srushtiwasnotinahouse,hemadeenquirywiththefatherinlawPundlik
andhetoldthattheaccusedtookawaySrushtitohishouse. PW1further
statesthatastheaccusedhadnotbroughtSrushtitohim,asearchwastaken
inthevillagebyhimself,hisfatherinlawandoneShrawan.Thenhestates
ba
y
thathesawhisdaughterSrushtilyingonthespoti.e.apartiallyconstructed
buildingofAnganwadiandtheaccusedwasalsolyingthereandthepantof
thechildvictimwasnotonherpersonandthesamewaslyingaside. He
furtherstatesthatitwasajeanspantofbluecolourandtherewerewounds
om
ofbitesonthelipsandcheeksofhisdaughterandswellingonherprivate
part.Healsostatesthathetookthedaughterfromthespottothehouseand
11conf01.15
rt
statementwasrecordedon13th February,2013andheidentifiedthejeans
C
ou
pant(Article1)andTshirt(Article2). Healsoidentifiedtheaccusedwas
presentintheCourt.
12.
Thiswitnesswasalsosubjectedtoadetailedcrossexamination.
Suggestions were given to this witness that the spot namely the said
ig
h
Anganwadiwassurroundedbyvarioushousesanditwasinthemiddleofthe
village. Asuggestionwasalsogiventothiswitnessthathealongwithhis
fatherinlawkilledhisdaughterashumansacrificetopleasetheGoddess
and the accused on coming to know this fact, threatened them to lodge
reportagainstthem. Itwasalsosuggestedthattosavethemselves, PW1
ba
y
MarotilodgedafalsereportagainsttheaccusedandhewasbeatenbyPW1
Maroti and others. These suggestions are flatly denied by the witness.
Certain omissions were brought on record in respect of beating of the
om
accusedbyShrawan,GovardhanandVikas.
13.
detailedcrossexamination,showsthatthiswitnesswasnotatallshattered
andstoodfirmonmaterialaspectsuchasreceivinganinformationfromPW
2PundlikthattheaccusedtookawaythechildSrushtiandthenfindingthe
childlyingonthespot.Healsostoodfirmontheaspectofreachingthespot,
findingthatthejeanspantofthevictimwasnotonherpersonbutwaslying
asideandtheaccusedwasalsolyingthereandmarksofviolenceonthebody
ofthechildvictim.
12conf01.15
PW9ChandrakantBijapwar,wassoughttobeexaminedonthe
rt
14.
C
ou
aspect of the accused visiting his shop on 11th February, 2013 along with
Srushti and purchasing biscuits and chiwda, however this witness turned
hostile.Itwillbeusefultonotethattothecrossexaminationofthiswitness
bythelearnedAPP,thiswitnessadmitsthathewashavinggoodrelations
withtheaccusedandhisfamilyandalsoadmitsthatonthedayofhiscross
ig
h
15.
Ghose,PW8RameshYedmeandPW11PrakashKshirsagararethepanchas
ba
y
andthepolicepersonnel.PW12RameshMendheistheNaibTahsildarwho
preparedthemapofthespot.Theysupportthecaseoftheprosecutionon
the role played by them and nothing damaging could be brought by the
om
defenceintheircrossexamination.
16.
Itwillbeusefultorefertothemedicalevidence.PW6Dr.Jafaris
the medical officer to whom PW1 Maroti and PW2 Pundlik approached
withthevictimchild. Dr.Jafarstatesthaton11th February,2013,whenhe
wasinhisclinic,atabout09:30p.m.to10:00p.m.,threepersonsfromZatala
broughtonegirlchildpatient.Hefurtherstatesthatthechildwaswrapped
in bed sheet, she was aged about 2 and to three years and on her
examination,hefoundthatshewasdead.Therewerewoundsofbitesonher
mouthandthereafterthosepersonstookawayherdeadbody.Healsostates
thatthepolicehadrecordedhisstatement. Inthecrossexamination,Dr.
13conf01.15
rt
Jafar states that he had not seen the cutting marks on the lips of the
C
ou
deceased.Hefurtherdeposesinthecrossexaminationthathehadseenthe
woundsonthemouthofthedeceasedandmerelyheexaminedtheheart
beatsandpulse.
17.
PW10isDr.Gadgeandheconductedthepostmortem.Hestates
ig
h
thaton12th February,2013,hereceivedarequisitionletterandaletterfor
video shooting of the process of postmortem and also received certain
queries.Hefurtherstatesthatthepostmortemexaminationwasconducted
on 12th February, 2013 between 1505 to 1705 hours along with Dr. Major
Kuchewar,Dr.R.D.Meshram,Dr.R.R.KhetreandDr.L.P.Durgawad. Dr.
ba
y
Gadge.Hethenstatesthathefoundbothupperandlowerlipsweremissing
andtherewasevidenceofperennialtearwithmergingofvaginalandanal
orifice, the details of which were referred in column Nos.17 and 21. He
furtherstatesthatdriedbloodanddriedbloodstainsandfaecalmatterover
om
genitalandperennialregionwerefound,limbswerestraightandhandswere
partlyclenched. Dr.Gadgefurtherstatesabouttheinjuriesfoundonthe
deadbodyasunder:
(3)
Abrasionoverrightcheekofsize4cmx4cmreddish.
(4)
Abrasionoverleftcheekofsize8.5cmx7cmreddish.
(5)
Evidenceofmissingbothupperandlowerlipsexposing
14conf01.15
rt
labialfatwithcleancutmarginsseenperiorallywithout
bloodinfiltration(postmorteminnature).
Laceratedwoundoverchin,midlineofsize3cmmuscle
deep with tissue missing, margins irregular and blood
infiltratedreddish.
(7)
Bitemarkoverandaroundrightnippleoveraregionof
size5cmx5cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(8)
Bitemarkoverandaroundleftnippleoveraregionofsize
3cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(9)
ig
h
C
ou
(6)
(10) Bitemarkoverabdomeninthemidline,5cmbelowthe
umbilicus, over a region of size 3 cm x 3 cm, margins
contusedreddish.
ba
y
(11) Bitemarkoverabdomeninthemidline,5cmbelowthe
umbilicus, over a region of size 3 cm x 3 cm, margins
contusedreddish.
(12) Bite mark over lateral aspect of right shoulder, over a
regionofsize5cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.
om
(13) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx3
cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(14) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx3
cm, margins contused reddish, separated from injury
No.13by1.5cm.
(15) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx
2.5cm,marginscontused,reddish,separatedfrominjury
No.14by1cm.
