Citation: 2022 (SC) 480
Year: 2022
Appellant: Veerendra
V.
Respondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheswari, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
INTRODUCTION
A three-judge panel affirmed this decision. For crimes under Section 302, 376A, and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it was affirmed, but the death penalty was reduced to life imprisonment. As a result of the ‘very barbaric’ murder of the 8-year-old girl, the convicts were sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of early release. The current situation does not qualify as one of the “rarest of the rare.”
BACKGROUND
On September 10, 2014, her uncle sexually assaulted and then killed the dead, who was a girl 8 years old. On September 20, 2014, a First Information Report (FIR) was submitted at the Dabra Police Station, and on the same day, he was brought into the jail. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 302, 376A, and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO, he was found guilty and given the death penalty. Evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt was mostly circumstantial. However, the conviction and sentencing of the offender for violating Section 376A were overturned by the High Court owing to technical concerns, even though the death penalty was affirmed in this case. The court determined that the accused person’s underwear that was recovered at the site of an event and thought to belong to the accused was not admissible and had no evidentiary value in the court’s judgement.
LAWS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED
1. Constitution of India
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 354(3) – Death Sentence
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 – Doctrine of Res Gestae
5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313
6. Sections 302, 376A, 376(2)(i) IPC
7. Section 6 of the POCSO Act
ISSUES RAISED
- Considering Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was the death penalty warranted under the current circumstantial evidence? The appeal of the appellant, dated July 14, 2016, challenging the death sentence conviction, refers to “the concerns of the law.”
- To reduce the death penalty to a life sentence
FACTS
An investigation showed that the appellant, who claimed to be the mother’s cousin’s brother, strangled the victim after stripping her naked and putting her to sleep. There was a shooting on September 19, 2014, between 8:30 pm and 9: 30 pm inside the decrepit, abandoned bada of Jagan Sindhi at Thakur Das Baba Road, Dabra in the Madhya Pradesh district of Gwalior. 8 was the victim’s age. Convicted individual Veerendra has appealed against two court rulings he believes to be unconstitutional: a common judgement dated 14.7.2016 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Veerendra” and in “Veerendra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh” criminal reference cases.[1] At 00:05 a.m. on 20.09.2014, the Dabra police station recorded a crime number 857/2014 in connection with the aforementioned occurrence. On September 20, 2014, the appellant was taken into custody at about 4:00 p.m. In Session Trial No. 642/2014 before the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, he was convicted of the offences punishable by Sections 302, 376A, 376(2)(i) IPC, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), which were all punishable by the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[2]. Following his conviction on the first two charges, he was sentenced to death by firing squad and given a life sentence on the third and fourth crimes, with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence. All significant sentences were thus read simultaneously. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was cited as CRRFC.01/2015 in connection with the sentencing of the death penalty, as directed by the aforementioned ruling. The defendant, in this case, filed Criminal Appeal No.39/2015 to overturn his convictions for the aforementioned offences and the resulting punishments.
CONTENTIONS
Arguments by the Petitioner
Convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, Ms. Sonia Mathur appeared on behalf of the accused and argued that the chain of circumstances was not complete. Neither a medical report nor a doctor’s opinion was consistent with the accuser’s claims that he was at the scene of the crime; neither was the deceased’s date of birth established through the introduction of evidence; neither was an independent witness interviewed to establish that the deceased’s body and clothes were recovered at the accuser’s request; testimony of related witnesses was taken into consideration; and finally, there was no DNA testing.
Arguments by the Respondent
Mr. Pashupatinath Razdan, who represented the state of Madhya Pradesh in court, argued against the concurrent decisions reached by the lower courts. According to him, the fact that the testimony of the witnesses was unchallenged and reliable, so there was no reason to doubt them; that the last seen hypothesis was appropriately applied; and that the retrieval of the corpse, as shown by other witnesses, could not be disregarded as irrelevant to the fact that there had been a violation of Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was reported that all of the events in the sequence had taken place.
