Upload
live-law
View
1.765
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Bombay High Court Confirms Double Death Sentence
Citation preview
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
1conf01.15
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY,NAGPURBENCH,NAGPUR.
CRIMINALCONFIRMATIONCASENO.01OF2015
TheStateofMaharashtra,throughPoliceStationOfficer,PoliceStation,Parwa,TalukaGhatanji,DistrictYavatmal. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
ShatrughnaBabanMeshram,aged21years,OccupationLabour,R/oZatala,TalukaGhatanji,DistrictYavatmal. ...RESPONDENT
....
Smt.BhartiDangre,PublicProsecutorfortheappellant/State.ShriT.G.Bansod,Advocatefortherespondent.
....
WITHCRIMINALAPPEALNO.321OF2015
ShatrughnaBabanMeshram,aged21years,OccupationLabour,R/oZatala,TalukaGhatanji,DistrictYavatmal.(InCentralJail,Nagpur). ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED
VERSUS
TheStateofMaharashtra,throughPoliceStationOfficer,PoliceStation,Parwa,TalukaGhatanji,DistrictYavatmal. ...RESPONDENT
....
ShriT.G.Bansod,Advocatefortheappellant/accused.Smt. Bharti Dangre, Public Prosecutor with Shri M.K. Pathan, AdditionalPublicProsecutorfortherespondent/State.
....
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
2conf01.15
CORAM:B.R.GAVAIANDPRASANNAB.VARALE,JJ.
DATEOFRESERVINGTHEJUDGMENT:29THSEPTEMBER,2015.DATEOFPRONOUNCINGTHEJUDGMENT:12THOCTOBER,2015.
JUDGMENT:(PerPrasannaB.Varale,J.)
TheConfirmationCaseNo.01of2015arisesoutofthereference
bythelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,YavatmalinSpecialCase(POCSO
Act) No. 11 of 2013 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to
originalaccused.
2. Theappellant/original accusedhasalsopreferredtheCriminal
Appeal No. 321 of 2015 challenging the judgment and order dated 14th
August, 2015therebyconvictingtheappellant fortheoffencespunishable
underSection302oftheIndianPenalCodeandsentencingtodeath,also
convicting for the offence punishable under Section 376A of the Indian
PenalCodeandsentencingtodeath,convictingfortheoffencepunishable
underSection6oftheProtectionofChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct,2012
(POCSO)andsentencingtosufferRigorousImprisonmentforlifeandtopay
fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for
threemonths.
3. Onperusalofthematerialplacedonrecord,theprosecutioncase
emergesasfollows
Ontheunfortunatedayi.e.on11thFebruary,2013,thevictimwho
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
3conf01.15
wasa child of two years of age, was in the lap of her grandfather. The
appellant (original accused) is the son of the cousin brother of the
grandfather of the victimnamely Pundlik. The accused approached the
houseofPundlikatabout07:30p.m.Hetoldthegrandfatherthatthefather
ofthevictimisbackfromhisworkandhehasaskedhim(accused)tobring
thevictim.Thegrandfatherofthevictimwasnotinclinedtoallowthechild
tobetakenbytheaccusedonthegroundthatthefatherofthevictimisyetto
comefromwork. In spite of suchresistance, the accusedtook awaythe
victimwithhim.Thefatherofthevictimhadbeentoattendsomereligious
functioninthetemplenamelyDattaMandir.Onhisreturn,whenhefound
thatthechildwasnotinthehouse,hemadeanenquirywiththegrandfather
i.e.Pundlikaboutthechild. Pundlikinformedthattheaccusedtookaway
the child from his house. The father of the victim Maroti, grandfather
PundlikandoneShrawanMeshramproceededforthesearchofthechildin
thevillage. Theyfoundthevictimchildwaslyingatapartiallyconstructed
buildingof Anganwadi. Theaccusedwasalsolyingonthespot. Maroti,
Pundlik and Shrawan found that the victim had received severe injuries
includingbitesonlipsandcheeksandswellingonherprivatepart. They
immediately rushed to the private medical officer Dr. Jafar at Kurli by
arranginganautorickshaw. Dr.Jafardeclaredthatthevictimwasbrought
dead.ThevictimwasthenbroughtbacktovillageZatala.Inthemeantime,
aninformationwasreceivedinthePoliceStationandAPIShriVanjarialong
withhisotherstaffmembersrushedtothevillageZatala. Hesawthedead
bodyof thevictimandtookit toSubDistrict Hospital, Ghatanji. Maroti,
fatherofthevictimlodgedareportatPoliceStation,Parwaandonhisreport,
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
4conf01.15
CrimeNo.11/2013wasregistered. Astheinvestigatingagencywasset in
motion, Shri Vanjari carriedout necessary formalities of the investigation
process,suchas,effectingthearrestoftheaccusedonthenextdayi.e.on
12thFebruary,2013,attendingthespotoftheincidentanddrawingthespot
panchnama.Theclotheswornbythechildvictimwereseizedfromthespot
alongwiththepiecesoffleshandchappaloftheaccusedaswellearthfrom
the spot. Accordingly, seizure panchnama was drawn. An inquest
panchnamaofthedeadbodywasalsodrawn.Thedeadbodywasreferredto
postmortemandthenotesofautopsysurgeonwerecollected.Theapparels
wornbytheaccusedwerealsoseized,thesamplesofbloodofthevictim
werealsocollectedandvisceraandtheothermaterialwereforwardedtothe
Chemical Analyzer. A request was also made to the Naib Tahsildar to
prepare themapof thespot. TheInvestigating Officer alsorecordedthe
statementsofthewitnesses.
4. Oncompletionoftheinvestigationprocess,chargesheetcameto
be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghatanji.
SincethecasewasexclusivelytriablebythelearnedSessionsJudge,thesame
committedtothelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,Yavatmal.Theaccused
waschargedfortheoffencepunishableunderSections376(1)(2)(f)(m),376
A,302oftheIndianPenalCodeandunderSection6of theProtectionof
ChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct,2012.Theaccusedpleadednotguiltyand
claimedtobetried. Hisdefencewasoftwofolds;oneoftotaldenialand
otherwasoffalseimplicationandthedefencetheoryputupwasthatthe
fatherofthevictimhimselfkilledthevictimsoastopleasetheGoddess.In
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
5conf01.15
short,acaseofhumansacrificewasputupbytheaccusedasdefence.The
prosecution,initssupport,examined13witnesses. ThelearnedAdditional
Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the
conclusionthattheprosecutionwassuccessfulinprovingtheincriminating
circumstances and also successful in establishing chain of proved
circumstanceslendingtonootherconclusionthantheguiltoftheaccused.
The learned Sessions Judge thus found that the accused is guilty of the
offenceschargedagainsthimandfurtherfoundthatthecasebeingabrutal
rapeandmurderofhelplessminorvictimchild,thesamefallsinthecategory
of rarest of rare case warranting imposition of death sentence of the
offencepunishableunderSections376Aand302oftheIndianPenalCode.
Sincethedeathpenaltywasimposed,thelearnedtrialJudgepreferredthe
mattertothisCourtforconfirmationofthesaidsentence.Theappellantalso
assailed the said finding by way of an appeal assailing the order of
conviction.Both,ConfirmationCaseandtheAppeal,areheardanddecided
byustogether.
5. Smt.BhartiDangre,thelearnedPublicProsecutor,insupportof
the judgmentandorderpassedbythe learnedAdditional SessionsJudge,
Yavatmal, submits that the learned Sessions Judge appreciated the oral
evidence as well as the scientific evidence in its proper perspective and
arrivedatajustandproperconclusion.Shefurthersubmitsthatconsidering
thepeculiar facts, suchasthevictimbeingaminorchildandhardlytwo
yearsofage,subjectedtoabrutalsexualexploitationresultingindeathofthe
childandtheaccusedbeingthematernaluncleofthechild,thisisafitcase
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
6conf01.15
wherenolesserpunishmentthanthedeathpenaltycanbeawardedtothe
appellant/accused. ThelearnedPPalsoreliesonthevariousjudgmentsof
theApexCourtaswellasthisCourtinsupportofhersubmission.
6. Percontra,ShriBansod,thelearnedCounselfortherespondent
(originalaccused)submitsthatthelearnedSessionsJudgeutterlyfailedto
appreciate the evidence and was swayed away on the superficial
circumstances,suchasthevictimwasachild. ThelearnedCounselfurther
submitsthatasthecaseisbasedonthecircumstances,itwasthefirstand
foremostdutyoftheprosecutiontoestablisheachandeverycircumstance
withclinchingevidenceagainsttheaccused. ShriBansodalsosubmitsthat
therearemanymissinglinksintheevidencebroughtbytheprosecution.He
furthersubmitsthatthelearnedSessionsJudgealsofailedtoconsiderthe
defence put up by the appellant/accused. The learned Counsel for the
appellant/accusedthensubmitsthatassumingbutnotadmittingthatthere
issomeevidenceagainsttheappellant/accused,thesameisnotsufficient
enough to award a capital punishment to the appellant/accused. Shri
Bansod then submits that the appellant/accused was in his prime youth
when the unfortunate incident took place and it is alleged that the
appellant/accusedistheauthorofthesaidcrime. Consideringthesefacts,
an opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant/accused to
rehabilitate and reform him in his life. In stead of adopting such an
approach, the learned Sessions Judge awarded the death penalty to the
appellant/accused. Thus, it is an alternative submission of the learned
Counselfortheappellant/accusedthattheappellant/accusedbeawardeda
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
7conf01.15
lesserpunishmentifhispleaofacquittalisnotacceptedbythisCourt.
7. WiththeassistanceofthelearnedCounsel,wehavegonethrough
the material placed on record. As stated above, the prosecution has
examined 13 witnesses. For better appreciation, we would classify these
witnesses, suchasthewitnesseswhosupport theprosecutioncaseof the
accused and the deceased last seen together and the dead body of the
deceasedbeingfoundseenthereafter,thepanchwitnesses,thewitnesseson
scientificaspectsandthepolicepersonnelcarryingoutvariousformalitiesof
theinvestigationaswelltheInvestigatingOfficer.