(16) Bitemarkoverleftbuttock,overaregionofsize3.7cmx3
cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(17) Multiplelacerationsovervaginalandanalregionmerging
vaginalandanalorifice(perennialtearat3,6and9O'
clock positions), margins irregular, blood infiltrated,
reddish.
(18) Abrasionoverleftkneejointregion,inanterioraspectof
size1cmx0.5cmreddish.
rt
15conf01.15
C
ou
PW10Dr.GadgefurtherstatesthattheinjuryNo.6wascausedbynibbling
byteethandinjuryNos.7to16arecausedbyhumanbitesandinjuryNo.17is
caused by forceful sexual assault. He also states that on internal
examination, he found that under scalp contusion over frontoparietal
region of size 6 cm x 5 cm, irregular and reddish and under the scalp
ig
h
contusion over left temporal region of size 2.5 cm x 2 cm, irregular and
reddish. No evidence of fracture to vault and base of skull. Ribs and
cartilagesintactnoinjury.Haemotomaoverleftsideofchestwall,anteriorly
correspondingtoinjuryNo.8undercolumnNo.17ofsize4.5cmx3cmwith
bloodinfiltrationinsurroundtissue,reddish.Dr.Gadgefurtherstatesabout
ba
y
theevidenceoftear(perforation)invictimrectumofsize3cmx2.5cm,
margins irregular with blood infiltration present corresponding to injury
No.17 under column No.17 with evidence of faecal matter coming out
throughthevent. Hethenstatesthattheevidenceoftearintheposterior
om
vaginalwallwithmergingofvaginalandanalcanal(perennialtear)surface
ragged, margins irregular, blood infiltrated and reddish extending and
16conf01.15
rt
followingperennialtearwithmultipleinjuries. Hefurtherstatesthatthere
C
ou
wasforcefulsexualassaultonthechildandtheinjuryNo.17wascausedby
forceful insertion of penis. PW10 Dr. Gadge further deposes that the
material was sent for histopathological examination and also for DNA
analysistoruleoutwhetheritisofthesamedeceased.Hethensubmitsthat
accordingtotheExh.54,theDNAreportshowstheperfectmatchingthatof
18.
ig
h
deceased.
Thewitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination.Anattemptwas
madetosuggestthattheinjuriesreferredbythewitnesscouldnothavebeen
caused by teeth bite. An attempt was also made to suggest that the
ba
y
om
evidenceofthiswitnessleavesusnodoubtthatthevictimwassubjectednot
onlytoaforcefulsexualviolationbutabrutalandbeastlymanner.
19.
Theaccusedwasalsosubjectedtomedicalexamination. Itwill
beusefultorefertotheevidenceofPW7Dr.Lingawar.Hestatesthaton12 th
February,2013,whilehewasondutyandwasattachedtoPrimaryHealth
Centre,ParwaandMedicalOfficer,theaccusedwasbrought.Dr.Lingawar,
onexaminationtheaccused,statesthattherewasinjuryofabrasiononthe
tipoftheglanspenisof5mmx3mmsizeandthesaidinjurywascaused
within24hoursandtheaccusedwasfoundcapableforsexualintercourse.
17conf01.15
rt
Hefurtherstatesthathecollectedthesampleofblood,pubichair,nailsand
C
ou
thesamplewashandedovertoHeadConstableaftersealingthesame. He
then states that a query letter was issued on 19th February, 2013 to him
throughAPIabouttheinjuryonthepenisoftheaccused.Hefurtherstates
thathehadopinedthatthesignofsexualintercoursewithin24hourswas
present and the injury in the certificate could have been possible due to
20.
ig
h
sexualintercourse.
Thewitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination. Inthecross
examination,hestatesthattheinjuryofabrasionisasuperficialinjuryand
the healing period depends on the nature of abrasion. Though it was
ba
y
suggested that he wrongly referred the age of injury, the suggestion was
denied.Inthecrossexamination,itisstatedbythewitnessthattheabrasion
couldbepossibleduetosexualintercourseorforsomeotherreasons. A
suggestionwasalsogiventothiswitnessthathehadgivenafalseopinion
om
andissuedfalseinjuryreportattheinstanceoftheInvestigatingOfficerand
thesuggestionwasdenied.
21.
PW3RavindraMasramisthepanchwitness.HestatesthatPSI
VanjarihadcalledhimandoneYadaoTodsamtoactasapanchonthespot.
Thespotpanchnama(Exh.19)preparedbythepolice,bearshissignature.
He further states that the seizure panchnama (Exh.20) also bears his
signature. Hefurtherstatesthatfromthespot, thepolicehadseizedthe
pant,pairofchappal,piecesoffleshandearthfromthespot.Thiswitness
wassubjectedtocrossexamination.Incrossexamination,hestatesthathe
18conf01.15
rt
hadnotreceivedsummonsfrompoliceandwascalledinthepoliceStation.
C
ou
Anattemptismadetosuggestthatthepanchnamawasalreadypreparedand
hedeposedfalselyattheinstanceofthefatherofthevictim,heflatlydenied
thesuggestion.
22.
ig
h
PoliceStationattherelevanttime.Hestatesaboutreceivingthedutypass
forreferringdeadbodyofthevictimtoconductpostmortemalongwithone
questionnaire.ThiswitnessalsodeposesabouttheletterissuedbyPIAmol
Malvetothehospitalauthoritiesforvideoshootingofthepostmortembeing
conducted by the hospital authorities. Then he refers to sealing of the
ba
y
articles,suchasviscera,clothesetc.,beingdonebyDr.R.R.Khetreandthe
articleshandedovertohim. HealsodeposesaboutthelettergivenbyPSI
VanjaritoHeadoftheDepartmentofForensicSciencesforexaminationand
sealingthepiecesoffleshandtheearthseizedfromthespot. Thoughthe
om
witnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination,nothingwaselicitedfromthis
witnesssoastoshaketheversionofthiswitness.
23.
PW4RajuDhadewarisalsothepanchwitness.Hestatesthathe
andoneHadaoTodsamwerecalledbythepoliceaspanch.Hefurtherstates
thattheaccusedwasarrestedintheirpresenceandthearrestpanchnama
(Exh.23)preparedbythepolice,bearshissignature. Hefurtherstatesthat
theseizurepanchnama(Exh.24)alsobearshissignature. PW4alsostates
thaton12thFebruary,2013at06:00p.m.,heandoneNareshwerecalledas
panchandHeadConstableRameshhadbroughtthesampleofblood,hair
19conf01.15
rt
andnailoftheaccused.Aseizurepanchnama(Exh.26)bearshissignature.
