Case name: Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police
Equivalent Citation: 7 SCC 716
Date of Judgement: 7 November, 2019
Appellant: Manoharan
Respondent: State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant
Facts of the case:
- On 29 October, 2010, Mohankrishnan who had borrowed a vehicle from Anbu @Gandhiraj, picked up two children, a girl and her brother from outside a Hindu temple. The girl was 10 years old while her brother was 7 years old.
- When Mohankrishnan picked the children from outside the temple, they were preparing to go to school.
- On same day around 8:15 a.m. Mohankrishnan drove the children to a petrol pump and around 9:30 a.m. he picked up the appellant (Manoharan) from his house in Angalakuruchi. Mohankrishnan and the appellant then took the children to Gopalsamy Temple Hills which was a remote area and around 10:45 a.m. both of them tied the hands of the girl and committed rape on her. The girl was brutally raped which was evident from the fact that her anus was ruptured.
- After committing rape on the girl, the two accused bought cow dung powder which is a poisonous substance and then mixed it with the milk, and, fed it to the children so as to do away with both of them. As a result, the children didn’t die of the cow dung powder mixed with the milk because they ingested a small part of it.
- Thereafter the two accused threw the children in Parambikulam-Axhiyar Project canal (“PAP Canal”).
- Mohankrishnan was arrested on the same day at around 9:45 p.m. and the appellant (Manohar) was arrested on 31 October, 2010.
- While Mohankrishnan was shot dead by the police on 9 November, 2011 in an encounter which left only the appellant to be tried as an accused.
Issues Raised:
- Whether the death sentence should be confirmed by this court?
- Whether the mitigating circumstances in the present case that the accused belongs to a rural area and he is only 23 years old and has no other previous conviction outweigh the aggravating circumstances made out by the high court?
Appellant’s Contentions:
- The appellant’s side contended that the confession statement given by appellant is coerced one as he was beaten by police and forced to give such confession.
- Learned counsel for appellant argues that as the girl was raped in morning hours, it is highly improbable that the victim would be paraded around and taken so many places and thus the entire story is so highly improbable that it should be rejected.
- It was contended that neither semen nor blood was found on the body of deceased girl’s corpse is insignificant given the DNA evidence.
- The counsel argues that the allegation of tying up the children has no evidence to support it.
- The Appellant had pleaded that mitigating circumstances in the present case are that the accused belongs to a rural area and he is only a 23years old and has no other prior conviction and if let out will not be a menace to the society.
Respondent’s Contentions:
- The state, represented by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore, contended that the confession given by appellant was voluntarily and he was neither beaten nor coerced into giving the confession.
- The counsel contended that DNA samples from the pubic hairs of the appellant are found in the panty of the dead girls, rape gets established beyond reasonable doubt.
- On appellant’s argument that no semen or blood was found on dead girl’s corpse, the respondent contended that as after committing the rape the girl was thrown in canal which had fast flowing water, eventually the semen or blood would have been effaced by the water as the body was also recovered one day after the commission of crime.
- The respondent argues that confession statements of both the accused mention that the children were tied up. The girl was tied up with a rope and then raped, her brother was tied with the driver seat so that he could not go out.
- The respondent argues that this is an extremely heinous crime committed ruthlessly and cold bloodedly and that the aggravating circumstances made out by the High Court clearly outweigh the alleged mitigating circumstances and therefore this is a clear case of death penalty to be imposed.
Trial Court Judgement:
The trial court held the appellant guilty under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 376, 302, section 302 read with section 34, and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to life in prison under Section 376 IPC and death under Section 302 IPC.
High Court Judgement:
The High Court of Madras, in the impugned judgment dated 24.3.2014, set aside the Appellant’s conviction under Section 120-B and 364-A of the Penal Code, but confirmed the sentences under Sections 376, 302, Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After considering exasperating and alleviating circumstances, ultimately death sentence imposed by trial court was upheld by the High Court
Supreme Court Judgement:
The Supreme Court in this case confirmed the death sentence of the appellant with Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice Surya Kant forming the majority decision. The court held that death sentence is the right punishment for the appellant for the brutal rape of a 10-year-old child and double murder of her and her 7-year-old brother. The court held that this was a “rarest of rare case” as the appellant had shown no remorse in the horrific incident, and, thus he rightly deserves the punishment. Striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the majority decisions of the Supreme Court are of the opinion that the aggravating circumstance would tilt the balance in favor of capital punishment. The crime committed is of heinous nature and the collective conscience of the society is shocked. The majority decisions of the Supreme Court are of the opinion that there is no alternative punishment suitable, except the death sentence.
Defects of law:
Although the crime committed is of gruesome and heinous nature, the appellant should not be awarded death penalty. Death penalty is awarded in rarest of rare cases, and the fact that the appellant had shown no sign of remorse should not become a reason to categorize this case as “rarest of rare case” and award death penalty to the accused. The Supreme Court should have considered the mitigating factors that the appellant has no prior criminal record and is first-time offender and is only 23-years old, which is a very young age. One should be given a chance to improve. Although one should not negate the fact that the crime committed has shaken the core of the society, and thus, instead of awarding death penalty, the Supreme Court should have awarded life imprisonment without the option of release or commutation until his natural death, as awarded by Justice Sanjeev Khanna in this case while dissenting with the majority decision.
Inference:
This case sheds light on how the number of rape cases in our country is steadily increasing. An average of nearly 90 rapes a day were reported in India in 2022, according to data from India’s National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). This case serves as a critical alert to the government, highlighting the urgent need to address the rising number of rape incidents in our country. It underscores the necessity of forming a dedicated committee to thoroughly investigate these cases, ensure victims receive essential support and resources, and implement a rehabilitative and restorative approach for the accused. Such measures aim to prevent the accused from becoming a further threat to society while fostering their reintegration into the community.
Moreover, this case provides an insight into the provision of death penalty. Death penalty or Capital punishment is an execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law for a criminal offence. It is awarded in “rarest of rare cases”. It remains a contentious issue in India’s Legal Landscape.
The judges’ decision reflects a profound division, illustrating the complexity and nuanced perspectives inherent in this case. The 2:1 judgement reflects the difference in the opinions of the judges.
Submitted by:
Jasmine Dhakarwal
University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University