Summary
The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for the sexual assault and murder of a five-year-old child, relying on forensic evidence corroborated by his confession to his wife. It commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for his natural life without remission. The brutality of the crime did not dispense with an effective sentencing hearing, scrutiny of mitigating circumstances and consideration of reform and rehabilitation.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established guilt despite weaknesses in parts of the prosecution testimony.
- Whether the death sentence satisfied the rarest-of-rare standard and the requirement of an effective sentencing hearing.
Provisions considered
- Sections 235(2) and 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Required a meaningful opportunity to present mitigation and special reasons for the exceptional death sentence. (¶¶ 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141)
- Sections 299, 300 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Upheld murder liability on the injuries and dangerous nature of the assault, while separately considering absence of proved planning or intention to kill in sentencing. (¶¶ 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131)
Held
- The purported identification of the bag and the related eyewitness narrative were unreliable. Nevertheless, the DNA evidence, read with the confession to the appellant’s wife, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and justified affirming the conviction. (¶¶ 85, 86, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 135)
- Life imprisonment is the rule and death an exception. The gravity and brutality of the offence must be assessed with mitigation and the possibility of reform; circumstantial proof does not itself preclude death where the governing requirements are met. (¶¶ 99, 106, 107, 109, 110, 135)
- The evidence established murder, notwithstanding absence of proof of a planned killing or specific intention to kill. The lack of proved planning and the circumstances of the assault were relevant to the choice of sentence. (¶¶ 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131)
- The defence offered no meaningful mitigation and the courts had not examined reform, continuing danger or whether the alternative punishment was foreclosed. The trial court had an independent duty to elicit sentencing facts and specifically alert the accused to the proposed death penalty so that he could respond effectively. (¶¶ 136, 137, 138, 139, 140)
- Denial of a real and meaningful hearing under Section 235(2) justified commutation. In the particular circumstances, imprisonment until natural death, without remission, adequately met the requirements of punishment. (¶¶ 141, 142, 143, 144, 145)
Result
Appeals allowed to the extent of commuting death to imprisonment for the appellant’s natural life without remission; conviction upheld.