C
ou
Thiswitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination. Incrossexamination,he
statesthathedoesnotalwaysgotopolicestationaswitness. Hefurther
states that it is false that the articles were brought in the police station.
Though it was suggested that the panchnama was not prepared in his
24.
ig
h
presenceandhedeposedfalsely,heflatlydeniedthesame.
accusedformedicalexaminationandreceivedtheinjurycertificatefromthe
MedicalOfficer.Hewasalsohandedoverthebloodsample,pubichair,nail
andstainedbloodbythedoctor.Thiswitnessalsodeposesthatthesearticles
ba
y
weresealed.Nothingdamagingwasbroughtinthecrossexamination.
25.
carrierofmuddemalpropertytoChemicalAnalyseralongwiththeletters
om
issuedbyPSIVanjari.
26.
relevanttime. HedeposesthatonthedirectionsofNaibTahsildar,hehad
preparedthemapofthespotbyvisitingthespotinpresenceoftwopanchas.
ThesaidpanchnamaisatExh.74.Perusalofthesaiddocumentrevealsthat
thespotisthepartiallyconstructedbuildingoftheAnganwadiandtheactual
spotisoneofthecornersofthispartiallyconstructedbuilding.
27.
20conf01.15
rt
C
ou
established and proved that the child victim Srushti was subjected to a
forceful sexual violence. The death of the victim is homicidal. On
consideringallthecircumstances,suchasthevictimwaslastlyseeninthe
company of the accused, within a short span the victim found dead
subjected to sexual violation, the accused who was lying near the victim,
ig
h
MedicoLegalCertificateprovedbyPW7,weareoftheconsideredviewthat
theaccusedandtheaccusedaloneistheauthorofthecrimeofrapeand
28.
murderofchildvictimSrushti.
ba
y
concerned,itisthesubmissionofSmt.BhartiDangre,thelearnedPPthatthe
accusedwhoisthematernaluncleofthevictim,tookawaythechildvictim
fromthecustodyofhergrandfatheronapretextandthenthevictimwas
subjectedtoaviolentsexualassault.ThelearnedPPfurthersubmitsthatthe
om
actoftheaccusedisnotonlycruelbutshowingtheutmostperversityofthe
psycheoftheaccusedsatisfyinghislustandoverpoweringthehelplesschild
victimandsuchheinousactoftheaccusedhasshockedtheconsciousofthe
societyandforthesaidact,theonlypunishmentisthedeathpunishment.
ThelearnedPPplacesheavyrelianceonthejudgmentsoftheApexCourtas
wellasthisCourtinthecasesofBachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab(reported
inAIR1980SC,898);MachhiSinghandothers.v.StateofPunjab(reported
inAIR1983SC957);LaxmanNaik.v.StateofOrissa(reportedin1994(3)
SCC, 381); Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana .v. State of West Bengal
(reported in 1994 (2) SCC, 220); Molai and another .v. State of Madhya
21conf01.15
rt
Pradesh (reported in AIR 200 SC, 177); Kunal Majumdar .v. State of
C
ou
Rajasthan(reportedin2012(9)SCC,320);RajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.
State of Maharashtra (reported in 2012 (4) SCC, 37); Shankar Kisanrao
Khade.v.StateofMaharashtra(reportedin2013(5)SCC,546);Gurvail
SinghaliasGalaandanother.v.StateofPunjab(reportedin2013(2)SCC,
713);BhaikonaliasBakulBorah.v.StateofAssam(reportedin2013(9)
ig
h
SCC,769);VasantaSampatDupare.v.StateofMaharashtra(reportedin
2015(1)SCC,253);Sangeetandanother.v.StateofHaryana(reportedin
2013(2)SCC,452);Sandeep.v.StateofUttarPradesh(reportedin2012(6)
ba
y
om
(reported in 2008 (13) SCC, 767); and Deepak Rai .v. State of Bihar
(reportedin2013(10)SCC,421).
29.
appellant/accusedsubmitsthattheappellant/accusedisayoungboyhaving
a poor family background and the case would not fall in the category of
rarest of rare cases. He submits that there is every possibility that the
appellant/accusedcouldberehabilitatedandwouldnotcommitanyoffence
infuture.Hefurthersubmitsthatatthemost,theappellant/accusedcanbe
directedtoservethemaximumterminjailwithoutremission.ShriBansod
also submits that the witnesses on which the prosecution relies are the
22conf01.15
rt
interestedwitnessesbeingthefatherandthegrandfatherofthevictim. In
C
ou
30.
ig
h
2012(5)SCC,766).
Beforewedealwiththeaspectreferredtoabove,itwillnotbeout
ofplacetostatethatthisCourtrecentlywasposedwiththesimilarquestion
inthematterof StateofMaharashtra.v.RakeshManoharKamble@Niraj
RameshWakekarandanother(citedsupra)towhich,oneofus(JusticeB.R.
ba
y
Gavai)isaparty.
31.
Asthevictiminthecaseisachild,itwillnotbeoutofplaceto
om
quotethewordsofKahlilGibraninhisfamousworkTheProphetas
Yourchildrenarenotyourchildren.
TheyarethesonsanddaughtersofLife'slongingforitself.
Theycomethroughyoubutnotfromyou,
Andthoughtheyarewithyouyettheybelongnottoyou.
Youmaygivethemyourlovebutnotyourthoughts,
Fortheyhavetheirownthoughts.
Youmayhousetheirbodiesbutnottheirsouls,
Fortheirsoulsdwellinthehousesoftomorrow,whichyoucannot
visit,noteveninyourdreams.
rt
23conf01.15
C
ou
32.