8. Inthefirstcategoryofwitnesses,PW1MarotiPendor,fatherof
the victim, PW2 Pundlik Masram, grandfather of the victim and PW9
ChandrakantBijapwar,ownerofgroceryshopwouldfindtheirplace.PW3
Ravindra Masramand PW4 Raju Dhadewar are the panch witnesses on
variouspanchnamas,suchasspotpanchnama,seizureoftheclothesofthe
victim,effectingarrestoftheaccused,seizureoftheclothesoftheaccused,
seizureofvisceraetc.PW5GaneshGhose,PW8RameshYedmeandPW11
PrakashUddhaoraoKshirsagararethepolicepersonnelwhotookpartinthe
processofinvestigation,suchascarrierofdeadbody,carrierofmuddemal
propertyetc. PW12RameshMendheistheNaibTahsildarwhoprepared
themapofthespot.PW13PanjabVanjari,theAPIandistheInvestigating
Officer.PW6Dr.JafarandPW7Dr.LingawararetheMedicalOfficerswho
areonthescientificaspectssuchasmedicalexaminationofthevictimand
medicalexaminationoftheaccused. PW10isDr.Gadgeandthroughthis
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
8conf01.15
witness,postmortemnotesareproved.
9. Firstly, we would deal with PW2 Pundlik, grandfather of the
victim child. PW2 Pundlik states that PW1 Maroti is his soninlaw;
whereas Vaishali is his daughter. He further states that the couple was
initially residing at a place TekadiRampur, District Adilabad and four
monthspriortotheincident,theyshiftedtoZatalawhereinPW2andhis
familywereresiding. ThecouplestartedresidingnearthehouseofPW2
Pundlik and was doing labour work. He further states that the victim
deceasedSrushtiwasthedaughterofPW1MarotiandVaishali;whereasthe
accusedisthesonofhiscousinbrother.Hethenstatesthaton11thFebruary,
2013 at about 07:30 p.m., both the grand daughters namely Srushti and
Drushti were in his lap. Theaccusedcamethere and informedthat the
fatherofSrushtihadcomefromworkandaskedhimtobringSrushti.PW2
Pundlikalsostatesthatinspiteofhisresistanceonaccountthatthefatherof
Srushtiwasyettoreturnbackfromhiswork,theaccusedpaidnoheedand
tookawaySrushti. Hefurtherstatesthataftersometime,healongwithhis
wifewenttothehouseofPW1MarotiandaskedastowhetherSrushtiwas
broughttohimbytheaccused.PW1Marotirepliedinnegative.Therefore,
Pundlik,PW1MarotiandoneShrawantooksearchofSrushti. Whenthey
wereontheirwaytowatertank,oneVikasMasraminformedthemthathe
saw accused with Srushti going towards Anganwadi. On receiving this
information, Pundlik, Maroti and Shrawan proceeded to the site of
constructionof theAnganwadi andonreachingthere, theyfoundSrushti
andaccusedwerelyinginthepremisesofAnganwadi. Hethenstatesthat
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
9conf01.15
thejeanspantofSrushtiwaslyingaside;whereasTshirtwasonherperson.
HefurtherstatesthattheyfoundSurshtihadsustainedbitingwoundsonher
lips,cheeks,chestandhipandalsofoundthattherewasbleedingfromthe
privatepartofSrushti. HealsostatesthattheyimmediatelytookSurshtito
their house andthereafter immediately she was takento oneDr. Jafar of
village Kurli. Dr. Jafar declaredher dead. Thentheycamebackto their
house. Thepolicepersonnel alsoreachedtheir houseandtookthedead
bodyofSrushtitoGhatanji.Pundlikidentifiedtheaccusedwhowaspresent
intheCourt.PW2Pundlikfurtherstatesaboutdrawinginquestpanchnama
inhispresenceandanotherpanchArvindSidam.Hethenstatesthaton13th
February,2013,hisstatementwasrecordedbythepoliceaswellason08th
March,2013intheCourt.
10. This witness was subjected to crossexamination. An attempt
wasmadetosuggestthatthewitnessisdeposingfalseandalsoanattempt
wasmadetosuggest that thevictimSrushti waskilledbyhimforgetting
certainbenefitashumansacrificetopleasetheGoddess. Thewitnesshas
flatly deniedthis suggestion. Thoughcertainomissions were brought on
record,theseomissionsarenotsufficientenoughtodiscreditthewitnessor
falsifytheversionofthiswitnessonthematerialaspecti.e.theaccusedtook
awaythevictiminspiteofhisresistanceandwithinashortspanoftime,the
victimfoundataplaceandshewassubjectedtoaviolentsexualexploitation
andtheaccusedwaslyingonthespot. Perusaloftheinquestpanchnama
shows that there were bite marks on the cheeks, lips, chest and on the
buttock.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
10conf01.15
11. PW1Maroti isthefatherofthevictim. Maroti statesthatthe
victimchildSrushtiwashisdaughterandshewasoftwoyearsofage. He
deposesthathewasresidinginahousenearthehouseofhisfatherinlaw
PW2 Pundlik and on 11th February, 2013, there was a programme of
MahaprasadinDattaMandirandhehadgonetothetempleatabout07:00
p.m.andcamebackabout07:30p.m.Hefurtherstatesthatonfindingthat
Srushtiwasnotinahouse,hemadeenquirywiththefatherinlawPundlik
andhetoldthattheaccusedtookawaySrushtitohishouse. PW1further
statesthatastheaccusedhadnotbroughtSrushtitohim,asearchwastaken
inthevillagebyhimself,hisfatherinlawandoneShrawan.Thenhestates
thathesawhisdaughterSrushtilyingonthespoti.e.apartiallyconstructed
buildingofAnganwadiandtheaccusedwasalsolyingthereandthepantof
thechildvictimwasnotonherpersonandthesamewaslyingaside. He
furtherstatesthatitwasajeanspantofbluecolourandtherewerewounds
ofbitesonthelipsandcheeksofhisdaughterandswellingonherprivate
part.Healsostatesthathetookthedaughterfromthespottothehouseand
thereafter immediately by arranging anautorickshawtookher to private
doctoratvillageKurli. Afterexamininghisdaughter,Dr.Jafardeclaredher
dead. Hebroughtbackthedeadbodyofhisdaughtertohishouse. PW1
MarotifurtherstatesthatbyapproachingParwaPoliceStation,helodgedthe
report. Onhis oral report, offencewasregisteredandaprintedFIRwas
preparedandthesamebearshissignature.Healsostatesaboutshowingthe
spot to the police personnel, conducting the postmortemand thereafter
handingoverthedeadbodytohimbythepolice. Hethenstatesthathis
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
11conf01.15
statementwasrecordedon13th February,2013andheidentifiedthejeans
pant(Article1)andTshirt(Article2). Healsoidentifiedtheaccusedwas
presentintheCourt.
12. Thiswitnesswasalsosubjectedtoadetailedcrossexamination.
Suggestions were given to this witness that the spot namely the said
Anganwadiwassurroundedbyvarioushousesanditwasinthemiddleofthe
village. Asuggestionwasalsogiventothiswitnessthathealongwithhis
fatherinlawkilledhisdaughterashumansacrificetopleasetheGoddess
and the accused on coming to knowthis fact, threatened them to lodge
report against them. It wasalsosuggestedthat tosavethemselves, PW1
MarotilodgedafalsereportagainsttheaccusedandhewasbeatenbyPW1
Maroti and others. These suggestions are flatly denied by the witness.
Certain omissions were brought on record in respect of beating of the
accusedbyShrawan,GovardhanandVikas.
13. Perusal of the version of this witness who was subjected to
detailedcrossexamination,showsthatthiswitnesswasnotatallshattered
andstoodfirmonmaterialaspectsuchasreceivinganinformationfromPW
2PundlikthattheaccusedtookawaythechildSrushtiandthenfindingthe
childlyingonthespot.Healsostoodfirmontheaspectofreachingthespot,
findingthatthejeanspantofthevictimwasnotonherpersonbutwaslying
asideandtheaccusedwasalsolyingthereandmarksofviolenceonthebody
ofthechildvictim.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
12conf01.15
14. PW9ChandrakantBijapwar,wassoughttobeexaminedonthe
aspect of theaccusedvisiting his shopon11th February, 2013 alongwith
Srushti andpurchasing biscuits andchiwda, however this witness turned
hostile.Itwillbeusefultonotethattothecrossexaminationofthiswitness
bythelearnedAPP,thiswitnessadmitsthathewashavinggoodrelations
withtheaccusedandhisfamilyandalsoadmitsthatonthedayofhiscross
examination in the Court, he was accompanied by the relatives of the
accused.
15. PW3 Ravindra Masram, PW4 Raju Dhadewar, PW5 Ganesh
Ghose,PW8RameshYedmeandPW11PrakashKshirsagararethepanchas
andthepolicepersonnel.PW12RameshMendheistheNaibTahsildarwho
preparedthemapofthespot. Theysupportthecaseoftheprosecutionon
the role played by themandnothing damaging could be brought by the
defenceintheircrossexamination.
16. Itwillbeusefultorefertothemedicalevidence.PW6Dr.Jafaris
themedical officer to whomPW1Maroti andPW2Pundlik approached
withthevictimchild. Dr.Jafarstatesthaton11th February,2013,whenhe
wasinhisclinic,atabout09:30p.m.to10:00p.m.,threepersonsfromZatala
broughtonegirlchildpatient.Hefurtherstatesthatthechildwaswrapped
in bed sheet, she was aged about 2 and to three years and on her
examination,hefoundthatshewasdead.Therewerewoundsofbitesonher
mouthandthereafterthosepersonstookawayherdeadbody.Healsostates
thatthepolicehadrecordedhisstatement. Inthecrossexamination,Dr.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
13conf01.15
Jafar states that he had not seen the cutting marks on the lips of the
deceased.Hefurtherdeposesinthecrossexaminationthathehadseenthe
woundsonthemouthofthedeceasedandmerelyheexaminedtheheart
beatsandpulse.
17. PW10isDr.Gadgeandheconductedthepostmortem.Hestates
thaton12th February,2013,hereceivedarequisitionletterandaletterfor
video shooting of the process of postmortem and also received certain
queries.Hefurtherstatesthatthepostmortemexaminationwasconducted
on12th February, 2013between1505 to 1705hoursalongwith Dr. Major
Kuchewar,Dr.R.D.Meshram,Dr.R.R.KhetreandDr.L.P.Durgawad. Dr.
