Datta Ambo Rokade v. State of Maharashtra (2019)

• Citation: (2019) 5 SCC 697

• Date of judgement: 21^st February 2019
• Bench: Indira Banerjee, Deepak Gupta, N. V. Ramana
• Name of the Court: The Supreme Court of India
• Case type: Criminal Appeal
• Legal Counsel:

1. For the State of Maharashtra (Respondent/Appellant): Mrs. Usha V. Kejariwal
2. For the Accused/Appellant (Dattatraya @ Datta Ambo Rokade): Mr. Abhaykumar Apte

• Facts of the Case:

• The Complainant and his wife being the second Prosecution Witness (PW-2) resided at Room No.3 in the ground floor of Om Sai building, near the Shivsena Office in Koparigaon, with their son aged 10 years and two daughters aged 7 years and 5 years respectively.
• The complainant and his wife (PW-2) regularly left for work, leaving their three children at home. The wife had to go to her paternal home to visit her father. When she returned home around 2.00 p.m., she found that her youngest daughter, being the victim, was not at home. Assuming that the victim might be playing somewhere nearby, she left for work at around 2.15 p.m. At around 4.30 to 5.00 p.m., she received a call on her mobile phone, informing her that the victim was not at home. Upon receiving the call, the wife immediately returned home and began searching for the victim. She contacted the complainant as also her own parents on mobile.
• Thereafter the complainant, the wife, her mother and brother all started looking for the victim in Koparigaon, Vashi and Sanpada areas. As the victim could not be found, a missing report was lodged with the APMC Police Station.
• When the complainant and his wife reached home at around 2.30 a.m. after frantic efforts to trace the victim, they found the victim lying nude and still in front of the door of their tenement, with no movement.
• The complainant contacted the police from his mobile and told the police that his daughter (the victim) had been found lying still, without any movement.

Forensics and witnesses:

• The complainant and the wife took the victim to the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Hospital, where the Medical Officer examined the victim and declared her ‘brought dead’. An inquest of the body of the victim was conducted and photographs of the body were taken. The vagina and the anus of the deceased victim was lacerated and blood was oozing out. The doctor also noticed injuries on the private part, anus, below the eye lid and above the upper lip. He collected the blood of the deceased victim for DNA mapping and grouping and also collected her vaginal and anal swab for detection of sperms. The samples were kept for chemical analysis.
• The doctor who prepared the post mortem report opined that the cause of death of the victim was asphyxia due to smothering, associated with head injuries and sexual assault. He deposed that all the injuries were possible by repeated sexual acts and forceful penetration. 
• Three cushion covers from the Sofa, a cloth for cleaning the floor and a sari used as a bed-sheet, all stained with blood, were seized from the house of the accused-appellant. 
• Later the accused- appellant made a statement in the presence of Panchas on the basis of which blood-stained white coloured plastic gunny bag, blood-stained orange coloured shirt and black pants of the deceased were recovered from the debris near Om Sai Building.
• The complainant and his wife identified her clothes. 
• Two individuals being the 4^th and 5^th Prosecution Witness approached the Investigating Officer and identified the accused-appellant, as the person, who had kept the bag in the lane.
• The clothes of the accused-appellant, the clothes of the deceased, a sealed bottle containing blood of the accused-appellant and his semen, hair and nail were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The blood, hair, nail, vaginal swab and anal swab of the victim were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The reports received by the Investigating Officer from the Forensic Science Laboratory showed that DNA profile of blood detected on the plastic bag, orange shirt of the deceased and sari cum bed-sheet seized from the house of the accused-appellant was identical with DNA profile of the deceased victim. The reports also showed that DNA profile test of semen conducted on underwear (Bermuda pants) of the accused-appellant, and the vaginal swab and anal swab of the victim matched the DNA profile of the accused-appellant.
• Additionally, the accused-appellant made an extra-judicial confession to his wife, who later deposed as Prosecution Witness 18 (PW-18), stating before the Court that he had admitted to committing the offence.

• Issues Raised:

• Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence under IPC Sections 302, 376(2)(f), and 363 was sustainable?
• Whether the case met the criteria for the imposition of the death penalty under the “rarest of rare” doctrine?
• Whether the accused attempted to conceal or destroy evidence under Section 201 IPC (destruction or disappearance of evidence)? 
• Whether the extra judicial confession made to the wife (PW-18) was admissible and reliable?

• Contentions:

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Conviction Based Solely on Circumstantial Evidence:

• The petitioner argued that there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime.
• He contended that the entire case against him was built on circumstantial evidence, such as recovery of clothes, medical findings, and the “last seen” theory, which did not conclusively establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• The petitioner emphasized that several prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent statements.

2. Improper Legal Representation and Unfair Trial:

• It was submitted that the accused had not been adequately defended before both the Trial Court and the High Court.
• The defence counsel failed to raise essential mitigating factors during sentencing and did not give effective arguments under Section 235(2) CrPC, which deals with hearing on sentence.
• The accused was not allowed to file an affidavit to present mitigating circumstances that could have influenced the sentencing decision.

