Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
PARSURAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH- Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 314-315 OF 2013
Decided On : 19-02-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Courts below awarding and confirming death sentence for rape and murder – Accused aged 22 years at the time incident and a student of B.Sc. – Accused having no criminal antecedent – Possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the accused not considered by courts below – Held, case does not fall in the category of the “rarest of rare” cases – Death sentence not warranted – However, normal life imprisonment which works out to 16 years held disproportionate and inadequate – Sentence modified to undergo imprisonment of 30 years without any remission. (Para 12, 13, 14)
(2008) 13 SCC 767; (2016) 7 SSC 1; (2010) 1 SCC 58; (2014) 5 SCC 353; (2014) 12 SCC 274; (2016) 9 SCC 675 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and was awarded death sentence which has been confirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Instant case is nit rarest of the rare cases. Death penalty not warranted. However, sentence of normal life imprisonment would be disproportionate and inadequate.
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
ORDER
The appellant, convicted for the offence under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 79/2011 and confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2011, has approached this Court questioning the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of death imposed on him by the impugned judgments.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 06.02.2011, Smt. Maya (mother of the prosecutrix), PW-4, was fetching water from the village well at about 10.30 am; she allowed the accused to take her daughter (the victim) with him for eating plumfruits from the tree situated on the outskirts of the agricultural fields of the village; the accused thereafter took the victim towards the outskirts of the village, but neither of them returned; consequently, PW-4 went to search for her daughter but could not find her; she returned back to her house and informed about the aforementioned incident to her motherinlaw; PW-4 and her motherinlaw started searching for the victim again; on the way, they met one Manoj (PW-9) of their village who told them that the accused/appellant Parsuram was seen with the victim at about 1 p.m.; thereafter on the request of PW-4, the villagers went in search of the victim; ultimately, they saw her dead body lying in a naked condition, with her genitals bleeding. After lodging the first information, investigation proceeded.
The accused was a 22-year-old B.Sc. student at the time of the incident, and used to impart tuitions in the town of Lahar and in the village where he used to live. He had no prior criminal history.
3. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC and awarded the death sentence. The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court.
4. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, taking us through the material on record, submitted that the courts were not justified in punishing the accused for the offences for which the appellant was charged. He further submitted that even if the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court are confirmed, the sentence of death imposed by the courts below is liable to be modified. He drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the appellant had no criminal history and he was just 22 years old at the time of the incident, pursuing a B.Sc. Per contra, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the State, argued in support of the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court.
5. We find no ground to interfere with the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting the accused/appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC. The post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctor, PW-2, disclose that when the dead body was brought for post-mortem examination, the mouth of the victim was stuffed with a brown-coloured underwear, the nostrils were packed with mustard stems and one blue-coloured salwar measuring 22 cm was tied around the entire neck. On dissection of the body, the panel of doctors conducting the post-mortem (including PW-2) observed:
“Clotted blood on private part is present. IIIrd degree perineal tear present; 2 x 2 cm tear is present over posterior fornix in vagina. Hymen badly torn, and 2 x 2 cm tear present over posterior wall of uterus. 2 x 2 cm tear present over fundus of uterus. Blood stained mud present inside the uterus and some in pelvic cavity.”
6. The panel of doctors opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Thus, it is clear that the death was homicidal in nature.
7. Mr. Hegde further tried to convince the Court by arguing that it is not a case of rape, inasmuch as there is no evidence of penetration of genitals of the accused into the vagina of the victim. He relied upon certain observations made in Modi’s Medical Ju
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