ig
h
circumstance,whileconsideringtheconfirmationofdeathpenalty,indepth
and detailed, considered the various aspects in the matter of State of
Maharashtra .v. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @ Niraj Ramesh Wakekar and
another (cited supra). It will not be out of place to refer the relevant
observationsofthisCourtinthematterof StateofMaharashtra.v.Rakesh
ba
y
ManoharKamble@NirajRameshWakekarandanother(citedsupra).Inthe
saidmatter,theaccusedRakeshandaccusedAmaraskedfordrinkingwater
toPW1Prabhaandshegavewaterthroughwindowofthehouse.Accused
RakeshaskedPW1Prabhatoopenthedoor. Asshepaidnoheedtohis
om
demand,bygivingblowsonthedoor,hemadePW1Prabhatoopenthe
door. Accused Rakesh wasbehind the daughter ofPW1 Prabha, namely
Kanchan.PW1Prabhasensingdanger,gavesignaltodaughterKanchanto
runaway.ThereafterKanchanranaway.AccusedRakeshandAmarchased
her.ThoughKanchanmadeanattempttotakeshelterofoneBhimrao,they
ledassaultonBhimraoandtookawayKanchantowardsthelandownedby
oneMankar. WhenthewitnessPW1Prabhaandotherwitnessesrushed
towardsthesaidland,theyfoundthatKanchanwaslyingintheland. She
wasdeadandhavinginjuriesonhercheek,headandbreast.Inthecaseof
RakeshKamble,thisCourtfoundthatthedeceasedwaslastseenwiththe
24conf01.15
rt
accusedpersonsinlatenightandthedeadbodywasdiscoveredinthenext
C
ou
morning. ThisCourt,onappreciatingtheevidenceofthosewitnesseswho
heard the screams of the deceased for help, immediate disclosure of the
namesoftheaccusedbythemothertothepolicepatilandfindingthebody
in the morning, held that the last seen theory was established by the
prosecution.Inthepresentmatter,thetimegapbetweenthedeceasedlast
ig
h
seenwiththeaccusedandfindingthedeadbodyofthedeceasedvictimwho
wassubjected tosexualexploitation and the accused lyingnear the dead
bodyisverynarrowandproximate.
33.
Inthepresentcase,theevidenceofthegrandfathershowsthat
ba
y
thevictimwascarriedbytheaccusedat07:30p.m.andwithinashortspanof
lesserthananhour,thegrandfatherandthefatherfoundthedeadbodyof
thevictim. Thematerialonrecordshowsthatontheverydayi.e.on11 th
February,2013,PW1Marotihadlodgedthereportinthepolicestationat
om
about21:25hours.ThisCourt,inthematterofRakeshKamble,byreferring
tovariousjudgmentsoftheApexCourt,observedthus
71.
25conf01.15
rt
clothesofthedeceasedinhisfarm.Itwillbeappropriateto
refertotheobservationsmadebytheHon'bleApexCourtin
whichareasunder:
C
ou
ba
y
ig
h
"22.
The lastseen theory comes into play
wherethetimegapbetweenthepointoftimewhen
the accused and the deceased were last seen alive
andwhenthedeceasedisfounddeadissosmallthat
possibility of any person other than the accused
beingtheauthorofthecrimebecomesimpossible.It
would be difficult in some cases to positively
establish that the deceased was last seen with the
accusedwhenthereisalonggapandpossibilityof
other persons coming in between exists. In the
absenceofanyotherpositiveevidencetoconclude
that the accused and the deceased were last seen
together, it would be hazardous to come to a
conclusionofguiltinthosecases.Inthiscasethereis
positiveevidencethatthedeceasedandtheaccused
were seen together by witnesses Pws 3 and 5, in
additiontotheevidenceofP.W.2.
(emphasissupplied)
om
34.
submits that the witnesses brought by the prosecution are the interested
witnessesbeingthefatherandgrandfatherofthevictim. ThisCourtalso
considered that aspect in the matter of Rakesh Kamble wherein a similar
standwastakenbythedefence.ThisCourtobservedthus
47.
Theanotherlimbofattackontheevidenceofthese
witnessesisthattheyaretheinterestedwitnessesandassuch
reliancecouldnotbeplacedontheevidenceofthesewitnesses.
Itwillberelevanttorefertoparagraphno.39oftheJudgmentof
theApexCourtinthecaseofSubalGhoraiandothersvs.Stateof
26conf01.15
C
ou
[2014ALLSCR184],whichreadsasunder:
rt
ba
y
ig
h
om
48.
35.
groundthatthesewitnessesareinterestedwitnesseswouldalso
benotsustainable.
witnesses namely the father and grandfather i.e. Maroti and Pundlik
respectively is truthful and reliable version, we are unable to accept the
submissionofthelearnedCounselfortheappellant/accused.Itisalsonotin
disputethatthepresentcaseisbasedonthecircumstantialevidence. The
lawiswellsettledonthisaspect.Itwillnotbeoutofplacetorefertheoftenly
quotedthejudgmentoftheApexCourtonthecircumstantialevidencei.e.in
27conf01.15
rt
thecaseofSharadBirdichandSarda.v.StateofMaharashtra(reportedin
C
ou
2009ALLSCR(O.C.C.),281).ThesameisalsoreferredbythisCourtinthe
matterofRakeshKambleandtheobservationsreadthus
37.
circumstantialevidence.Thelawontheaspectofconvictionin
the case of circumstantial evidence has now been very well
ig
h
crystalized.Itwillberelevanttoreferparagraphs152,153and
154oftheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs. StateofMaharashtra, 116:[2009ALL
SCR(O.C.C.)281]whichreadasunder:
om
ba
y
"152.BeforediscussingthecasesrelieduponbytheHigh
Court, we would like to cite a few decisions on the
nature, character and essential proof required in a
criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence
alone.Themostfundamentalandbasicdecisionofthis
Court is Hanumant V. State of Madhya Pradesh. This
case has been uniformly followed and applied by this
Courtinalargenumberoflaterdecisionsuptodate,for
instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi .v. State of
UttarPradesh and Ramgopalv.StateofMaharashtra.It
maybeusefultoextractwhatMahajan,Jhaslaiddown
inHanumantcase:
Itiswelltorememberthatincaseswheretheevidenceis
of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from
whichtheconclusionofguiltistobedrawnshouldinthe
first instance be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendencyandtheyshouldbesuchastoexcludeevery
hypothesisbuttheoneproposedtoberoved.Inother
words,theremustbeachainofevidencesofarcomplete
asnottoleaveanyreasonablegroundforaconclusion
consistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedanditmust
besuchastoshowthatwithinallhumanprobabilitythe
actmusthavebeendonebytheaccused.
28conf01.15
rt
153.Acloseanalysisofthisdecisionwouldshowthatthe
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
againstanaccusedcanbesaidtobefullyestablished:
C
ou
(1)thecircumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionofguilt
istobedrawnshouldbefullyestablished.
ig
h
ItmaybenotedherethatthisCourtindicatedthatthe
circumstancesconcerned'mustorshould'andnot'may
be'established. Thereisnotonly agrammaticalbuta
legaldistinctionbetween'maybeproved'and'mustbe
orshouldbeproved'aswasheldbythisCourtinShivaji
Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra where the
following observations were made:(SCC para 19, p.
807:SCC(Cri)p.1047).
Certainly,itisaprimaryprinciplethattheaccusedmust
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
convictandthementaldistancebetween'maybe'and
'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from
sureconclusions.
ba
y
(2)
thefactssoestablishedshouldbeconsistentonly
withthehypothesisoftheguiltoftheaccused,thatisto
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesisexceptthattheaccusedisguilty,
(3)
the circumstances should be of a conclusive
natureandtendency,
om
(4)
they should exclude every possible hypothesis
excepttheonetobeproved,and
36.
(5)
theremustbeachainofevidencesocompleteas
nottoleaveanyreasonable groundfortheconclusion
consistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandmust
show that in all human probability the act must have
beendonebytheaccused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitutethepanchsheeloftheproofofacasebasedon
circumstantialevidence."
prosecutionrelies,weneednotrepeatthesame. Sufficetosaythatthese
circumstancesareprovedbytheprosecution.Thecrucialquestionforour
consideration is now whether the death penalty awarded to the
appellant/accusedneedstobeconfirmedornot. Thisaspectisalsonow
29conf01.15
rt
C
ou
Singh.v.StateofPunjabandMachhiSinghandothers.v.StateofPunjab
(citedsupra)as
75.
TheConstitutionBenchoftheHon'bleApexCourt
ig
h
PenalCode,insofarasitprovidesdeathsentenceand section
354(3)ofCr.P.C.hasobservedthus:
om
ba
y
30conf01.15
C
ou
rt
om
ba
y
ig
h
198.Itmaybenotedthatthisindicatorforimposingthe
deathsentencewascrystallisedinthatcaseafterpaying
dueregardtotheshiftinlegislativepolicyembodiedin
Section354(3)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973,
althoughonthedateofthatdecision(February11,1974),
thisprovisionhadnotcomeintoforce.InParasRam's
case,also,towhichareferencehasbeenmadeearlier,it
wasemphaticallystatedthatapersonwhoinafitofanti
social piety commits "bloodcurdling butchery" of his
child, fully deserves to be punished with death. In
Rajendra Prasad, however, the majority (of 2 : 1) has
completely reversed the view that had been taken in
EdigaAnammaregardingtheapplicationofSection354
(3)onthispoint.Accordingtoit,aftertheenactmentof
Section354(3),'murdermostfoul'isnotthetest.The
shockingnatureofthecrimeorthenumberofmurders
committedisalsonotthecriterion.Itwassaidthatthe
focushasnowcompletelyshiftedfromthecrimetothe
criminal."Specialreasons"necessaryforimposingdeath
penalty"mustrelatenottothecrimeassuchbuttothe
criminal".
199. With great respect, we find ourselves unable to
agree to this enunciation. As we read Sections 354 (3)
and235(2)andotherrelatedprovisions oftheCodeof
1973,itisquitecleartousthatformakingthechoiceof
punishmentorforascertainingtheexistenceorabsence
of"specialreasons"inthatcontext,theCourtmustpay
dueregardbothtothecrimeandthecriminal.Whatis
the relative weight to be given to the aggravating and
mitigating factors, depends on the facts and
circumstances of the particular case. More often than
not, these two aspects are so intertwined that it is
difficult to give a separate treatment to each of them.
Thisissobecause'styleistheman'.Inmanycases,the
extremelycruelorbeastlymannerofthecommissionof
murder is itself a demonstrated index of the depraved
character of the perpetrator. That is why, it is not
desirabletoconsiderthecircumstancesofthecrimeand
thecircumstancesofthecriminalintwoseparatewater
tightcompartments.Inasense,tokillistobecrueland
therefore all murders are cruel. But such cruelty may
varyinitsdegreeofculpability.Anditisonlywhenthe
culpabilityassumestheproportionofextremedepravity
that"specialreasons"canlegitimatelybesaidtoexist.
31conf01.15
C
ou
rt
200.DrawinguponthepenalstatutesoftheStatesinU.
S. A. framed after Furman v. Georgia, in general, and
clauses2(a),(b),(c),and(d)oftheIndianpenalCode
(Amendment)Billpassedin1978bytheRajyaSabha,in
particular,Dr.Chitalehassuggestedthese"aggravating
circumstances":
"Aggravatingcircumstances:ACourtmay,however,in
the following cases impose the penalty of death in its
discretion:
(a) if the murder has been committed after previous
planningandinvolvesextremebrutality;or
ig
h
(b)ifthemurderinvolvesexceptionaldepravity;or
(c) if the murder is of a member of any of the armed
forcesoftheUnionorofamemberofanypoliceforceor
ofanypublicservantandwascommitted
(i)whilesuchmemberorpublicservantwasonduty;or
om
ba
y
(ii)inconsequenceofanythingdoneorattemptedtobe
done by such member or public servant in the lawful
dischargeofhisdutyassuchmemberorpublicservant
whetheratthetimeofmurderhewassuchmemberor
publicservant,asthecasemaybe,orhadceasedtobe
suchmemberorpublicservant;or
(d)if the murder is of a person whohad acted in the
lawfuldischargeofhisdutyunderSection43oftheCode
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had rendered
assistancetoaMagistrateorapoliceofficerdemanding
hisaidorrequiringhisassistanceunder Section37and
Section129ofthesaidCode."
201. Stated broadly, there can be no objection to the
acceptanceoftheseindicatorsbutaswehaveindicated
already,wewouldprefernottofetterjudicialdiscretion
byattemptingtomakeanexhaustiveenumerationone
wayortheother.
202. In Rajendra Prasad, the majority said : "It is
constitutionally permissible to swing a criminal out of
corporeal existence only if the security of State and
society, public order and the interests of the general
publiccompelthatcourseasprovidedinArticle19(2)to
(6)."Ourobjectionisonlytotheword"only".Whileit
maybeconcededthatamurderwhichdirectlythreatens,
orhasanextremepotentialitytoharmorendangerthe
security of State and society, public order and the
interests of the general public, may provide "special
reasons"tojustifytheimpositionoftheextremepenalty
onthepersonconvictedofsuchaheinousmurder,itis
notpossibletoagreethatimpositionofdeathpenaltyon
32conf01.15
C
ou
rt
murdererswhodonotfallwithinthisnarrowcategoryis
constitutionally impermissible. We have discussed and
heldabovethattheimpugnedprovisionsinSection302,
PenalCode,beingreasonableandinthegeneralpublic
interest,donotoffend Article19,orits'ethos'; nordo
they in any manner violate Articles 21 and 14. All the
reasonsgivenbyusforupholdingthevalidityofSec.302,
Penal Code, fully apply to the case of Section 354 (3),
Code of Criminal Procedure, also. The same criticism
appliestotheviewtakeninBishnuDeoShawv.Stateof
WestBengal,(1979)3SCC714,whichfollowsthedictum
inRajendraPrasad(ibid).
om
ba
y
ig
h
33conf01.15
rt
(5)Thatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasethe
accused believed that he was morally justified in
committingtheoffence.