Gadge.Hethenstatesthathefoundbothupperandlowerlipsweremissing
andtherewasevidenceofperennialtearwithmergingofvaginalandanal
orifice, the details of whichwere referred in columnNos.17 and 21. He
furtherstatesthatdriedbloodanddriedbloodstainsandfaecalmatterover
genitalandperennialregionwerefound,limbswerestraightandhandswere
partlyclenched. Dr. Gadgefurtherstatesabouttheinjuriesfoundonthe
deadbodyasunder:
(1) Multiple abrasions over right zygomatic regionof sizesrangingfrom0.5cmx0.5cmto0.3cmx0.2cmreddish.
(2) Abrasionover left uppereyelidof size 0.5 cmx0.5cmreddish.
(3) Abrasionoverrightcheekofsize4cmx4cmreddish.
(4) Abrasionoverleftcheekofsize8.5cmx7cmreddish.
(5) Evidenceofmissingbothupperandlowerlipsexposing
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
14conf01.15
labialfatwithcleancutmarginsseenperiorallywithoutbloodinfiltration(postmorteminnature).
(6) Laceratedwoundoverchin,midlineofsize3cmmuscledeep with tissue missing, margins irregular and bloodinfiltratedreddish.
(7) Bitemarkoverandaroundrightnippleoveraregionofsize5cmx5cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(8) Bitemarkoverandaroundleftnippleoveraregionofsize3cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(9) Bite mark over abdomen, 1 cm right at the level ofumbilicusoveraregionofsize,4cmx3.5cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(10) Bitemarkoverabdomeninthemidline,5cmbelowtheumbilicus, over a regionof size 3 cmx 3 cm, marginscontusedreddish.
(11) Bitemarkoverabdomeninthemidline,5cmbelowtheumbilicus, over a regionof size 3 cmx 3 cm, marginscontusedreddish.
(12) Bite mark over lateral aspect of right shoulder, over aregionofsize5cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(13) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(14) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx3cm, margins contused reddish, separated from injuryNo.13by1.5cm.
(15) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx2.5cm,marginscontused,reddish,separatedfrominjuryNo.14by1cm.
(16) Bitemarkoverleftbuttock,overaregionofsize3.7cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.
(17) Multiplelacerationsovervaginalandanalregionmergingvaginalandanalorifice(perennialtearat3, 6and9O'clock positions), margins irregular, blood infiltrated,reddish.
(18) Abrasionoverleftkneejointregion,inanterioraspectofsize1cmx0.5cmreddish.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
15conf01.15
PW10Dr.GadgefurtherstatesthattheinjuryNo.6wascausedbynibbling
byteethandinjuryNos.7to16arecausedbyhumanbitesandinjuryNo.17is
caused by forceful sexual assault. He also states that on internal
examination, he found that under scalp contusion over frontoparietal
region of size 6 cm x 5 cm, irregular and reddish and under the scalp
contusion over left temporal region of size 2.5 cmx 2 cm, irregular and
reddish. No evidence of fracture to vault and base of skull. Ribs and
cartilagesintactnoinjury.Haemotomaoverleftsideofchestwall,anteriorly
correspondingtoinjuryNo.8undercolumnNo.17ofsize4.5cmx3cmwith
bloodinfiltrationinsurroundtissue,reddish.Dr.Gadgefurtherstatesabout
theevidenceoftear(perforation)invictimrectumof size3cmx2.5cm,
margins irregular with blood infiltration present corresponding to injury
No.17 under column No.17 with evidence of faecal matter coming out
throughthevent. Hethenstatesthattheevidenceoftearintheposterior
vaginalwallwithmergingofvaginalandanalcanal(perennialtear)surface
ragged, margins irregular, blood infiltrated and reddish extending and
tearing (perforating) the rectum corresponding to injury No.17 under
columnNo.17. Dr.Gadgethenstatesthatthedeceaseddiedwithinthree
hoursfromlastmeal. Hefurtherstatesthattheviscerawaspreservedand
bloodsoakedgaugedpiecekeptforD.N.A.analysisandcomparisonandskin
andtissuekeptforD.N.A.analysis. Hethenstatesthatthebloodsoaked
gaugedpiecekeptforbloodgroup,nailclippingskeptfordetectionofforeign
bloodgroupandtheskinandtissueskeptforhistopathologicalexamination.
Dr. Gadge thenstates that the cause of death is shockandhaemorrhage
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
16conf01.15
followingperennialtearwithmultipleinjuries. Hefurtherstatesthatthere
wasforcefulsexualassaultonthechildandtheinjuryNo.17wascausedby
forceful insertion of penis. PW10 Dr. Gadge further deposes that the
material was sent for histopathological examination and also for DNA
analysistoruleoutwhetheritisofthesamedeceased.Hethensubmitsthat
accordingtotheExh.54,theDNAreportshowstheperfectmatchingthatof
deceased.
18. Thewitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination.Anattemptwas
madetosuggestthattheinjuriesreferredbythewitnesscouldnothavebeen
caused by teeth bite. An attempt was also made to suggest that the
mentioning of injuries incolumnNos.21 and17 is a false opinionof the
witness. Anattemptwasalsomadetosuggestthatattheinstanceofthe
Investigating Officer and the relatives of the complainant, the witness is
giving a false version. The suggestions are flatly denied. Perusal of the
evidenceofthiswitnessleavesusnodoubtthatthevictimwassubjectednot
onlytoaforcefulsexualviolationbutabrutalandbeastlymanner.
19. Theaccusedwasalsosubjectedtomedicalexamination. Itwill
beusefultorefertotheevidenceofPW7Dr.Lingawar.Hestatesthaton12th
February,2013,whilehewasondutyandwasattachedtoPrimaryHealth
Centre,ParwaandMedicalOfficer,theaccusedwasbrought.Dr.Lingawar,
onexaminationtheaccused,statesthattherewasinjuryofabrasiononthe
tipoftheglanspenisof5mmx3mmsizeandthesaidinjurywascaused
within24hoursandtheaccusedwasfoundcapableforsexualintercourse.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
17conf01.15
Hefurtherstatesthathecollectedthesampleofblood,pubichair,nailsand
thesamplewashandedovertoHeadConstableaftersealingthesame. He
then states that a query letter was issued on 19th February, 2013 to him
throughAPIabouttheinjuryonthepenisoftheaccused.Hefurtherstates
thathehadopinedthatthesignofsexualintercoursewithin24hourswas
present andthe injury in the certificate could have beenpossible due to
sexualintercourse.
20. Thewitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination. Inthecross
examination,hestatesthattheinjuryofabrasionisasuperficialinjuryand
the healing period depends on the nature of abrasion. Though it was
suggested that he wrongly referred the age of injury, the suggestion was
denied.Inthecrossexamination,itisstatedbythewitnessthattheabrasion
couldbepossibleduetosexual intercourseorforsomeotherreasons. A
suggestionwasalsogiventothiswitnessthathehadgivenafalseopinion
andissuedfalseinjuryreportattheinstanceoftheInvestigatingOfficerand
thesuggestionwasdenied.
21. PW3RavindraMasramisthepanchwitness. HestatesthatPSI
VanjarihadcalledhimandoneYadaoTodsamtoactasapanchonthespot.
Thespotpanchnama(Exh.19)preparedbythepolice,bearshissignature.
He further states that the seizure panchnama (Exh.20) also bears his
signature. Hefurtherstatesthatfromthespot, thepolicehadseizedthe
pant,pairofchappal,piecesoffleshandearthfromthespot. Thiswitness
wassubjectedtocrossexamination.Incrossexamination,hestatesthathe
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
18conf01.15
hadnotreceivedsummonsfrompoliceandwascalledinthepoliceStation.
Anattemptismadetosuggestthatthepanchnamawasalreadypreparedand
hedeposedfalselyattheinstanceofthefatherofthevictim,heflatlydenied
thesuggestion.
22. PW5GaneshGhoseisthePoliceConstable attachedtoParwa
PoliceStationattherelevanttime.Hestatesaboutreceivingthedutypass
forreferringdeadbodyofthevictimtoconductpostmortemalongwithone
questionnaire.ThiswitnessalsodeposesabouttheletterissuedbyPIAmol
Malvetothehospitalauthoritiesforvideoshootingofthepostmortembeing
conducted by the hospital authorities. Then he refers to sealing of the
articles,suchasviscera,clothesetc.,beingdonebyDr.R.R.Khetreandthe
articleshandedovertohim. HealsodeposesaboutthelettergivenbyPSI
VanjaritoHeadoftheDepartmentofForensicSciencesforexaminationand
sealingthepiecesoffleshandtheearthseizedfromthespot. Thoughthe
witnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination,nothingwaselicitedfromthis
witnesssoastoshaketheversionofthiswitness.
23. PW4RajuDhadewarisalsothepanchwitness.Hestatesthathe
andoneHadaoTodsamwerecalledbythepoliceaspanch.Hefurtherstates
thattheaccusedwasarrestedintheirpresenceandthearrestpanchnama
(Exh.23)preparedbythepolice,bearshissignature. Hefurtherstatesthat
theseizurepanchnama(Exh.24)alsobearshissignature. PW4alsostates
thaton12thFebruary,2013at06:00p.m.,heandoneNareshwerecalledas
panchandHeadConstableRameshhadbroughtthesampleofblood,hair
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
19conf01.15
andnailoftheaccused. Aseizurepanchnama(Exh.26)bearshissignature.
Thiswitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination. Incrossexamination,he
statesthathedoesnotalwaysgotopolicestationaswitness. Hefurther
states that it is false that the articles were brought in the police station.
Though it was suggested that the panchnama was not prepared in his
presenceandhedeposedfalsely,heflatlydeniedthesame.
24. PW8 Ramesh Yedme is the Head Constable who took the
accusedformedicalexaminationandreceivedtheinjurycertificatefromthe
MedicalOfficer.Hewasalsohandedoverthebloodsample,pubichair,nail
andstainedbloodbythedoctor.Thiswitnessalsodeposesthatthesearticles
weresealed.Nothingdamagingwasbroughtinthecrossexamination.
25. PW11 Prakash Kshirsagar is the Head Constable and is the
carrierof muddemalpropertytoChemicalAnalyseralongwiththeletters
issuedbyPSIVanjari.
