Summary
A seven-and-a-half-year-old girl with 70% physical disability and intellectual impairment was lured with chocolates from her parents' vegetable cart in Rajsamand, Rajasthan in January 2013, taken away on a stolen motorcycle, brutally raped and killed by smashing her head. The accused was arrested within hours with blood-stained clothes, led the police to the body, the motorcycle and the victim's frock, and DNA from the blood on his clothes and the motorcycle matched the victim. The trial court convicted him under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f) and 302 IPC and Section 6 POCSO and sentenced him to death; the Rajasthan High Court confirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the death sentence.
Issues
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt resting on circumstantial evidence — last seen, recoveries on disclosure, blood-stained clothes and DNA matching — called for interference in an appeal by special leave, and whether complaints of a hurried trial and inadequate legal aid had substance.
- Whether the theory of 'residual doubt' can operate at the sentencing stage in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the death sentence for the rape and murder of a mentally and physically challenged child should be confirmed or substituted, having regard to the appellant's age and family, his antecedents and his post-conviction conduct in jail, including conviction for another murder.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302, 363, 365 and 376(2)(f), Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction on all counts confirmed on a complete chain of circumstances meeting the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles; the death sentence under Section 302 confirmed as the case fell in the rarest of rare category with no probability of reformation. (¶¶ 39, 40, 57, 58, 60)
- Sections 6 and 42, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Section 42's mandate to award the greater punishment does not mean the accused could not be convicted both under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO; the contention was baseless. (¶ 41)
- Sections 235(2) and 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The trial court heard the accused on sentence three clear days after conviction and recorded special reasons; the sentencing was in scrupulous compliance with these provisions, examined against the principles in Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Swamy Shraddananda (2), Shankar Kisanrao Khade and V. Sriharan. (¶¶ 43, 44, 50.1)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The appellant's disclosures led to recovery of the dead body at 3.15 a.m., and later of the motorcycle, the frock and the place of occurrence; the investigation was methodical and the contentions against it were rejected. (¶¶ 35.2, 39)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaIn an appeal by special leave against concurrent findings, the Court does not reappreciate evidence as a regular appellate forum and interferes only in rare cases of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice (Pappu v. State of U.P.). (¶¶ 33, 34)
Held
- Constitutional guarantees do not give an accused a right to question the swiftness of investigation or to be tried at a pace of his choosing; cases of this nature demand utmost expedition. The legal-aid counsel, appointed at the appellant's own request, cross-examined every witness thoroughly and the criticism of him was unwarranted and unfair. (¶¶ 35.3, 35.4)
- The victim was last seen with the appellant, who was arrested within 7½ hours with blood-stained clothes; the body, the stolen motorcycle and the frock were recovered at faraway places on his information; he gave no account of his whereabouts or his knowledge of those places; DNA from blood on his clothes and the motorcycle matched the victim; the doctors were consistent that death was due to head injuries. The chain is so complete that no other hypothesis than guilt is possible. (¶¶ 37, 37.1.3, 37.2.2, 39, 40)
- In a case of circumstantial evidence guilt is recorded only when the circumstances form an unbreakable chain ruling out every other hypothesis; theoretically there is no scope for 'residual doubt' at sentencing, and the sentencing court is not to reopen the chain to find a weak link. If any such doubt reasonably existed, the conviction itself would be in question (Shatrughna Baban Meshram). (¶¶ 48.2, 48.4)
- The crime test is fully met by the kidnapping of a helpless disabled child through betrayal of trust, brutal rape and merciless killing. On the criminal test, the appellant's age of 28 and his family are outweighed by his involvement in four earlier cases, commission of this crime with a stolen motorcycle, a jail punishment for quarrelling and his conviction for murdering a co-inmate; there is no probability of reformation and a real danger of relapse. Even life imprisonment without remission is not justified; the death sentence is inevitable. (¶¶ 50.2, 50.5, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58)
- Courts must not approach capital cases determined to avoid the death sentence by finding or deducing some mitigating factor at any cost; such an approach would nullify a statutory provision that has passed constitutional muster. Calling for a psychological evaluation report of an appellant with this record would be impractical and unrealistic. (¶¶ 54, 56.1)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the conviction under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f) and 302 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and all sentences, including the death sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court on 29.05.2015, affirmed.