C
ou
ig
h
om
ba
y
34conf01.15
77.
ig
h
C
ou
rt
othersvs.StateofPunjab(supra)hasobservedthus;
om
ba
y
32.Thereasonswhythecommunityasawholedoesnot
endorse the humanistic approach reflected in "death
sentenceinnocase"doctrinearenotfartoseek.Inthe
firstplace,theveryhumanisticedificeisconstructedon
thefoundationof"reverenceforlife"principle.Whena
memberofthecommunityviolatesthisveryprincipleby
killing anothermember, thesocietymay notfeelitself
boundbytheshacklesofthisdoctrine.Secondly,ithasto
berealisedthateverymemberofthecommunityisable
to live with safety without his or her own life being
endangered because of the protective arm of the
communityandonaccountoftheruleoflawenforced
byit.Theveryexistenceoftheruleoflawandthefearof
beingbroughttobookoperatesasadeterrenttothose
who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their
ends.Everymemberofthecommunityowesadebtto
thecommunityforthisprotection.Wheningratitudeis
showninsteadofgratitudeby'killing'amemberofthe
community which protects the murderer himself from
beingkilled,orwhenthecommunityfeelsthatforthe
sakeofselfpreservationthekillerhastobekilled,the
community may well withdraw the protection by
sanctioningthedeathpenalty.Butthecommunitywill
notdosoineverycase.Itmaydoso(inrarestofrare
cases)whenitscollectiveconscienceissoshockedthatit
will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to
inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal
opinionasregardsdesirabilityorotherwiseofretaining
death penalty. The community may entertain such a
sentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromtheplatformof
the motive for, or the manner of commission of the
35conf01.15
C
ou
IMannerofCommissionofMurder
rt
Whenthemurderiscommittedinanextremelybrutal,
grotesque,diabolical,revolting,ordastardlymannerso
as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the
community.Forinstance.
(i)Whenthehouseofthevictimissetaflamewiththe
endinviewtoroasthimaliveinthehouse,
ig
h
ba
y
om
IIIAntisocialorsociallyabhorrentnatureofthecrime.
(a)WhenmurderofamemberofaScheduledCasteor
minoritycommunityetc.,iscommittednotforpersonal
reasonsbutincircumstanceswhicharousesocialwrath.
Forinstancewhensuchacrimeiscommittedinorderto
terrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeing
from a place or in order to deprive them of, or make
them surrender, lands or benefits conferred on them
with a view to reverse past injustices and in order to
restorethesocialbalance.
(b)Incasesof'bride burning' and whatareknownas
'dowrydeaths'orwhenmurderiscommittedinorderto
remarryforthesakeofextractingdowryonceagainorto
marryanotherwomanonaccountofinfatuation.
IVMagnitudeofcrime.
Whenthecrimeisenormousinproportion.Forinstance
when multiple murders say of all or almost all the
membersofafamilyoralargenumberofpersonsofa
particularcaste,community,orlocality,arecommitted.
VPersonalityofvictimofmurder.
rt
36conf01.15
C
ou
Whenthevictimofmurderis(a)aninnocentchildwho
could not have or has not provided even an excuse,
much less a provocation, for murder. (b) a helpless
woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or
infirmity.(c)whenthevictimisapersonvisaviswhom
themurdererisinapositionofdominationortrust,(d)
whenthe victim is a public figure generally loved and
respectedbythecommunityfortheservicesrenderedby
himandthemurderiscommittedforpoliticalorsimilar
reasonsotherthanpersonalreasons.
ig
h
om
ba
y
(ii)Beforeoptingforthedeathpenaltythecircumstances
of the 'offender' also require to be taken into
consideration along with the circumstances of the
'crime';
(iii)Lifeimprisonmentistheruleanddeathsentenceis
an exception. In other words death sentence must be
imposedonlywhenlifeimprisonmentappearstobean
altogetherinadequatepunishmenthavingregardtothe
relevantcircumstancesofthecrime,andprovidedand
only provided, the option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
exercisedhavingregardtothenatureandcircumstances
ofthecrimeandalltherelevantcircumstances;
(iv) A balancesheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstanceshastobedrawnupandindoingsothe
mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full
weightageandajustbalancehastobestruckbetween
theaggravatingandthemitigatingcircumstancesbefore
theoptionisexercised.
34. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the
followingquestionsmaybeaskedandanswered:
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime
which renders sentence of imprisonment for life
inadequateandcallsforadeathsentence?
(b)Arethecircumstancesofthecrimesuchthatthereis
noalternativebuttoimposedeathsentenceevenafter
according maximum weightage to the mitigating
37conf01.15
C
ou
rt
circumstanceswhichspeakinfavouroftheoffender?
ThisCourt,inthejudgmentofRakeshKamblebyreferringthejudgmentsof
theApexCourt,observedthus
76.
Itcan,thus,beseentheConstitutionBenchofthe
ApexCourtclearlyheldthatinfindingoutpresenceorabsence
ig
h
ofspecialreasonsthecourtmustpaydueregardbothtothe
crimeandthecriminal.Ithasbeenheldthatwhatistherelative
weight to be given to the aggravating and mitigating factors,
ba
y
om
reasonscanlegitimatelybesaidtoexist.
78.
38conf01.15
rt
aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstanceshastobedrawn,full
weightageistobegiventomitigatingcircumstancesandajust
C
ou
ig
h
favouroftheoffender.
ByapplyingyardsticksetbytheApexCourtinthecaseofBachan
ba
y
37.
Singh.v.StateofPunjabandMachhiSinghandothers.v.StateofPunjab
(cited supra) and the observations of this Court in the matter of Rakesh
Kambleifthepresentmatterisconsidered,inouropinion,intheguidelines
om
ofaggravatingcircumstances,thereisamentionofclause(b)whichdeals
withthemurderwhichinvolvesexceptionaldepravity. Inthelightofthis
clause,ifthepresentmatterisseen,therecordrevealsthatthevictimisa
childoftwoandhalfyearsofage. Thevictimwassubjectedtoaforceful
sexualexploitation. Themedicalevidenceshowsthatthedeathiscaused
duetotheforcefulintercourse.Inouropinion,thepresentcasealsocovers
clause (a) of aggravating circumstances wherein it is referred that if a
murderiscommittedafterpreviousplanningandinvolvesextremebrutality.