26. PW12 Ramesh Mendhe was working as Circle Officer at the
relevanttime. HedeposesthatonthedirectionsofNaibTahsildar,hehad
preparedthemapofthespotbyvisitingthespotinpresenceoftwopanchas.
ThesaidpanchnamaisatExh.74.Perusalofthesaiddocumentrevealsthat
thespotisthepartiallyconstructedbuildingoftheAnganwadiandtheactual
spotisoneofthecornersofthispartiallyconstructedbuilding.
27. Thus, on considering the evidence brought on record by the
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
20conf01.15
prosecution, we have no hesitation to say that the prosecution has
established and proved that the child victim Srushti was subjected to a
forceful sexual violence. The death of the victim is homicidal. On
consideringallthecircumstances,suchasthevictimwaslastlyseeninthe
company of the accused, within a short span the victim found dead
subjectedto sexual violation, the accusedwhowas lyingnear the victim,
MedicoLegalCertificateprovedbyPW7,weareoftheconsideredviewthat
theaccusedandtheaccusedaloneistheauthorofthecrimeofrapeand
murderofchildvictimSrushti.
28. Insofar as the aspect of confirmationof the death sentence is
concerned,itisthesubmissionofSmt.BhartiDangre,thelearnedPPthatthe
accusedwhoisthematernaluncleofthevictim,tookawaythechildvictim
fromthecustodyofhergrandfatheronapretextandthenthevictimwas
subjectedtoaviolentsexualassault.ThelearnedPPfurthersubmitsthatthe
actoftheaccusedisnotonlycruelbutshowingtheutmostperversityofthe
psycheoftheaccusedsatisfyinghislustandoverpoweringthehelplesschild
victimandsuchheinousactoftheaccusedhasshockedtheconsciousofthe
societyandforthesaidact,theonlypunishmentisthedeathpunishment.
ThelearnedPPplacesheavyrelianceonthejudgmentsoftheApexCourtas
wellasthisCourtinthecasesofBachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab(reported
inAIR1980SC,898);MachhiSinghandothers.v.StateofPunjab(reported
inAIR1983SC957);LaxmanNaik.v.StateofOrissa(reportedin1994(3)
SCC, 381); Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana .v. State of West Bengal
(reportedin 1994 (2) SCC, 220); Molai andanother .v. State of Madhya
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
21conf01.15
Pradesh (reported in AIR 200 SC, 177); Kunal Majumdar .v. State of
Rajasthan(reportedin2012(9)SCC,320);RajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.
State of Maharashtra (reported in 2012 (4) SCC, 37); Shankar Kisanrao
Khade.v. Stateof Maharashtra(reportedin2013(5)SCC,546); Gurvail
SinghaliasGalaandanother.v.StateofPunjab(reportedin2013(2)SCC,
713);BhaikonaliasBakulBorah.v.StateofAssam(reportedin2013(9)
SCC,769);VasantaSampatDupare.v.StateofMaharashtra(reportedin
2015(1)SCC,253);Sangeetandanother.v.StateofHaryana(reportedin
2013(2)SCC,452);Sandeep.v.StateofUttarPradesh(reportedin2012(6)
SCC, 107); State of Maharashtra .v. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @ Niraj
Ramesh Wakekar and another (reported in 2014 All MR (Cri), 2043);
Purushottam Dashrath Borate and another .v. State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No. 1439 of 2013, decidedon 08 th May, 2015); Swamy
Shraddananda alias Murali Manohar Mishra .v. State of Karnataka
(reported in 2008 (13) SCC, 767); and Deepak Rai .v. State of Bihar
(reportedin2013(10)SCC,421).
29. Per contra, Shri Bansod, the learned Counsel for the
appellant/accusedsubmitsthattheappellant/accusedisayoungboyhaving
a poor family backgroundandthe case would not fall in the category of
rarest of rare cases. Hesubmits that there is every possibility that the
appellant/accusedcouldberehabilitatedandwouldnotcommitanyoffence
infuture.Hefurthersubmitsthatatthemost,theappellant/accusedcanbe
directedtoservethemaximumterminjailwithoutremission.ShriBansod
also submits that the witnesses on which the prosecution relies are the
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
22conf01.15
interestedwitnessesbeingthefatherandthegrandfatherofthevictim. In
support of his submission, the learnedCounsel for theappellant/accused
placesheavyrelianceonthejudgmentsof theApexCourt inthecasesof
RameshbhaiChandubhaiRathod.v.StateofGujarat(reportedinAIR2011
SC,903)andNeelKumaraliasAnilKumar.v.StateofHaryana(reportedin
2012(5)SCC,766).
30. Beforewedealwiththeaspectreferredtoabove,itwillnotbeout
ofplacetostatethatthisCourtrecentlywasposedwiththesimilarquestion
inthematterof StateofMaharashtra.v.RakeshManoharKamble@Niraj
RameshWakekarandanother(citedsupra) towhich,oneofus(JusticeB.R.
Gavai)isaparty.
31. Asthevictiminthecaseisachild,itwillnotbeoutofplaceto
quotethewordsofKahlilGibraninhisfamousworkTheProphetas
Yourchildrenarenotyourchildren.
TheyarethesonsanddaughtersofLife'slongingforitself.
Theycomethroughyoubutnotfromyou,
Andthoughtheyarewithyouyettheybelongnottoyou.
Youmaygivethemyourlovebutnotyourthoughts,
Fortheyhavetheirownthoughts.
Youmayhousetheirbodiesbutnottheirsouls,
Fortheirsoulsdwellinthehousesoftomorrow,whichyoucannot
visit,noteveninyourdreams.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
23conf01.15
Hereis thecasewhereinthevictim,aminorchildof 2and years, was
subjectedtoaviolentsexualactinmostgruesomeandleasttosayinbeastly
manner.
32. As stated above, this Court in somewhat the similar
circumstance,whileconsideringtheconfirmationofdeathpenalty,indepth
and detailed, considered the various aspects in the matter of State of
Maharashtra .v. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @ Niraj Ramesh Wakekar and
another (cited supra). It will not be out of place to refer the relevant
observationsofthisCourtinthematterof StateofMaharashtra.v.Rakesh
ManoharKamble@NirajRameshWakekarandanother(citedsupra).Inthe
saidmatter,theaccusedRakeshandaccusedAmaraskedfordrinkingwater
toPW1Prabhaandshegavewaterthroughwindowofthehouse.Accused
RakeshaskedPW1Prabhatoopenthedoor. Asshepaidnoheedtohis
demand,bygivingblowsonthedoor,hemadePW1Prabhatoopenthe
door. AccusedRakeshwasbehindthedaughter of PW1Prabha, namely
Kanchan.PW1Prabhasensingdanger,gavesignaltodaughterKanchanto
runaway.ThereafterKanchanranaway.AccusedRakeshandAmarchased
her.ThoughKanchanmadeanattempttotakeshelterofoneBhimrao,they
ledassaultonBhimraoandtookawayKanchantowardsthelandownedby
oneMankar. WhenthewitnessPW1Prabhaandotherwitnessesrushed
towardsthesaidland,theyfoundthatKanchanwaslyingintheland. She
wasdeadandhavinginjuriesonhercheek,headandbreast. Inthecaseof
RakeshKamble, thisCourtfoundthatthedeceasedwaslastseenwiththe
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
24conf01.15
accusedpersonsinlatenightandthedeadbodywasdiscoveredinthenext
morning. ThisCourt,onappreciatingtheevidenceofthosewitnesseswho
heard the screams of the deceased for help, immediate disclosure of the
namesoftheaccusedbythemothertothepolicepatilandfindingthebody
in the morning, held that the last seen theory was established by the
prosecution. Inthepresentmatter,thetimegapbetweenthedeceasedlast
seenwiththeaccusedandfindingthedeadbodyofthedeceasedvictimwho
wassubjectedtosexual exploitationandtheaccused lyingnear thedead
bodyisverynarrowandproximate.
33. Inthepresentcase,theevidenceofthegrandfathershowsthat
thevictimwascarriedbytheaccusedat07:30p.m.andwithinashortspanof
lesserthananhour,thegrandfatherandthefatherfoundthedeadbodyof
thevictim. Thematerialonrecordshowsthatontheverydayi.e.on11th
February,2013,PW1Marotihadlodgedthereportinthepolicestationat
about21:25hours.ThisCourt,inthematterofRakeshKamble,byreferring
tovariousjudgmentsoftheApexCourt,observedthus
71. What is most important inthepresent case is
thetimegapbetweentheperiodwhentheaccusedwere
lastseentogetherwiththedeceasedandfindingofthedead
bodyofthedeceased.Fromtheevidenceoftheprosecution
witnesses,itcansafelybeconcludedthatthedeceasedwas
last seen together with the accusedbetween3.00 to 3.30
a.m.inthemidnightof17to18December,2005.Thedead
bodywasdiscoveredimmediatelythereafterinthemorning
after P.W.4 Sanjay Mankar had noticed blood stained
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
25conf01.15
clothesofthedeceasedinhisfarm.Itwillbeappropriateto
refertotheobservationsmadebytheHon'bleApexCourtin
the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Satish (cite supra)
whichareasunder:
"22. The lastseen theory comes into playwherethetimegapbetweenthepointoftimewhenthe accused and the deceased were last seenaliveandwhenthedeceasedisfounddeadissosmallthatpossibility of any person other than the accusedbeingtheauthorofthecrimebecomesimpossible.Itwould be difficult in some cases to positivelyestablish that the deceased was last seen with theaccusedwhenthereisalonggapandpossibilityofother persons coming in between exists. In theabsenceofanyotherpositiveevidencetoconcludethat the accused and the deceased were last seentogether, it would be hazardous to come to aconclusionofguiltinthosecases.Inthiscasethereispositiveevidencethatthedeceasedandtheaccusedwere seen together by witnesses Pws 3 and 5, inadditiontotheevidenceofP.W.2.
(emphasissupplied)
34. Shri Bansod, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused
submits that the witnesses brought by the prosecutionare the interested
witnessesbeingthefatherandgrandfatherofthevictim. ThisCourtalso
consideredthat aspect in thematter of RakeshKamble whereina similar
standwastakenbythedefence.ThisCourtobservedthus
47. Theanotherlimbofattackontheevidenceofthese
witnessesisthattheyaretheinterestedwitnessesandassuch
reliancecouldnotbeplacedontheevidenceofthesewitnesses.
Itwillberelevanttorefertoparagraphno.39oftheJudgmentof
theApexCourtinthecaseofSubalGhoraiandothersvs.Stateof
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
26conf01.15
West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 607 :
[2014ALLSCR184],whichreadsasunder:
"39. It is true that the prosecution has relied on theevidenceofinterestedwitnessesbut,interestedwitnessisnotnecessarilyabadwitness.Infact,ifthewitnessisrelated to the deceased, there is less chance of hisleaving aside the real assailants. The evidence ofinterestedwitness has to be analysedwith care. But,oncethecourtcomestotheconclusionthatitistruthfuland in accord with the relevant circumstances onrecord, the court shouldnot hesitate to accept it andrecordconvictiononthebasisthereof.Inthiscase,alltheeyewitnesses areconsistent about the prosecutioncaseasregardsassaultonthedeceasedandsettingonfire of the houses of Dharas. We are, therefore, notinclinedtorejecttheirevidenceonthegroundthattheyarerelatedtothedeceased.Asalreadynoted,twooftheeyewitnessesi.e.P.W.12JaminiandP.W.13Mandakiniare injuredwitnesses, whose presenceat the sceneofoffencecannot bedoubted. Theycompletely bear outtheprosecutioncase."
(emphasissupplied)
48. It can, thus, beclearly seenthat theattackonthe
groundthatthesewitnessesareinterestedwitnesseswouldalso
benotsustainable.
35. In the present matter also, as we find that the version of the
witnesses namely the father and grandfather i.e. Maroti and Pundlik
respectively is truthful and reliable version, we are unable to accept the
submissionofthelearnedCounselfortheappellant/accused.Itisalsonotin
disputethatthepresentcaseisbasedonthecircumstantialevidence. The
lawiswellsettledonthisaspect.Itwillnotbeoutofplacetorefertheoftenly
quotedthejudgmentoftheApexCourtonthecircumstantialevidencei.e.in
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
27conf01.15
thecaseofSharadBirdichandSarda.v.StateofMaharashtra(reportedin
2009ALLSCR(O.C.C.),281). ThesameisalsoreferredbythisCourtinthe
matterofRakeshKambleandtheobservationsreadthus
37. Undoubtedly, the present case is based on the
circumstantialevidence.Thelawontheaspectofconvictionin
the case of circumstantial evidence has nowbeenvery well
crystalized.Itwillberelevanttoreferparagraphs152,153and
154oftheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof Sharad
BirdhichandSardavs. Stateof Maharashtra, 116 : [2009ALL
SCR(O.C.C.)281]whichreadasunder:
"152.BeforediscussingthecasesrelieduponbytheHighCourt, we would like to cite a few decisions on thenature, character and essential proof required in acriminal case which rests on circumstantial evidencealone.ThemostfundamentalandbasicdecisionofthisCourt is Hanumant V. State of MadhyaPradesh. Thiscase has beenuniformly followed andapplied by thisCourtinalargenumberoflaterdecisionsuptodate,forinstance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi .v. State of UttarPradeshandRamgopalv.StateofMaharashtra.ItmaybeusefultoextractwhatMahajan,JhaslaiddowninHanumantcase:
Itiswelltorememberthatincaseswheretheevidenceisof a circumstantial nature, the circumstances fromwhichtheconclusionofguiltistobedrawnshouldinthefirst instance be fully established, and all the facts soestablished should be consistent only with thehypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, thecircumstances should be of a conclusive nature andtendencyandtheyshouldbesuchastoexcludeeveryhypothesisbuttheoneproposedtoberoved.Inotherwords,theremustbeachainofevidencesofarcompleteasnottoleaveanyreasonablegroundforaconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedanditmustbesuchastoshowthatwithinallhumanprobabilitytheactmusthavebeendonebytheaccused.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
28conf01.15
153.Acloseanalysisofthisdecisionwouldshowthatthefollowing conditions must be fulfilled before a caseagainstanaccusedcanbesaidtobefullyestablished:
(1)thecircumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionofguiltistobedrawnshouldbefullyestablished.
ItmaybenotedherethatthisCourtindicatedthatthecircumstancesconcerned'mustorshould'andnot'maybe'established. There is notonlyagrammatical butalegaldistinctionbetween'maybeproved'and'mustbeorshouldbeproved'aswasheldbythisCourtinShivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra where thefollowing observations were made:(SCC para 19, p.807:SCC(Cri)p.1047).
Certainly,itisaprimaryprinciplethattheaccusedmustbe and not merely may be guilty before a court canconvictandthementaldistancebetween'maybe'and'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures fromsureconclusions.
(2) thefactssoestablishedshouldbeconsistentonlywiththehypothesisoftheguiltoftheaccused,thatistosay, they should not be explainable on any otherhypothesisexceptthattheaccusedisguilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusivenatureandtendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesisexcepttheonetobeproved,and
(5) theremustbeachainofevidencesocompleteasnottoleaveanyreasonablegroundfortheconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandmustshowthat in all humanprobability the act must havebeendonebytheaccused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,constitutethepanchsheeloftheproofofacasebasedoncircumstantialevidence."
36. We have already referred to the circumstances on which the
prosecutionrelies,weneednotrepeatthesame. Sufficetosaythatthese
circumstancesareprovedbytheprosecution. Thecrucialquestionforour
consideration is now whether the death penalty awarded to the
appellant/accusedneedstobeconfirmedornot. Thisaspectisalsonow
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
29conf01.15
crystallized by the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Bachan
Singh.v.StateofPunjabandMachhiSinghandothers.v. StateofPunjab
(citedsupra)as
75. TheConstitutionBenchoftheHon'bleApexCourt
inthecaseof BachanSinghvs. Stateof Punjab(supra) while
upholding the constitutionality of Section 302 of the Indian
PenalCode,insofarasitprovidesdeathsentenceand section
354(3)ofCr.P.C.hasobservedthus:
195. In Jagmohan, this Court had held that thissentencing discretion is to be exercised judicially onwellrecognised principles, after balancing all theaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesofthecrime.By "wellrecognised principles" the Court obviouslymeant the principles crystallised by judicial decisionsillustratingastowhatwereregardedasaggravatingormitigatingcircumstancesinthosecases.ThelegislativechangessinceJagmohanaswehavediscussedalreadydonothavetheeffectofabrogatingornullifyingthoseprinciples.Theonlyeffectisthattheapplicationofthoseprinciples is now to be guided by the paramountbeacons of legislative policy discernible from Sections354(3)and235(2),namely:(1)Theextremepenaltycanbeinflictedonlyingravestcasesofextremeculpability:(2)Inmakingchoiceofthesentence,inadditiontothecircumstancesoftheoffence,dueregardmustbepaidtothecircumstancesoftheoffenderalso.
196. We will first notice some of the aggravatingcircumstanceswhich, intheabsenceofanymitigatingcircumstances,havebeenregardedasanindicationforimpositionoftheextremepenalty.
197.Preplanned,calculated,coldbloodedmurderhasalwaysbeenregardedasoneofanaggravatedkind.InJagmohan,itwasreiteratedbythisCourtthatifamurderis"diabolicallyconceivedandcruellyexecuted",itwouldjustify the imposition of the death penalty on themurderer. The same principle was substantiallyreiterated by V. R. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for theBench,inEdigaAnamma,intheseterms:
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
30conf01.15
"The weapons used and the manner of their use, thehorrendousfeaturesofthecrimeandhapless, helplessstateofthevictim,andthelike,steeltheheartofthelawforasternersentence."
198.ItmaybenotedthatthisindicatorforimposingthedeathsentencewascrystallisedinthatcaseafterpayingdueregardtotheshiftinlegislativepolicyembodiedinSection354(3)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973,althoughonthedateofthatdecision(February11,1974),thisprovisionhadnotcomeintoforce.InParasRam'scase,also,towhichareferencehasbeenmadeearlier,itwasemphaticallystatedthatapersonwhoinafitofantisocial piety commits "bloodcurdling butchery" of hischild, fully deserves to be punished with death. InRajendra Prasad, however, the majority (of 2 : 1) hascompletely reversed the view that had been taken inEdigaAnammaregardingtheapplicationof Section354(3)onthispoint.Accordingtoit,aftertheenactmentofSection354(3), 'murdermostfoul'isnotthetest. Theshockingnatureofthecrimeorthenumberofmurderscommittedisalsonotthecriterion.Itwassaidthatthefocushasnowcompletelyshiftedfromthecrimetothecriminal."Specialreasons"necessaryforimposingdeathpenalty"mustrelatenottothecrimeassuchbuttothecriminal".
199. With great respect, we find ourselves unable toagree to this enunciation. As weread Sections 354 (3)and235(2)andotherrelatedprovisionsoftheCodeof1973,itisquitecleartousthatformakingthechoiceofpunishmentorforascertainingtheexistenceorabsenceof"specialreasons"inthatcontext,theCourtmustpaydueregardbothtothecrimeandthecriminal. Whatisthe relative weight to be given to the aggravating andmitigating factors, depends on the facts andcircumstances of the particular case. More often thannot, these two aspects are so intertwined that it isdifficult to give a separate treatment to eachof them.Thisissobecause'styleistheman'.Inmanycases,theextremelycruelorbeastlymannerofthecommissionofmurder is itself a demonstratedindexof thedepravedcharacter of the perpetrator. That is why, it is notdesirabletoconsiderthecircumstancesofthecrimeandthecircumstancesofthecriminalintwoseparatewatertightcompartments.Inasense,tokillistobecruelandtherefore all murders are cruel. But such cruelty mayvaryinitsdegreeofculpability.Anditisonlywhentheculpabilityassumestheproportionofextremedepravitythat"specialreasons"canlegitimatelybesaidtoexist.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
31conf01.15
200.DrawinguponthepenalstatutesoftheStatesinU.S. A. framedafter Furmanv. Georgia, in general, andclauses2(a),(b),(c),and(d)oftheIndianpenalCode(Amendment)Billpassedin1978bytheRajyaSabha,inparticular,Dr.Chitalehassuggestedthese"aggravatingcircumstances":
"Aggravatingcircumstances:ACourtmay,however,inthe following cases impose the penalty of death in itsdiscretion:
(a) if the murder has been committed after previousplanningandinvolvesextremebrutality;or
(b)ifthemurderinvolvesexceptionaldepravity;or
(c) if themurder is of a memberof anyof the armedforcesoftheUnionorofamemberofanypoliceforceorofanypublicservantandwascommitted
(i)whilesuchmemberorpublicservantwasonduty;or
(ii)inconsequenceofanythingdoneorattemptedtobedoneby suchmember or public servant in the lawfuldischargeofhisdutyassuchmemberorpublicservantwhetheratthetimeofmurderhewassuchmemberorpublicservant,asthecasemaybe,orhadceasedtobesuchmemberorpublicservant;or
(d) if themurder is of a personwhohadacted in thelawfuldischargeofhisdutyunderSection43oftheCodeof Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had renderedassistancetoaMagistrateorapoliceofficerdemandinghisaidorrequiringhisassistanceunder Section37andSection129ofthesaidCode."
201. Stated broadly, there can be no objection to theacceptanceoftheseindicatorsbutaswehaveindicatedalready,wewouldprefernottofetterjudicialdiscretionbyattemptingtomakeanexhaustiveenumerationonewayortheother.
202. In Rajendra Prasad, the majority said : "It isconstitutionally permissible to swing a criminal out ofcorporeal existence only if the security of State andsociety, public order and the interests of the generalpubliccompelthatcourseasprovidedinArticle19(2)to(6)."Ourobjectionisonlytotheword"only".Whileitmaybeconcededthatamurderwhichdirectlythreatens,orhasanextremepotentialitytoharmorendangerthesecurity of State and society, public order and theinterests of the general public, may provide "specialreasons"tojustifytheimpositionoftheextremepenaltyonthepersonconvictedofsuchaheinousmurder,itisnotpossibletoagreethatimpositionofdeathpenaltyon
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
32conf01.15
murdererswhodonotfallwithinthisnarrowcategoryisconstitutionally impermissible. WehavediscussedandheldabovethattheimpugnedprovisionsinSection302,PenalCode,beingreasonableandinthegeneralpublicinterest, donotoffend Article19, or its 'ethos'; nordothey in anymanner violate Articles 21 and14. All thereasonsgivenbyusforupholdingthevalidityofSec.302,Penal Code, fully apply to the caseof Section354 (3),Code of Criminal Procedure, also. The same criticismappliestotheviewtakeninBishnuDeoShawv.Stateof WestBengal,(1979)3SCC714,whichfollowsthedictuminRajendraPrasad(ibid).
203. In several countries which have retained deathpenalty,preplannedmurderformonetarygain,orbyanassassinhiredformonetaryrewardis,also,consideredacapitaloffenceofthefirstdegreewhich,intheabsenceof any ameliorating circumstances, is punishable withdeath. Such rigid categorisation would dangerouslyoverlap the domain of legislative policy. It maynecessitate, asitwere, aredefinitionof 'murder'or itsfurther classification. Then, insomedecisions, murderbyfirearm,oranautomaticprojectileorbomb,orlikeweapon,theuseofwhichcreatesahighsimultaneousriskofdeathorinjurytomorethanoneperson,hasalsobeen treated as an aggravated type of offence. Noexhaustiveenumerationofaggravatingcircumstancesispossible. But this much can be said that in order toqualify for inclusion in the category of "aggravatingcircumstances" which may form the basis of 'specialreasons'in Section354(3), circumstancefoundonthefactsofaparticularcase,mustevidenceaggravationofanabnormalorspecialdegree.
204.Dr.Chitaleyhassuggestedthesemitigatingfactors"Mitigating circumstances : In the exercise of itsdiscretionintheabovecases,theCourtshall takeintoaccountthefollowingcircumstances:
(1)Thattheoffencewascommittedundertheinfluenceofextremementaloremotionaldisturbance.
(2)Theageoftheaccused.Ittheaccusedisyoungorold,heshallnotbesentencedtodeath.
(3)Theprobabilitythattheaccusedwouldnotcommitcriminal acts of violence as would constitute acontinuingthreattosociety.
(4)Theprobabilitythattheaccusedcanbereformedandrehabilitated.TheStateshallbyevidenceprovethattheaccuseddoesnotsatisfytheconditions3and4above.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
33conf01.15
(5)Thatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasetheaccused believed that he was morally justified incommittingtheoffence.
(6) That the accused acted under the duress ordominationofanotherperson.
(7)Thattheconditionoftheaccusedshowedthathewasmentallydefectiveandthatthesaiddefectimpairedhiscapacitytoappreciatethecriminalityofhisconduct."
205. We will do no more than to say that these areundoubtedlyrelevantcircumstancesandmustbegivengreatweightinthedeterminationofsentence.Someofthese factors like extreme youth can instead be ofcompellingimportance.InseveralStatesofIndia,thereare in force special enactments, according to which a'child'thatis,'apersonwhoatthedateofmurderwaslessthan16yearsofage',cannotbetried,convictedandsentencedtodeathorimprisonmentforlifeformurder,nordealtwithaccordingtothesamecriminalprocedureasanadult. ThespecialActsprovideforareformatoryprocedureforsuchjuvenileoffendersorchildren.
206. According to some Indian decisions, thepostmurder remorse, penitence or repentence by themurdererisnotafactorwhichmayinducetheCourttopassthelesserpenalty(e.g. MominuddinSardar). AIR1935Cal591.Butthosedecisionscannolongerbeheldtobegoodlawinviewofthecurrentpenologicaltrendsandthesentencingpolicy outlinedin Sections 235 (2)and 354 (3). We have already extracted the views ofMessingerandBittner(ibid),whichareinpoint.
207.Therearenumerousothercircumstancesjustifyingthe passing of the lighter sentence; as there arecountervailing circumstances of aggravation. "Wecannotobviouslyfeedintoajudicialcomputerallsuchsituationssincetheyareastrological imponderables inan imperfect and undulating society." Nonetheless, itcannotbeoveremphasisedthatthescopeandconceptofmitigatingfactorsintheareaofdeathpenaltymustreceive a liberal and expansive construction by thecourtsinaccordwiththesentencingpolicywritlargeinSection 354 (3). Judges should never be bloodthirsty.Hangingofmurderershasneverbeentoogoodforthem.Facts and figures albeit incomplete, furnished by theUnion of India, show that in the past, Courts haveinflictedtheextremepenaltywithextremeinfrequencyafactwhichatteststothecautionandcompassionwhichtheyhavealwaysbroughttobearontheexerciseoftheirsentencing discretion in so grave a matter. It is,
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
34conf01.15
therefore, imperative to voice the concernthat courts,aidedbythebroadillustrativeguidelinesindicatedbyus,will discharge the onerous function with evermorescrupulouscareandhumaneconcern,directedalongthehighroadoflegislativepolicyoutlinedinSec.354(3),viz.,thatforpersonsconvictedofmurder,lifeimprisonmentistheruleanddeathsentenceanexception.Arealandabidingconcernforthedignityofhumanlifepostulatesresistancetotakingalifethroughlaw'sinstrumentality.Thatoughtnottobedonesaveintherarestofrarecaseswhen the alternative option is unquestionablyforeclosed.
77. TheApexCourt inthecaseof MachhiSinghand
othersvs.StateofPunjab(supra)hasobservedthus;
32.Thereasonswhythecommunityasawholedoesnotendorse the humanistic approach reflected in "deathsentenceinnocase"doctrinearenotfartoseek.Inthefirstplace,theveryhumanisticedificeisconstructedonthefoundationof"reverenceforlife"principle.Whenamemberofthecommunityviolatesthisveryprinciplebykillinganothermember, thesocietymaynot feel itselfboundbytheshacklesofthisdoctrine.Secondly,ithastoberealisedthateverymemberofthecommunityisableto live with safety without his or her own life beingendangered because of the protective arm of thecommunityandonaccountoftheruleoflawenforcedbyit.Theveryexistenceoftheruleoflawandthefearofbeingbroughttobookoperatesasadeterrenttothosewho have no scruples in killing others if it suits theirends.Everymemberofthecommunityowesadebttothecommunityforthisprotection.Wheningratitudeisshowninsteadofgratitudeby'killing'amemberofthecommunity which protects the murderer himself frombeingkilled, orwhenthecommunityfeelsthat forthesakeof self preservationthekiller hastobekilled, thecommunity may well withdraw the protection bysanctioningthedeathpenalty. Butthecommunitywillnotdosoineverycase.Itmaydoso(inrarestofrarecases)whenitscollectiveconscienceissoshockedthatitwill expect the holders of the judicial power centre toinflict death penalty irrespective of their personalopinionasregardsdesirabilityorotherwiseofretainingdeath penalty. The community may entertain such asentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromtheplatformofthe motive for, or the manner of commission of the
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
35conf01.15
crime, or the antisocial or abhorrent nature of thecrime,suchasforinstance:
IMannerofCommissionofMurder
Whenthemurderiscommittedinanextremelybrutal,grotesque,diabolical, revolting,ordastardlymannersoas to arouse intense and extreme indignation of thecommunity.Forinstance.
(i)Whenthehouseofthevictimissetaflamewiththeendinviewtoroasthimaliveinthehouse,
(ii) When the victim is subjected to inhuman acts oftortureorcrueltyinordertobringabouthisorherdeath.
(iii)Whenthebodyofthevictimiscutintopiecesorhisbodyisdismemberedinafiendishmanner.
IIMotiveforcommissionofmurder.
When the murder is committed for a motive whichevincestotaldepravityandmeanness.forinstancewhen(a) a hired assassin commits murder for the sake ofmoney or reward; (b) a coldblooded murder iscommittedwitha deliberatedesigninorder to inheritpropertyortogaincontroloverpropertyofawardoraperson under the control of the murderer or visaviswhomthemurdererisinadominatingpositionorinapositionoftrust;(c)amurderiscommittedinthecourseforbetrayalofthemotherland.
IIIAntisocialorsociallyabhorrentnatureofthecrime.
(a)WhenmurderofamemberofaScheduledCasteorminoritycommunityetc.,iscommittednotforpersonalreasonsbutincircumstanceswhicharousesocialwrath.Forinstancewhensuchacrimeiscommittedinordertoterrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeingfroma place or in order to deprive themof, or makethem surrender, lands or benefits conferred on themwith a view to reverse past injustices and in order torestorethesocialbalance.
