2019 Supreme(SC) 272

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Sachin Kumar Singhraha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 473-474 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 2453-2454 of 2016]
Decided on : 12-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(a) Criminal justice should not become a casualty because of minor mistakes committed by Investigating Officer.
(b) Traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Kidnapping, rape and murder of girl child – Screening of evidence – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Accused/appellant was registered owner of vehicle in which he was last seen with victim and was driving vehicle on day of incident – Minor variations should not be taken into consideration while assessing reliability of witness testimony and consistency of prosecution version as a whole – Evidence of PWs fully supports case of prosecution – Recovery of dead body as well as school bag of child based on disclosure statement made by accused/appellant – Criminal justice should not become a casualty because of minor mistakes committed by Investigating Officer – No error in reliance placed by Courts upon circumstance of recoveries effected at instance of accused/appellant – Accused/appellant has assigned a false explanation about leaving company of victim – Justice cannot be made sterile by exaggerated adherence to rule of proof, inasmuch as benefit of doubt given to accused must always be reasonable and not fanciful – Trial Court as well as High Court have rightly concluded that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction maintained. (Paras 8, 10 to 16)

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) – Kidnapping, rape and murder of girl child – Screening of evidence – Death sentence – Life imprisonment is rule to which death penalty is exception – Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inappropriate punishment, having regard to relevant facts and circumstances of crime – Sentencing is a difficult task and often vexes mind of Court – But where option is between life imprisonment and death sentence, if Court itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate that lesser punishment be awarded – Court is not convinced that probability of reform of accused/appellant is low, in absence of prior offending history and keeping in mind his overall conduct – Crime in question may not fall under category of cases where death sentence is necessarily to be imposed – However, keeping in mind aggravating circumstances of crime, sentence of life imprisonment simpliciter would be grossly inadequate in instant case – Accused/appellant directed to undergo sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment (without remission) – Sentence already undergone shall be set off. (Paras 17 to 21)

       (C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or “should be” and not merely “may be” fully established – Facts so established should be consistent only with guilt of accused – They should not be explicable through any other hypothesis except that accused was guilty – Circumstances should be conclusive in nature – There must be a chain of evidence so complete so as to not leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability, offence was committed by accused. (Para 7)

       (D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Crime investigation – If Investigation Officer suppresses real incident by creating certain records to make a new case altogether, Court would definitely strongly come against such action of Investigation Officer – Benefit of doubt arising out of major flaws in investigation would create suspicion in mind of Court and consequently such inefficient investigation would accrue to benefit of accused – Criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film – Such trial is conducted to ascertain guilt or innocence of accused arraigned and in arriving at a conclusion about truth, courts are required to adopt a rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth and animus of witnesses – Courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to prosecution or loosely construe law in favour of accused – Traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. (Para 12)

       Facts of Case:

       Trial Court convicted accused/appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to death. Judgment of Trial Court was confirmed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. These appeals are presented by convicted accused.

       Findings of Court:

       We deem it proper to impose a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years’ imprisonment (without remission). Imprisonment of about four years as already undergone by accused/appellant shall be set off. We have arrived at this conclusion after giving due consideration to age of accused/appellant which is currently around 38 to 40 years.

       Result : Appeals disposed of.