Inthepresentmatter,achildwastakenfromthecustodyofthegrandfather
andinspiteofhisresistance,achildwassubjectedtosexualviolenceand
39conf01.15
rt
thenwasdonetodeath. Inouropinion,theactoftheappellant/accused
C
ou
fallsinclauses(a)and(b)oftheaggravatingcircumstances.Wewouldalso
take into consideration the mitigating circumstances referred to in the
judgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseofBachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab
(citedsupra).Inouropinion,theonlymitigatingcircumstanceonwhichthe
appellant/accusedseeksbenefitisclause(2)i.e.theaccusedisayoungboy.
ig
h
circumstancewouldnotbeofanyhelptotheappellant/accused.
Inouropinion,astheApexCourtobservedinMachhiSinghand
ba
y
38.
others.v.StateofPunjab(citedsupra),theactoftheappellant/accusedisof
such a nature whereinthe collective conscience isso shocked that it will
expecttheholdersofthejudicialpowercentretoinflictdeathpenalty.The
om
Apex Court further observed that the community may entertain such a
sentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromtheplatformofthemotivefor,or
40conf01.15
rt
C
ou
presentcase,thereisabsolutelynodoubtinourmindthatthemurderis
committedinextremelybrutalanddastardlymanner.Whileconsideringthe
aspect of the personality of the victim, the record clearly reveals that the
victimisaninnocentchildoftwoandhalfyearswhohardlycouldhaveeither
providedevenanexcuseoraprovocationandwasahelplessvictimofthe
ig
h
lustandtheappellant/accusednotonlyravishedthegirlwithaviolentsexual
attackbutalsoactedinbeastlymanner. Themedicalevidencehasshown
thatthevictimreceivedbitewoundsonthepartsofherbodynamelythe
cheeks,chestandbuttock.Thematerialalsoshowsthatthebodywaslying
onthespothavingthejeanspantremovedfromthepersonofthevictim.
ba
y
The inquest panchnama shows that the victim was subjected to sexual
violenceandthevictimhadreceivedwoundsandbitesoncheeks,chestand
buttock. The version of the witnesses namely Maroti and Punclik, the
scientificevidenceintheformofpostmortemreport,leavesnodoubtthat
om
theaccusedactedinabsolutepervert,inhumanandbeastlymanner.
39.
InthematterofRakeshKamble,whereinthevictimwasagirlof
19yearsofage,thisCourtbyconsideringthecruelandgruesomeactofthe
appellant/accused,posedcertainquestionsandarrivedataconclusionthat
thecasewouldsurelyfallinthecategoryofrarestofrarecases.ThisCourt
observedthus
99.
Wouldthesocietynotexpecttheaccusedwhohave
41conf01.15
rt
gruesome,cruelmannercommittedrapeofhelplessvictimand
killedherfornofaultofher,tobehanged.Wouldthesociety
C
ou
notexpect,theholdersofthejudicialpowerscentre,toaward
proportionatesentencetotheaccusedwhohavenorespectfor
humanvaluesandhavetreatedayounggirlof19yearsinthe
mostbrutal,cruelanddastardlymanner.WouldtheSocietynot
expectsuchdepravedacttobedealtwithinasternmanner.We
also cannot ignore the recent amendments brought to the
ig
h
IndianPenalCodeonaccountofhugepublichueandcrythat
aroseonaccountofdastardlyactintheheinousandgruesome
rapeandmurderof Nirbhaya.Theamendmentasamatterof
factecho'sthesentimentsoftheSocietyatlarge.Thesentiment
ba
y
theSocietyitwouldsurelybea"rarestofrare"casewhereinthe
deathsentenceisrequiredtobeimposed.
Inthepresentcase,aswehavestatedabove,thevictimwasoftwoandhalf
om
yearsofage,assuch,theheinousandgruesomerapeandmurderofthechild
victim at the hands of the appellant/accused, needs to be dealt with the
deterrentpunishmentlikedeathsentence.Itwillnotbeoutofplacetorefer
tocertainjudgmentsoftheApexCourt. TheApexCourtinthematterof
LaxmanNaik.v.StateofOrissa(citedsupra)hasheldthatthedeathsentence
imposedbythetrialCourtandconfirmedbytheHighCourtwasjustified.
Thefactsofthecasewerethevictimwasachildofsevenyearsofageandthe
accusedwasheruncle. Aftercommittingrapeonthevictim,theaccused
committedmurderofthevictim. TheApexcourtreferredtotheevidence
relatingtotheinjuriesonthedeceasedasunder
16.
rt
42conf01.15
Thesearchpartywhichdiscoveredthedeadbodyof
C
ou
mortemreportEx.11aswellasinherstatementmadeinthe
Court.Therewasabrasionontheandfifthlumbarvertebra,as
wellasonleftindexfinger,backofforearm,rightmiddlefinger.
ig
h
aswellasintheunderlyingsternomastoidmuscles.Thelarynx
andtracheawerecongestedcontainingfrothymucous.Bloody
froths were coming out from the mouth and nostrils. This
ba
y
evidenceeloquentlyspeaksthattheinnocent,helplesssoulwas
firstsubjectedtobrutalandforciblesexualintercourseandthen
mercilesslydonetodeathbythrottlingsothatthereremainsno
om
directevidenceagainsttheculprit.
TheApexCourtthenonthebackdropoftheevidenceofMedicalOfficer,
observedthus
28.
conductedthepostmortemoverthedeadbodyofthevictim
goestoshowthatshehadseveralexternalandinternalinjuries
onherpersonincludingaseriousinjuryinherprivateparts
showing the brutality which she was subjected to while
committingrapeonher.ThevictimoftheageofNitmacould
not have even ever resisted the act with which she was
subjectedto. Theappellantseemstohaveactedinabeastly
43conf01.15
rt
mannerasaftersatisfyinghislusthethoughtthatthevictim
mightexposehimforthecommissionoftheoffenceofforcible
C
ou
rapeonhertothefamilymembersandothers,theappellant
withaviewtoscreentheevidenceofhiscrimealsoputanend
tothelifeofinnocentgirlwhohadseenonlysevensummers.