RATIONALE
When a person is sentenced to death for a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, the judge must explain why the sentence was handed down and, in the case of death, the specific grounds for the crime. According to the Shankar Kishanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra[3] case, the Courts must use the “crime test” (aggravating circumstances) and the “criminal test” in instances involving the death sentence in addition to the “rarest of the rare” (mitigating circumstances). Because the trial court had already decided on the sentence and handed it down, the Supreme Court concluded that adequate consideration had not been paid to the Apex Court’s criteria in this instance. An aggravating factor, yes, but mitigating factors such as the appellant had no previous history, originates from a disadvantaged socioeconomic family, his pristine behaviour within the prison, and was 25 years old at the time of the offence, cannot be overlooked.” As a result, while considering the case from these angles, we cannot rule out the potential and likelihood of the appellant’s reformation and rehabilitation. That’s all there is to it: The argument concluded that this case does not fit under the “rarest of rare instances” category, and hence, the death penalty is not appropriate. In light of the violence of the occurrence, the Apex Court reduced the death penalty to life in prison. Despite this, the Apex Court nonetheless imposed a term of 30 years imprisonment without the possibility of early release.
DEFECTS IN LAW
When it comes to flaws, what I’ve seen is a flaw in the research process. The victim’s fingernails are said to have been injured by the accused, according to the defendant’s report. It was not inspected, and no relation was given to the above-mentioned assertions, despite the fact that PW-10 had gathered fingernails for examination in advance. Evidence such as blood and semen shows the same lack of examination. The deceased’s blood and semen were not analysed to see whether they matched those in the appellant’s underwear.
The definition of “the rarest of the rare” has to be clarified. Any decision that awards the death penalty should be accurate in order to prevent it from being misused. The sentence issued in this case is based on circumstantial evidence, as of this writing. Section 302 of the IPC makes it apparent when the death sentence is appropriate, although it is ambiguous as to what constitutes a “rarest of the rare” cases. This makes it take longer for justice to be done. Although the number of people on death row has risen, the death penalty has yet to be implemented owing to this problem.
INFERENCE
The Court emphasised that the death sentence is seldom imposed when a circumstantial link between the accused and the crime is established. The Court observed that, like other evidence, the expert opinion of physicians must be given fair consideration by the courts when it comes to inconsistencies in the findings of the post-mortem examination. The doctor’s post-mortem report is entitled to significant weight, but it can’t be excluded from court examination because of his view. It found that hypoxia by strangling was to blame, as well as severe injuries received on the deceased’s private parts, which were sufficient to induce death in accordance with nature. The Court agreed with the lower courts’ conclusions.
According to Section 53A of the Criminal Procedure Code, failure to undertake DNA profiling on an accused individual is not fatal in circumstances of this sort.
The Court noted that the “last seen” hypothesis is also relevant to crimes committed in the dark at night when witnesses would be few. In a string of rulings, the Supreme Court has recognised that relying entirely on the “last seen” notion of guilt is unwise. Taking this into consideration, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene in any of the lower courts’ decisions since the current conviction was not entirely founded on such a theoretical framework. The Court held that the evidence of the grandfather of the dead, who was connected to the victim, could not be disregarded because he was related to the victim. It also rejected to cast doubt on the admissibility of the evidence of a chance witness who observed the accused leave the scene of the incident. The Court ruled that his res gestae evidence was admissible under the Evidence Act’s Section 6. Despite the lack of independent witnesses, the Court found adequate corroboration in the accused’s claim that the deceased’s corpse was recovered at his or her request. A re-appreciation of the complete record to see whether the remainder of the circumstantial evidence and supporting materials would unambiguously indicate the appellant’s guilt alone was deemed proper since the conviction was predicated on circumstantial evidence when one piece was thrown out by the High Court. The Court found no error in the contemporaneous conclusion that the victim had been raped. Even if it could not be proved that the accused did not intend to end her life by strangling a child’s neck with such power, the court found that his conviction for a crime punishable under Section 302 was justified.
NAME: DEVASHISH BHATTACHARYYA
COLLEGE: AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
[1] INDIANKANOON, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31029978/ (last visited May 15, 2022)
[2] INDIANKANOON, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31029978/ (last visited May 15, 2022)
[3] Shankar Kishanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546