3. Lack of Consideration of Mitigating Factors:

• The petitioner contended that the courts failed to consider several mitigating circumstances, such as:

1. His age (53 years).
2. No prior criminal record.
3. The lack of any motive to kill the child.
4. Possibility of rehabilitation or reformation.

• He asserted that these factors should have been taken into account before imposing the death penalty.

4. Challenge to the Death Sentence:

• The petitioner argued that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category.
• He maintained that although the offence was grave and brutal, it was not premeditated murder with the sole intention to kill.
• His counsel urged that the brutality of the act and the age of the victim alone could not be the sole grounds for awarding the death penalty.
• He also argued that the courts did not record any finding that life imprisonment was inadequate or that the accused posed a continuing threat to society.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony:

• The respondent would highlight that while one witness noted the man dropping the bag seemed frightened, other crucial witnesses (PW4 and PW5) explicitly stated the man did not arouse their suspicion.
• This discrepancy could be used to discredit the defence’s attempts to establish an alternative narrative or suggest innocence, emphasizing the reliability of PW4 and PW5 who found nothing unusual.

2. Suspect’s Own Son’s Testimony:

• Suspicious Behaviour: The son’s suspicion arising from his father’s sudden trip to Kamothe, particularly “in view of the past history of his father involving an incident at village,” is a critical point indicating prior bad acts or a pattern of concerning behaviour. This suggests a propensity for criminal conduct.
• Confession Corroboration: The son’s statement that the police informed that his “father had confessed to the crime” directly supports the prosecution’s case regarding the confession’s existence and timing.
• Identification of Seized Articles: The son’s identification of evidence as belonging to his father (or related to the crime) further links the accused to the evidence.
• Lack of Exculpatory Evidence from Son: The son’s cross-examination testimony, where he stated he found no stains on the bedsheet on January 23rd, and the routine cleaning of the house, could be used by the respondent to counter any defense claims about potential contamination or lack of thorough cleaning that might hide evidence, indirectly supporting the prosecution’s narrative of the crime occurring without leaving obvious traces for casual observation.

3. Extreme Depravity and Absence of Mitigating Circumstances:

• The respondent would argue that the nature of the offenses demonstrates “extreme depravity,” justifying the death penalty over life imprisonment.
• They would repeat the submission that “there were no mitigating circumstances” to warrant a lesser sentence. This directly supports the Trial Court’s decision to accept the Special Public Prosecutor’s argument for the death sentence.

• Rationale:

• The appeals were filed against the Bombay High Court’s judgment and order, which had confirmed the appellant’s conviction and death sentence for multiple crimes, including murder and sexual assault.
• The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.
• Key evidence presented by the prosecution included:

• The post-mortem report, which concluded the cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering, associated with head injuries and sexual assault. The doctor opined that the injuries were “sufficient to cause instant death”.
• Forensic evidence, which showed that the DNA profile of blood found on a plastic bag, a shirt of the deceased, and a sari from the accused’s house was identical to the victim’s DNA.
• The DNA profile of semen found on the accused’s shorts and the victim’s vaginal and anal swabs matched the accused’s DNA.
• Testimony from the accused’s wife (PW 18), who stated that her husband confessed to her that he had “raped and killed the victim”.
• Testimony from other witnesses (PW 4 and PW 5), who saw an “old man” carrying a white bag and dumping it in a lane. They later identified the accused as this person.
• Despite these inconsistencies, the court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant, citing the strong forensic evidence and the confession made to his wife.
• The Supreme Court, however, modified the sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment. This decision was based on the principle that the death penalty should only be applied in the “rarest of rare” cases.

The court’s rationale for reducing the sentence was that while the crime was “barbaric” and “shocks the conscience,” there was no evidence to suggest the murder was premeditated. The possibility that the accused “might not have realized that his act could lead to death cannot altogether be ruled out”.

• The court also noted that the trial court had not considered whether the crime met the “rarest of rare” standard. The court also mentioned a similar case where a death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

• Defects of Law:
• Ambiguity in the ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine:

No clear statutory definition leads to inconsistent application across courts.

• Over-reliance on Circumstantial Evidence:

Absence of direct evidence exposes the limitations of India’s dependence on circumstantial chains in serious offenses.

• Lack of Sentencing Guidelines:

1. Courts have broad discretion in sentencing, leading to unpredictable outcomes.
2. There is a need for codified standards to ensure uniformity.

• Inference:

• The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC and other relevant provisions, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court held that the case, although grave, did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category warranting capital punishment. It emphasized procedural lapses and the importance of considering mitigating factors, reinforcing the principle that sentencing must be just, fair, and balanced.
• The case triggered widespread public outrage due to the brutality against a minor. It led to increased awareness about child safety and the legal system’s handling of such crimes. The commutation of the death sentence sparked debate on justice and punishment, while also putting pressure on law enforcement to act more swiftly and sensitively in similar cases.

Shreya Minj

Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Law