(b) Incasesof 'brideburning' andwhatareknownas'dowrydeaths'orwhenmurderiscommittedinordertoremarryforthesakeofextractingdowryonceagainortomarryanotherwomanonaccountofinfatuation.
IVMagnitudeofcrime.
Whenthecrimeisenormousinproportion.Forinstancewhen multiple murders say of all or almost all themembersofafamilyoralargenumberofpersonsofaparticularcaste,community,orlocality,arecommitted.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
36conf01.15
VPersonalityofvictimofmurder.
Whenthevictimofmurderis(a)aninnocentchildwhocould not have or has not provided even an excuse,much less a provocation, for murder. (b) a helplesswoman or a person rendered helpless by old age orinfirmity.(c)whenthevictimisapersonvisaviswhomthemurdererisinapositionofdominationortrust,(d)whenthevictimis a public figuregenerally lovedandrespectedbythecommunityfortheservicesrenderedbyhimandthemurderiscommittedforpoliticalorsimilarreasonsotherthanpersonalreasons.
33. In this background the guidelines indicated inBachanSingh'scase(supra)willhavetobeculledoutandapplied to the facts of each individual case where thequestion of imposing of death sentence arises. Thefollowing propositions emerge from Bachan Singh'scase:
(i) Theextremepenalty of deathneednot he inflictedexceptingravestcasesofextremeculpability;
(ii)Beforeoptingforthedeathpenaltythecircumstancesof the 'offender' also require to be taken intoconsideration along with the circumstances of the'crime';
(iii)Lifeimprisonmentistheruleanddeathsentenceisan exception. In other words death sentence must beimposedonlywhenlifeimprisonmentappearstobeanaltogetherinadequatepunishmenthavingregardtotherelevantcircumstancesofthecrime,andprovidedandonly provided, the option to impose sentence ofimprisonment for life cannot be conscientiouslyexercisedhavingregardtothenatureandcircumstancesofthecrimeandalltherelevantcircumstances;
(iv) A balancesheet of aggravating and mitigatingcircumstanceshastobedrawnupandindoingsothemitigating circumstances have to be accorded fullweightageandajustbalancehastobestruckbetweentheaggravatingandthemitigatingcircumstancesbeforetheoptionisexercised.
34. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia thefollowingquestionsmaybeaskedandanswered:
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crimewhich renders sentence of imprisonment for lifeinadequateandcallsforadeathsentence?
(b)Arethecircumstancesofthecrimesuchthatthereisnoalternativebuttoimposedeathsentenceevenafteraccording maximum weightage to the mitigating
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
37conf01.15
circumstanceswhichspeakinfavouroftheoffender?
ThisCourt,inthejudgmentofRakeshKamblebyreferringthejudgmentsof
theApexCourt,observedthus
76. Itcan,thus,beseentheConstitutionBenchofthe
ApexCourtclearlyheldthatinfindingoutpresenceorabsence
ofspecialreasonsthecourtmustpaydueregardbothtothe
crimeandthecriminal.Ithasbeenheldthatwhatistherelative
weight to be givento the aggravating andmitigating factors,
depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular
case.Ithasfurtherbeenheldthatinmanycasestheextremely
cruelorbeastlymannerofthecommissionofmurderisitselfa
demonstrated index of the depraved character of the
perpetrator. It has been held that only when the culpability
assumes the proportion of extreme depravity that special
reasonscanlegitimatelybesaidtoexist.
78. It has, thus, been held that when community's
collective conscience is so shocked, that it will expect the
holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty
irrespectiveoftheirpersonalopinionasregardsdesirabilityor
otherwise of retaining death penalty. The Apex Court has
further held that the factors that are to be taken into
consideration while considering as to whether the death
sentenceistobeinflictedornot,arethemannerofcommission
of murder, motive for commission of murder, antisocial or
sociallyabhorrentnatureofthecrimeandmagnitudeofcrime
andpersonalityofvictimofmurder.It hasbeenfurtherheld
that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an
exception. It has beenfurther held that the balancesheet of
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
38conf01.15
aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstanceshastobedrawn,full
weightageistobegiventomitigatingcircumstancesandajust
balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the
mitigatingcircumstancesbeforetheoptionisexercised.Ithas
beenfurtherheldthatwhiletakingdecisionquestionmaybe
asked and answered as to whether there is something
uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of
imprisonmentforlifeinadequateandcallsforadeathsentence.
Another question that is required to be answered is, are the
circumstancesofthecrimesuchthatthereisnoalternativebut
to impose death sentence even after according maximum
weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in
favouroftheoffender.
37. ByapplyingyardsticksetbytheApexCourtinthecaseofBachan
Singh.v.StateofPunjabandMachhiSinghandothers.v. StateofPunjab
(cited supra) and the observations of this Court in the matter of Rakesh
Kambleifthepresentmatterisconsidered,inouropinion,intheguidelines
ofaggravatingcircumstances,thereisamentionofclause(b)whichdeals
withthemurderwhichinvolvesexceptionaldepravity. Inthelightofthis
clause,ifthepresentmatterisseen,therecordrevealsthatthevictimisa
childoftwoandhalfyearsofage. Thevictimwassubjectedtoaforceful
sexualexploitation. Themedicalevidenceshowsthatthedeathiscaused
duetotheforcefulintercourse.Inouropinion,thepresentcasealsocovers
clause (a) of aggravating circumstances wherein it is referred that if a
murderiscommittedafterpreviousplanningandinvolvesextremebrutality.
Inthepresentmatter,achildwastakenfromthecustodyofthegrandfather
andinspiteofhisresistance,achildwassubjectedtosexualviolenceand
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
39conf01.15
thenwasdonetodeath. Inouropinion,theactoftheappellant/accused
fallsinclauses(a)and(b)oftheaggravatingcircumstances.Wewouldalso
take into consideration the mitigating circumstances referred to in the
judgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof BachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab
(citedsupra).Inouropinion,theonlymitigatingcircumstanceonwhichthe
appellant/accusedseeksbenefitisclause(2)i.e.theaccusedisayoungboy.
Even though the said mitigating circumstance of being at young age is
available to the appellant/accused while balancing the aggravating and
mitigating factors, we are of the opinion that the said mitigating
circumstancewouldnotbeofanyhelptotheappellant/accused.
38. Inouropinion,astheApexCourtobservedinMachhiSinghand
others.v.StateofPunjab(citedsupra),theactoftheappellant/accusedisof
suchanaturewhereinthecollective conscience is so shockedthat it will
expecttheholdersofthejudicialpowercentretoinflictdeathpenalty. The
Apex Court further observed that the community may entertain such a
sentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromtheplatformofthemotivefor,or
the manner of commission of the crime, or the antisocial or abhorrent
nature of the crime. (emphasis supplied). The Apex Court then quoted
certaininstances. Underthecaptionofmannerofcommissionofmurder,
theApexCourtrefersthatwhenthemurderiscommittedinanextremely
brutal,grotesque,diabolical,revolting,ordastardlymannersoastoarouse
intenseandextremeindignationofthecommunity. TheApexCourtthen
alsoreferstothecategoryofpersonalityofvictimofmurder.Whenitrefers
tothevictimofmurderis(a)aninnocentchildwhocouldnothaveorhasnot
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
40conf01.15
provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder. In the
presentcase,thereisabsolutelynodoubtinourmindthatthemurderis
committedinextremelybrutalanddastardlymanner.Whileconsideringthe
aspect of thepersonality of thevictim, therecordclearly reveals that the
victimisaninnocentchildoftwoandhalfyearswhohardlycouldhaveeither
providedevenanexcuseoraprovocationandwasahelplessvictimofthe
lustandtheappellant/accusednotonlyravishedthegirlwithaviolentsexual
attackbutalsoactedinbeastlymanner. Themedicalevidencehasshown
thatthevictimreceivedbitewoundsonthepartsofherbodynamelythe
cheeks,chestandbuttock.Thematerialalsoshowsthatthebodywaslying
onthespothavingthejeanspantremovedfromthepersonofthevictim.
The inquest panchnama shows that the victim was subjected to sexual
violenceandthevictimhadreceivedwoundsandbitesoncheeks,chestand
buttock. The version of the witnesses namely Maroti and Punclik, the
scientificevidenceintheformofpostmortemreport,leavesnodoubtthat
theaccusedactedinabsolutepervert,inhumanandbeastlymanner.
39. InthematterofRakeshKamble,whereinthevictimwasagirlof
19yearsofage,thisCourtbyconsideringthecruelandgruesomeactofthe
appellant/accused,posedcertainquestionsandarrivedataconclusionthat
thecasewouldsurelyfallinthecategoryofrarestofrarecases.ThisCourt
observedthus
99. Wouldthesocietynotexpecttheaccusedwhohave
committed such terror and in extreme brutal, dastardly,
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
41conf01.15
gruesome,cruelmannercommittedrapeofhelplessvictimand
killedherfornofaultofher,tobehanged.Wouldthesociety
notexpect,theholdersofthejudicialpowerscentre,toaward
proportionatesentencetotheaccusedwhohavenorespectfor
humanvaluesandhavetreatedayounggirlof19yearsinthe
mostbrutal,cruelanddastardlymanner.WouldtheSocietynot
expectsuchdepravedacttobedealtwithinasternmanner.We
also cannot ignore the recent amendments brought to the
IndianPenalCodeonaccountofhugepublichueandcrythat
aroseonaccountofdastardlyactintheheinousandgruesome
rapeandmurderof Nirbhaya.Theamendmentasamatterof
factecho'sthesentimentsoftheSocietyatlarge.Thesentiment
of theSociety is glaringexplicit, that suchheinouscrimeon
haplesswomenarerequiredtobedealtwithanironhand.We
have,therefore,nohesitationtoholdthat,intheperceptionof
theSocietyitwouldsurelybea"rarestofrare"casewhereinthe
deathsentenceisrequiredtobeimposed.
Inthepresentcase,aswehavestatedabove,thevictimwasoftwoandhalf
yearsofage,assuch,theheinousandgruesomerapeandmurderofthechild
victimat the hands of the appellant/accused, needs to be dealt with the
deterrentpunishmentlikedeathsentence.Itwillnotbeoutofplacetorefer
tocertainjudgmentsoftheApexCourt. TheApexCourtinthematterof
LaxmanNaik.v.StateofOrissa(citedsupra)hasheldthatthedeathsentence
imposedbythetrialCourtandconfirmedbytheHighCourtwasjustified.
