IMPORTANT POINT
Case of rape and murder of a young girl aged 18 years by the two accused persons, residents of the same village, aged about 20 and 22 years sexually obsessed youngsters, falls in rarest of rare category deserving imposition of death sentence.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 376 and 302 rw/s 34—Rape and Murder of 18 years old girl—Death sentence—Two accused aged about 20 and 22 years were sexually obsessed youngsters—Earlier attempts of the accused to molest other girls but warned in Panchayat—Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence—On the morning of incident, deceased went to the family land situated near her house to dump manure—As she did not return, PW1, mother of deceased went in search of her after some time and saw body of deceased lying on the ground with clothes disarrayed—As two accused had been seen earlier at the spot where the dead body was found and had on detection run away, villagers went in search of the accused and apprehended A1, from the bus stop from there he was trying to escape—On his disclosure second accused was found hiding in the house—Medical evidence confirmed rape on deceased and her death by strangulation—Trial Court convicted two accused for offences u/s 376 and 302 rw/s 34 IPC and awarded death sentenced—High Court confirmed conviction and the sentence imposed—Whether the case falls in rarest of rare category—(Yes)—Whether death sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was appropriate—(Yes).
       Held : PWs. 18 and 19 have been examined by the prosecution to show the earlier attempts of the accused to molest other girls (Lakkamma and Nagarajamma) and their participation in the panchayath held by the village elders in that regard. However, it is to be noted that as they did not support the prosecution, they have been treated as hostile witnesses and in spite of searching cross-examination by the prosecution they have stuck to their contrary version. The remaining witnesses are mahazar witnesses and the members of the investigation team. (Para 10)
       To show the presence of the accused at the time and place almost near the victim, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Puttegowda, PW.6, Jayamma (PW.1) and two independent witnesses, Kalamma (PW8) and Rudramma (PW.9). Puttegowda (PW.6) states that on the date of the incident while he was taking tea in the morning, he saw the deceased going towards her family land carrying basket of manure. He also saw that these two accused were following her from a little distance. He states that after some time he also saw Jayamma (PW.1) the mother of the deceased going towards the land and coming back raising hue and cry over the murder of her daughter Shivamma by the accused and her seeing them running away from the spot. The evidence of this witness, so far as this aspect is concerned, except the futile suggestion that this witness is speaking falsehood as he belongs to the group of Narayana Gowda and opposed to the accused has remained unshaken.(Para 11)
       It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.(Para 12)
       When the evidence on record is analysed in the background of principles highlighted above, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has established its accusations.(Para 20)
       Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.(Para 25)
       Considering the view expressed by this Court in Bachan Singh’s case (supra) and Machhi Singh’s case (supra) we have no hesitation in holding that the case at hand falls in rarest of rare category and death sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was appropriate.(Para 26)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 376 rw/s 34—Circumstantial Evidence—Cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt—Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence—It should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the Supreme Court as far back as in 1952.(Para 12 to 19)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 376, 302 rw/s 34—Sentence—Guidelines which are to be kept in view when considering the question whether the case belongs to the rarest of the rare category for awarding death sentence—A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn—Principle of proportion between crime and punishment—Disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.(Paras 21 to 25)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court accepting the reference made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Cr.P.C.’) and confirming death sentence awarded to the appellants in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC awarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara.

3. Background facts which led to the trial of the accused persons are essentially as follows:

Jayamma, (PW.1) is the resident of Badrenahalli village in Kollegal Taluk. She resided with her husband, and children Raju (PW.2), Nagarajamma (PW.10) and Shivamma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). Both the accused are residents of the same village. The accused-aged about 20 and 22 years respectively were sexually obsessed youngsters. Few months prior to the incident, relating to the present appeal they attempted to commit rape on Lakkamma [daughter of Puttegowda (PW.7)], but were unsuccessful. For that act, they were admonished. Later, they attempted to commit rape on PW.10 (daughter of PW.1). PW.10 was also successful in escaping from their clutches. Though in both the incidents, the aggrieved persons wanted to lodge police complaints, against the accused, at the instance of village elders and family members of these accused, instead of lodging criminal cases, only Panchayath of village elders was called on each occasion and the accused were directed to mend their ways. But this warning had no effect on them. Emboldened by escape from punishment in those two incidents, they committed rape on the deceased a young girl of hardly 18 years and to avoid detection, committed heinous and brutal act of her murder. On the morning of 15.10.2001, deceased Shivamma went to the family land situated near her house to dump manure. As she did not return, PW.1 went in search of her after some time. When Shivamma was not seen in the land, PW.1 began to call her by name. Suspecting some untoward incident, when PW.1 went near the spot, she saw the body of the deceased lying on the ground with clothes disarrayed. Noticing that Shivamma was dead, PW.1 raised hue and cry and went towards the village calling people for help. Attracted by her cries, her son PW.2 and other villagers including Chikkiregowda (PW.3) came to the spot and on learning about the incident, especially the fact that the accused had been seen earlier at the spot where the dead body was found and had on detection run away, they went in search of the accused. In the meantime, Narayana Gowda (PW.5) the brother of PW.1 (maternal uncle of the deceased) who also resides in the same village came to the house of PW.1 and on suspecting the role of the accused in the rape and murder of Shivamma, wrote down the statement of PW.1 and after taking her L.T.I., took the same to the jurisdictional police at Rampur police station. M.K. AIi, the S.H.O. of Rampur police station (PW.20) on receipt of the information of the crime, after accepting the written complaint as per Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.86/01 for the offences punishable u/s 376, 302 both read with Section 34 of the IPC against these two accused and took up investigation.

4. After registering the case, preparing the F.I.R., sending the same, the superior officers and the Court, the Investigating officer along with staff, went to the place of the incident and held the necessary mahazars like spot mahazar, seizure of certain articles found near the scene of offence. After inquest proceedings, the body of the deceased was taken for autopsy. In the meantime, on learning about the culpability of the accused in the crime, several villagers went in search of the accused. Accused No.1 was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 176

IMPORTANT POINTCase of rape and murder of a young girl aged 18 years by the two accused persons, residents of the same village, aged about 20 and 22 years sexually obsessed youngsters, falls in rarest of rare category deserving imposition of death sentence.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINT
Case of rape and murder of a young girl aged 18 years by the two accused persons, residents of the same village, aged about 20 and 22 years sexually obsessed youngsters, falls in rarest of rare category deserving imposition of death sentence.