Summary
The Court upheld the appellant’s convictions for the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of an 11-year-old child on the cumulative circumstantial evidence. It nevertheless commuted the death sentence because the sentencing process inadequately considered mitigation and the probability of reformation. The appellant’s youth, lack of antecedents and unobjectionable jail conduct were material, and the prosecution had not shown rehabilitation to be foreclosed. Life imprisonment for 30 years without remission was imposed.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence sustained the concurrent convictions.
- Whether the death sentence could stand without an adequate mitigation and reformation inquiry.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe accused’s fair-trial entitlement required effective opportunity to defend and to present relevant sentencing material. (¶ 13-14)
- Section 235(2) and Section 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Effective sentencing hearing and special reasons for death required attention to the offender and prospects of reform, beyond the crime’s brutality. (¶ 13-18)
Held
- The Court considered the recoveries, medical and forensic evidence, the appellant’s conduct, the failed alibi and unexplained scratch injuries cumulatively. It found no basis to disturb the concurrent convictions. The DNA match relating to the co-accused was distinguished in the narrative from the multiple peaks recorded on the appellant’s clothing. (¶ 7-12)
- A separate, effective opportunity on sentence is necessary, particularly where death is proposed. The trial proceeded hastily after replacement of defence counsel, and conviction and death sentence were pronounced on the same day without an adequate opportunity to present relevant material. (¶ 13-14)
- Brutality alone does not establish the rarest-of-rare threshold. The offender’s circumstances and probability of reformation and rehabilitation must be seriously considered; the prosecution must produce evidence to establish why the alternative of a lesser punishment is foreclosed. Those matters had not been properly examined. (¶ 15-17)
- The appellant was 25, a manual labourer from a Scheduled Tribe, without prior criminal antecedents or adverse jail-conduct material. With no evidence excluding rehabilitation, death was commuted. Considering the grave offences, the Court imposed life imprisonment for 30 years without remission while maintaining the convictions. (¶ 18-19)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; convictions upheld; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission.