| Date of Judgement | 7th November 2019 |
| Petitioner | Manoharan |
| Respondents | State by inspector Police Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore |
| Bench | Fali Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant |
1.Facts of the case
- X(ten-year-old girl) and Y (7-year-old brother of X), both were studying in a private school in Coimbatore district. The classes being 5th and 2nd grade respectively.
- The kids daily commuted by a vehicle owned by PW-2 and go by 7:45 AM everyday
- On 29.10.2023, the kids left home, PW-2 reached there by 8 and could not find the kids.
- Later, PW-2 called the father (PW-5) of the kids over the phone to ask about the absence. PW-5 at the time was not in Coimbatore but in Hyderabad hence could not provide a reply for the same as at that time the kids were with the wife Sangeetha.
- Sangeetha stated that kids left the house, later went to search for the kids along with certain relatives- PW-1 and PW-6
- The paternal grandmother (PW-9) was at the Jain Temple at 8:00 am, later when she returned home she had found the mother (Sangeetha) in panic as there was no news about the kids. PW-9 told Sangeetha that there was another Van driver who took the kids to school.
- One of the relatives PW-1 went to the school and found out that the kids weren’t there.
- PW-1 lodged a complaint in police station at 11:00AM under section 363 of the Indian Penal code (which talks about the punishment for kidnapping)
- The Investigating officer (PW-47) took all the statements from the father, relatives, grandmother and also the principal of the school (PW-10)
- Later, a trace was received at 6:00 PM, someone named chinnaswamy informed (PW-22) that there were school bags found along with ID cards found in the PAP canal.
- Later it was also found out that, PW-2 received a call from PW-7 stating that Mohankrishnan was the one who actually borrowed the Maruti Van.
- The IO told both PW-2 and PW-2 to inform him when Mohankrishnan returned back
- At 9:45 AM it was found out that Mohankrishnan came back with the van and also confessed to everything and also stated that it was done with Manohran (his friend)
- The Van, Cell phone and the driving license of Mohankrishnan was seized.
- Later, The Investigating officer also sent a report under the Section 363, 364(A), 376,302 read with Section 201 of IPC.The magistrate received the report by 11:45PM
- Later, the Investigating officer kept on finding traces along with observing certain Saliva and yellow-coloured stains on the seized van. Mohankrishnan later took the police to the place he raped X.
- It was also found out that the children were fed milk which was poisonous in nature and when they did not die, they were thrown into the PAP canal.
- The girl’s body was found the next day in the PAP canal by the villagers
- Manoharan who also was the perpetrator of the crime was arrested on 31.10.2010 and then made the “disclosure statement” to the police and then was produced before the magistrate on the same day, sent to judicial custody.
- Later, both Manoharan and Mohankrishnan were medically examined along with the samples of their blood and saliva being sent to Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory for the analysis of the DNA.
- While, Mohankrishnan was in police custody, he ended up shooting and wounding two police officers and he was shot dead by the police simultaneously. Hence, only Manoharan was left to be tried.
- The prosecution later examined all the 49 witnesses and later held the Manoharan guilt under Section 120-B, 364-A,376,302 r/w 34 and 201 IPCC. Manoharan, for the offence under Section 302 IPC was given a death sentence.
- Later, being aggrieved by the decision petitioner )Manoharan) filed a petition in High court of Madras, the High Court upheld and confirmed the death sentence awarded to him by the Trial court.
- Which lead the petitioner to file a Special Leave Petiton under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India and stated that both High Court and Trial Court were right with the decision given.
- The petitioner after the decision by the Supreme court filed a Review Petition.
2.Issues
- Whether the death sentence has to be upheld by the court?
- Whether the confession of Manoharan was voluntary in nature?
3.Analysis
- It is important to note that the scope of review in the cases of death penalty has also been attenuated and even a case ‘ Vikram Singh vs State of Punjab’ stating that “review can only be on a glaring error apparent on the face of the judgement or order.”
- Even the cases ‘Mukesh vs State of NCT’ it was stated “in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons.”
3.1 Contentions of the petitioner
Firstly, the petitioner contended that whatever confessional statement was given by him was not voluntary at all in nature but was rather obtained under duress, after that the petitioner also stated that he was coerced into making the confession by the police and also a case Shivappa vs state of Karnataka where it was stated “confessional statement mandated under section 164 of CRPC is mandatory” was relied upon by them along with being in violation to article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner also stated that he was physically assaulted by the police, after that it was also stated that he also did not get any legal representation during the trial and that was not adequate for him and he stated that it violated his constitutional rights. Later the petitioner also stated that he was fraudulently and wrongly convicted under section 376 of the IPC along with challenging the circumstantial evidence and he also stated that certain amendments of POSCO were being retrospectively applying to him and held that it was unconstitutional.
3.2 Contentions of the respondent
It was contented by the respondent that confession given by the petitioner was voluntary and also it was reliable in nature and the petitioner was not coerced whatsoever along with that it was stated that the petitioner received adequate legal representation and even his side was heard and too he had received adequate representation through legal aide counsel. They also emphasised that the circumstantial evidence were supporting the conviction under section 376 of the Indian Penal code along with stating that the retrospective application of the POSCO amendments were not unconstitutional in nature.
4.Rational/Judgement
- Majority:- 2:1
- The Supreme court upheld the judgement which was given by both the trial court and even the High Court of Madras with regard to the death sentence and the petitioner committed gruesome rape of the 10-year-old girl and double murder of the girl and her brother who was 7 years of age.
- The majority decision given by the judges was that Manoharan committed a gruesome crime nor did he show any sympathy or regret he had after committing the same. According to the judges, cases like these fall under the rarest of rare cases and also deserve death penalty. The judges also agreed with the analysis done by the trial court and also the High Court of Madras with regard to balancing the factors and declaring the crime as ‘cold-blooded’ as it involves the murder of children one of 10-year-old girl and she was raped and then murdered, involves her brother of 7-year-old who was also murdered. Hence, the judges inclined more towards the capital punishment
- The judges also stated that there are no alternative punishments for the heinous crime he has committed and it can only be given through death sentence.
- The crime committed by Manoharan was so brutal that the conscience of the public would get hampered.
- Hence, the Supreme court dismissed the appeals.
5.Dissenting Judgement/ Defects in law
- The judge who gave out a dissenting judgement agreed that Manoharan was guilty, but according to him there should no death penalty be given to him.
- According to him Manoharan should have been given life imprisonment till his natural life without any possibility of releasing him.
- The judge also analysed certain factors supporting Manoharan, firstly he stated that according to the judge Manoharan actually withdrew his confession because maybe he was in the fear of death penalty. Secondly, Manoharan was a first-time offender, he was 23 and also came from a poor family also had old parents, so according to the judge the sociological factors must be considered as to why exactly he has committed the crime, he also stated that the actual person behind all the plan was Mohankrishnan his friend who was later killed by the police.
6.Conclusion/ Inference
It is important to note that, Manoharan used all his remedies to save himself from death penalty, but the crime was that heinous that it was obvious from the beginning that he would end up in the same position as he was when the trail court gave its decision.
Crimes like these should be given punishments like death penalty especially when it involves rape and murder of children. What Manoharan did was gruesome, merciless, cold-blooded regardless of who executed the plan or regardless of him being from a poor family, it cannot be used as an excuse, what he did was brutal and he deserved the death penalty.
Hence, the Judgement given by the Supreme Court is Justified.
-By Anoushka Saha
4BBA LLB (Christ University, Lavasa, Pune)