Thefactsofthecasewerethevictimwasachildofsevenyearsofageandthe
accusedwasheruncle. Aftercommittingrapeonthevictim,theaccused
committedmurderofthevictim. TheApexcourtreferredtotheevidence
relatingtotheinjuriesonthedeceasedasunder
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
42conf01.15
16. Thesearchpartywhichdiscoveredthedeadbodyof
thedeceased in jungle, noticedthat her clothes weresoaked
withbloodandthereweremultipleinjuriesonthepersonofthe
deceasedasaredescribedbyDrPushpLataPW11inherpost
mortemreportEx.11aswellasinherstatementmadeinthe
Court.Therewasabrasionontheandfifthlumbarvertebra,as
wellasonleftindexfinger,backofforearm,rightmiddlefinger.
There was lacerated wound in the vagina extending towards
rectum and bruises over neck, right and left sternomastoid
muscles. Ondissectingtheunderlinedtissuesoftheneck,the
doctornoticedextravasationofbloodintosubcutaneoustissues
aswellasintheunderlyingsternomastoidmuscles.Thelarynx
andtracheawerecongestedcontainingfrothymucous.Bloody
froths were coming out from the mouth and nostrils. This
evidenceeloquentlyspeaksthattheinnocent,helplesssoulwas
firstsubjectedtobrutalandforciblesexualintercourseandthen
mercilesslydonetodeathbythrottlingsothatthereremainsno
directevidenceagainsttheculprit.
TheApexCourtthenonthebackdropof theevidenceof MedicalOfficer,
observedthus
28. The evidence of Dr Pushp Lata, PW 12, who
conductedthepostmortemoverthedeadbodyofthevictim
goestoshowthatshehadseveralexternalandinternalinjuries
onherpersonincludingaserious injuryinherprivateparts
showing the brutality which she was subjected to while
committingrapeonher.ThevictimoftheageofNitmacould
not have even ever resisted the act with which she was
subjectedto. Theappellantseemstohaveactedinabeastly
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
43conf01.15
mannerasaftersatisfyinghislusthethoughtthatthevictim
mightexposehimforthecommissionoftheoffenceofforcible
rapeonhertothefamilymembersandothers,theappellant
withaviewtoscreentheevidenceofhiscrimealsoputanend
tothelifeofinnocentgirlwhohadseenonlysevensummers.
The evidence on record is indicative of the fact as to how
diabolically the appellant had conceived of his plan and
brutally executedit andsuchacalculated,coldbloodedand
brutalmurderofagirl ofaverytenderageaftercommitting
rapeonherwouldundoubtedlyfallinthecategoryofrarestof
therarecasesattractingnopunishmentotherthanthecapital
punishment and consequently we confirm the sentence of
death imposed upon the appellant for the offence under
Section 302 of the Penal Code. As regards the punishment
underSection376,neitherthelearnedtrialJudgenortheHigh
Courthaveawardedanyseparateandadditional substantive
sentenceand in viewof the fact that the sentence of death
awardedtotheappellanthasbeenconfirmedwealsodonot
deem it necessary to impose anysentenceon the appellant
underSection376.
(emphasissupplied).
40. TheApexCourtinthematterofRajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.
StateofMaharashtra(citedsupra),whereinthevictimwasachildofthree
yearsofage,byreferringtovariousjudgmentsincludingthejudgmentofthe
Apexcourtinthecaseof MachhiSinghandothers.v.StateofPunjaband
BachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab(citedsupra),observedthattheCourthasto
strikeabalancebetweenaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances. Itwill
notbeoutofplacetostatethatinthecaseofRajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.
State of Maharashtra (cited supra), the victim was subjected to sexual
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
44conf01.15
violenceandtherewerebitemarksonchestleftsidearoundnippleelliptical
withdiameters1xxmuscledeep. TheApexCourtinthesaidcase
observedthus
37. When the Court draws a balance sheet of the
aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,forthepurposesof
determiningwhethertheextremesentenceofdeathshouldbe
imposedupontheaccusedornot,thescaleofjusticeonlytilts
against the accused as there is nothing but aggravating
circumstancesevidentfromtherecordof theCourt. In fact,
onehastoreallystruggletofindoutiftherewereanymitigating
circumstancesfavouringtheaccused.
38. Anotheraspectofthematteristhattheminorchild
washelplessinthecruelhandsoftheaccused. Theaccused
was holding the child in a relationship of trustbelief and
confidence, in which capacity he took the child from the
houseofPW2.Inotherwords,theaccused,byhisconduct,has
belied the humanrelationship of trust and worthiness. The
accusedleft thedeceasedinabadlyinjuredconditioninthe
open fields without even clothes. This reflects the most
unfortunateandabusivefacetofhumanconduct,forwhichthe
accusedhastoblamenooneelsethanhisownself.
41. Inthepresentcasealso,theaccusedisthematernaluncleofthe
victim child. The Apex Court recently in the matter of Purushottam
DashrathBorateandanother.v.StateofMaharashtra(citedsupra),wherein
the victim deceased who was serving in a private company and was
subjectedtorapeandmurderatthehandsofthesecurityguardandwas
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
45conf01.15
awarded death sentence on consideration of the submission that the
appellant/accused is a person of young age, observed that such
compassionategroundsarepresentinmostofthecasesandarenotrelevant
for interference in awarding death sentence. The Apex Court further
observed that the principle that when the offence is gruesome and was
committedinacalculatedanddiabolicalmanner,theageoftheaccusedmay
notbearelevantfactor.
15. In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a
givencase must dependupon the atrocity of the crime; the
conductofthecriminalandthedefencelessandunprotected
stateofthevictim. Impositionofappropriatepunishmentis
themannerinwhichtheCourtsrespondtothesociety'scryfor
justice against the criminals. Justice demands that Courts
should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the
Courtsreflectpublicabhorrenceofthecrime.TheCourtsmust
notonlykeepinviewtherightsof thecriminal butalsothe
rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while
consideringimpositionofappropriatepunishment.
TheApex Court also made it clear that lack of criminal antecedents also
cannotbeconsideredasmitigatingcircumstances,particularlytakinginto
consideration,thenatureofheinousoffenceandcoldandcalculatedmanner
inwhichitwascommittedbytheaccusedpersons.
42. TheApexCourtinthematterofVasantaSampatDupare.v.State
ofMaharashtra(citedsupra),whereinthevictimwasagirloffouryearsof
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
46conf01.15
ageandtheappellant/accused,aneighbourluringthevictimforgivingher
chocolate,rapedheranddonehertodeathbyhitofstones.TheApexCourt
onthebackdropofthemedicalevidence,namelythevictimwassubjectedto
forcefulsexualintercourse,thedeceasedwaslastseenwiththeaccusedand
theimmediatelodgementofreportbythefatherofthegirl,lendingcredence
totheprosecutioncase,observedthus
60. Inthecaseathand,aswefind,notonlywasthe
rape committed in a brutal manner but murder was also
committedin a barbaric manner. Therapeof a minor girl
childisnothingbutamonstrousburialofherdignityinthe
darkness.Itisacrimeagainsttheholybodyofagirlchildand
the soul of society and such a crime is aggravated by the
mannerinwhichithasbeencommitted. Thenatureofthe
crimeandthemannerinwhichithasbeencommittedspeaks
about its uncommonness. The crime speaks of depravity,
degradationanduncommonality.Itisdiabolicalandbarbaric.
The crime was committed in an inhuman manner.
Indubitably,thesegoalongwaytoestablishtheaggravating
circumstances.
61. We are absolutely conscious that mitigating
circumstancesaretobetakenintoconsideration.Thelearned
Counsel for the appellant pointing out the mitigating
circumstanceswouldsubmitthattheappellantisinhismid
fiftiesandthereispossibilityofhisreformation. Beitnoted,
theappellantwasagedaboutfortysevenyearsatthetimeof
commissionofthecrime.Asisnoticeable,therehasbeenno
remorseonthepartoftheappellant. Therearecaseswhen
this Court hascommutedthedeathsentenceto life finding
thattheaccusedhasexpressedremorseorthecrimewasnot
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
47conf01.15
premeditated.Buttheobtainingfactualmatrixwhenunfolded
stagebystagewouldshowthepremeditation, theproclivity
andtherapaciousdesire. ThelearnedCounselwouldsubmit
that theappellant hadnocriminal antecedents but wefind
that he was a historysheeter and had a number of cases
pendingagainsthim. Thatalonemaynotbesufficient. The
appalling cruelty shown by him to the minor girl child is
extremelyshockingandit getsaccentuated,whenhisageis
taken into consideration. It was not committed under any
mental stress or emotional disturbanceand it is difficult to
comprehendthathewouldnotcommitsuchactsandwould
be reformed or rehabilitated. As the circumstances would
graphicallydepict,hewouldremainamenacetosociety,fora
defenceless child has become his prey. In our considered
opinion,therearenomitigatingcircumstances.
62. As we perceive, this case deserves to fall in the
categoryoftherarestofrarecases.Itisinconceivablefromthe
perspectiveofthesocietythatamarriedmanagedabouttwo
scoresandsevenmakesafouryearsminorinnocentgirlchild
the prey of his lust and deliberately causes her death. A
helpless and defenceless child gets raped and murdered
becauseoftheacquaintanceoftheappellantwiththepeople
ofthesociety. Thisisnotonlybetrayalofanindividualtrust
butdestructionanddevastationofsocialtrust.Itisperversity
initsenormity.Itirrefragablyinvitestheextremeabhorrence
and indignationof the collective. It is ananathemato the
socialbalance.Inourview,itmeetsthetestoftherarestofthe
rarecaseandweunhesitatinglysohold.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::
Bomb
ay H
igh C
ourt
48conf01.15
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the order of
convictionandsentenceasrecordedbythelearnedtrialJudgeandconfirm
thedeathsentenceawardedbyhimtotheappellant/accused.
Inviewofthejudgmentandorderpassedinaforesaidreference,
noordersarerequiredtobepassedinCriminalAppealNo.321of2015filed
bytheappellant/accused.Intheresult,theCriminalAppealNo.321of2015
isdismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
*rrg. `
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:08 :::