Summary
The surviving issue in an appeal involving kidnapping, rape and murder of a minor was the death sentence. The Court maintained the conviction, supported by circumstantial and DNA evidence, but treated lingering evidentiary concerns as mitigating at sentencing. It substituted imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life without remission.
Issues
- Whether the established offences warranted death or a special sentence of lifelong imprisonment without remission.
Held
- The convictions were maintained; the circumstantial chain, medical findings and matching DNA evidence established the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal’s surviving consideration was sentence. (¶¶ 4, 5, 37, 38)
- Circumstantial proof does not categorically prohibit a death sentence. Nevertheless, life is the rule, death the exception, and the offender’s circumstances, possible reform and adequacy of alternative punishment require individual assessment. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 53, 54)
- Residual doubts may mitigate at capital sentencing even though insufficient to undermine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Here inconsistencies in last-seen testimony, investigative omissions and the possibility of another participant collectively counselled against irreversible punishment. (¶¶ 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63)
- The special sentencing category approved in Swamy Shraddananda and Sriharan permits the High Court or Supreme Court to replace death with life or a specified extended term beyond ordinary statutory remission. The cumulative circumstances made that alternative appropriate here. (¶¶ 46, 47, 64, 65)
Result
The appeals were partly allowed on sentence. The death penalty was replaced with imprisonment for life, without remission, for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life. The convictions remained intact.