The evidence on record is indicative of the fact as to how
diabolically the appellant had conceived of his plan and
brutally executeditandsuchacalculated,coldbloodedand
ig
h
brutalmurderofagirlofaverytenderageaftercommitting
rapeonherwouldundoubtedlyfallinthecategoryofrarestof
therarecasesattractingnopunishmentotherthanthecapital
punishment and consequently we confirm the sentence of
ba
y
Courthaveawardedanyseparateandadditionalsubstantive
sentence and in view of the fact that the sentence of death
awardedtotheappellanthasbeenconfirmedwealsodonot
deem it necessary to impose any sentence on the appellant
om
underSection376.
(emphasissupplied).
40.
TheApexCourtinthematterofRajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.
StateofMaharashtra(citedsupra),whereinthevictimwasachildofthree
yearsofage,byreferringtovariousjudgmentsincludingthejudgmentofthe
Apexcourtinthecaseof MachhiSinghandothers.v.StateofPunjaband
BachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab(citedsupra),observedthattheCourthasto
strikeabalancebetweenaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances. Itwill
notbeoutofplacetostatethatinthecaseofRajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.
State of Maharashtra (cited supra), the victim was subjected to sexual
44conf01.15
rt
violenceandtherewerebitemarksonchestleftsidearoundnippleelliptical
C
ou
withdiameters1xxmuscledeep. TheApexCourtinthesaidcase
observedthus
37.
aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,forthepurposesof
determiningwhethertheextremesentenceofdeathshouldbe
ig
h
imposedupontheaccusedornot,thescaleofjusticeonlytilts
against the accused as there is nothing but aggravating
circumstancesevidentfrom the recordofthe Court. Infact,
onehastoreallystruggletofindoutiftherewereanymitigating
38.
circumstancesfavouringtheaccused.
Anotheraspectofthematteristhattheminorchild
ba
y
washelplessinthecruelhandsoftheaccused. Theaccused
was holding the child in a relationship of trustbelief and
confidence, in which capacity he took the child from the
houseofPW2.Inotherwords,theaccused,byhisconduct,has
accusedleftthedeceasedinabadlyinjuredconditioninthe
open fields without even clothes. This reflects the most
unfortunateandabusivefacetofhumanconduct,forwhichthe
accusedhastoblamenooneelsethanhisownself.
om
41.
Inthepresentcasealso,theaccusedisthematernaluncleofthe
45conf01.15
rt
C
ou
15.
ig
h
notbearelevantfactor.
given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the
conductofthecriminalandthedefencelessandunprotected
stateofthevictim. Impositionofappropriatepunishmentis
themannerinwhichtheCourtsrespondtothesociety'scryfor
ba
y
om
notonly keepinviewtherightsofthecriminalbutalsothe
rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while
consideringimpositionofappropriatepunishment.
The Apex Court also made it clear that lack of criminal antecedents also
cannotbeconsideredasmitigatingcircumstances,particularlytakinginto
consideration,thenatureofheinousoffenceandcoldandcalculatedmanner
inwhichitwascommittedbytheaccusedpersons.
42.
TheApexCourtinthematterofVasantaSampatDupare.v.State
ofMaharashtra(citedsupra),whereinthevictimwasagirloffouryearsof
46conf01.15
rt
ageandtheappellant/accused,aneighbourluringthevictimforgivingher
C
ou
chocolate,rapedheranddonehertodeathbyhitofstones.TheApexCourt
onthebackdropofthemedicalevidence,namelythevictimwassubjectedto
forcefulsexualintercourse,thedeceasedwaslastseenwiththeaccusedand
theimmediatelodgementofreportbythefatherofthegirl,lendingcredence
60.
ig
h
totheprosecutioncase,observedthus
Inthecaseathand,aswefind,notonlywasthe
childisnothingbutamonstrousburialofherdignityinthe
darkness.Itisacrimeagainsttheholybodyofagirlchildand
the soul of society and such a crime is aggravated by the
ba
y
mannerinwhichithasbeencommitted. Thenatureofthe
crimeandthemannerinwhichithasbeencommittedspeaks
about its uncommonness. The crime speaks of depravity,
degradationanduncommonality.Itisdiabolicalandbarbaric.
om
circumstancesaretobetakenintoconsideration.Thelearned
Counsel for the appellant pointing out the mitigating
circumstanceswouldsubmitthattheappellantisinhismid
fiftiesandthereispossibilityofhisreformation. Beitnoted,
theappellantwasagedaboutfortysevenyearsatthetimeof
commissionofthecrime.Asisnoticeable,therehasbeenno
remorseonthepartoftheappellant. Therearecaseswhen
thisCourthascommuted the death sentence tolife finding
thattheaccusedhasexpressedremorseorthecrimewasnot
47conf01.15
rt
premeditated.Buttheobtainingfactualmatrixwhenunfolded
stage bystage would showthe premeditation, theproclivity
C
ou
andtherapaciousdesire.ThelearnedCounselwouldsubmit
that the appellant had no criminal antecedents but we find
that he was a historysheeter and had a number of cases
pendingagainsthim. Thatalonemaynotbesufficient. The
appalling cruelty shown by him to the minor girl child is
extremelyshockinganditgetsaccentuated,whenhisageis
ig
h
graphicallydepict,hewouldremainamenacetosociety,fora
defenceless child has become his prey. In our considered
ba
y
opinion,therearenomitigatingcircumstances.
62.
categoryoftherarestofrarecases.Itisinconceivablefromthe
om
perspectiveofthesocietythatamarriedmanagedabouttwo
scoresandsevenmakesafouryearsminorinnocentgirlchild
the prey of his lust and deliberately causes her death. A
helpless and defenceless child gets raped and murdered
becauseoftheacquaintanceoftheappellantwiththepeople
ofthesociety.Thisisnotonlybetrayalofanindividualtrust
butdestructionanddevastationofsocialtrust.Itisperversity
initsenormity.Itirrefragablyinvitestheextremeabhorrence
and indignation of the collective. It is an anathema to the
socialbalance.Inourview,itmeetsthetestoftherarestofthe
rarecaseandweunhesitatinglysohold.
48conf01.15
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the order of
rt
43.
C
ou
convictionandsentenceasrecordedbythelearnedtrialJudgeandconfirm
thedeathsentenceawardedbyhimtotheappellant/accused.
Inviewofthejudgmentandorderpassedinaforesaidreference,
noordersarerequiredtobepassedinCriminalAppealNo.321of2015filed
isdismissed.
ig
h
bytheappellant/accused.Intheresult,theCriminalAppealNo.321of2015
JUDGE
`
om
ba
y
*rrg.
JUDGE