VERY IMPORTANT POINT
When an innocent hapless girl of 7 years was subjected to brutal rape and gruesome murder by a person who was in a position of her trust and the finale was the dumping of her dead body in a well, his culpability assumes the proportion of extreme depravity and it being the rarest of the rare cases deserves sentence of death.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 363, 376, 302 and 201-Conviction under-Death sentence-Appeal-Offence of kidnapping, brutal rape and gruesome murder of a girl of 7 years of age and throwing her body in a well-Circumstantial evidence-Concurrent findings-Circumstances stand firmly established-Appellant was close to family of deceased-She used to call him uncle -His culpability assumes proportion of extreme depravity-This is a rarest of rare cases considering motivation of perpetrator, vulnerability of victim, enormity of crime and execution thereof-Sentence of death upheld.
       Held : It is of course true that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence but the tell-tale circumstances all of which stand firmly established are not compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis except that the appellant kidnapped Pinky, committed rape on her, then strangulated her to death and to cause disappearance of evidence of the murder threw her dead body in a well. The conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 376, 302 and 201 IPC must, therefore, be upheld. (Para 5)
       Further held : Taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the light of the above propositions we are of the firm opinion that the sentence of death should be maintained. In vain we have searched for mitigating circumstances - but found aggravating circumstances aplenty. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant was close to the family of Parmeshwar and the deceased and her siblings used to call her Tiwari uncle . Obviously her closeness with the appellant encourage her to go to his shop, which was near the saloon where she had gone for a haircut with her father and brother, and ask for some biscuits. The appellant readily responded to the request by taking her to the nearby grocery shop of Budhsen and handing over a packet of biscuits apparently as a preclude to his sinister design which unfolded in her kidnapping, brutal raps and gruesone murder - as the numerous injuries on her person testify; and the finale was the dumping of her dead body in a well. When an innocent hapless girl of 7 years was subjected to such barbaric treatment by a person who was in a position of her trust his culpability assumes the proportion of extreme depravity and arouses a sense of revulsion in the mind of the common man. In fine, the motivation of the perpetrator, the vulnerability of the victim, the enormity of the crime, the execution thereof persuade us to hold that this is a rarest of rare cases where the sentence of death is eminently desirable not only to deter others from committing such atrocious crimes but also to give emphatic expression to society a abhorrence of such crimes. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-The appellant was tried for the convicted of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 302 and 201 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol. For his conviction under Section 302 IPC he was sentenced to death and for the other convictions to different terms of rigorous imprisonment. As the appeal preferred by him in the High Court was dismissed, he has filed the instant appeal after obtaining special leave.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as follows :

(a) Parmeshwar Lal Sharma (PW 1) along with his wife and three children used to reside at Bhutari Tolla in the township of Budhar. Of the three children, Pinky (the deceased) was the youngest and her age at the time of her death was about seven years. The appellant who was also a resident of the same locality used to occasionally visit the family of Parmeshwar and his children used to address him as Tiwari Uncle .

(b) On April 30, 1995 at or about 6 P.M. Parmeshwar had gone to a hair cutting saloon in the local market along with his son Santosh (PW 4) and daughter Pinky. After Santosh and Pinky had their hair cut they went out of the saloon to play outside while Parmeshwar stayed back for his turn. After sometime Pinky went to the television repairing shop of the appellant which was by the side of the saloon. The appellant was then playing ludo with Suresh Gupta (PW 8) in his shop. Pinky requested the appellant to give her some toffees and biscuits whereupon he took her to the nearby grocery shop of Budhsen Gupta (PW 3), purchased a packet of biscuits and gave it to her. Thereafter both of them left shop of Budhsen.

(c) After his hair-cut when Parmeshwar came out of the saloon and enquired of his daughter, Santosh told him that Pinky had gone to the shop of the appellant and that he had given biscuits to her. On getting that information Parmeshwar along with Santosh went to the shop of the appellant but found it closed. They then went back to their house only to find that Pinky had not returned. Parmeshwar then went to the house of the appellant but he was not available there. Accompanied by his wife and other two children Parmeshwar then went in search of Pinky and in course of the search they met Hari Krishna Soni (PW 10) and Subhash Chander Soni (PW 2) at or about 10.30 P.M. on a cross road near the shop of the appellant. As advised by them he sent back his wife and children home and again went to the house of the appellant accompained by them. While they were waiting there they saw the appellant coming towards his house completely drenched. He was then wearing only an underwear with some clothes pressed under his armpit. When they enquired about Pinky he told them that after he had given the packet of biscuits to her she left. All three of them then went to Budhar Police Station at or about 1 A.M. and reported that Pinky was missing.

(d) After recording the report in the Station diary book (Ext. P.15/C) H.C. Munna Prasad went in search of Pinky but could not trace her out. However, on the basis of the enquiry conducted by him Station House Officer Shri V.D. Tripathi (PW 11) registered a case under Sections 363, 364, and 366 IPC (Ex. P.16) and took up investigation. On the following day, i.e., May 2, 1995 in the afternoon the appellant was arrested by Shri Tripathi and then interrogated in presence of Hari Krishna and Din Dayal. On such interrogation the appellant disclosed that he had thrown the dead body of Pinky in a well and concealed her frock near a mahua tree, Shri Tripathi recorded the disclosure statement of the appellant (Ex. P.8) and then, led by the appellant and accompanied by the above two witnesses went to the well of one Ramjiyawam Lodhi and found the dead body of Pinky floating in the water. After Shri Tripathi took the photograph of the floating dead body (Ex. P. 3) it was brought out of the well. He then prepared a recovery memo of the dead body

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1394

Cases Referred (2)