2022 Supreme(SC) 32

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of M.P Principal Seat at Jabalpur)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Bhagwani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 101-102 of 2022, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4821-4822 of 2018
Decided On : 18-01-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Accused is entitled for a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
(2) In respect of order of conviction and sentence being passed on same day, accused must be given opportunity to make a representation against sentence to be imposed on him – Bifurcated hearing for convicting and sentencing is necessary to provide an effective opportunity to accused.
(3) Adequate opportunity to produce relevant material on question of death sentence shall be provided to accused by Trial Court.

Headnote:

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5(g)(m) read with Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302 and 201 – Kidnapping, rape and murder of girl child – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Medical evidence shows that she was raped and killed – Clothes worn by Appellant were seized from a flowerpot on roof of t cowshed belonging to him pursuant to disclosure statement – DNA profiling of articles matched with that of accused – Appellant miserably failed to prove an alibi – There is lack of any explanation for scratch injuries found on body of Appellant – Appellant is guilty of committing offences as charged – No fault with conviction of appellant. (Paras 8 and 12)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 235(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302 and 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5(g)(m) read with Section 6 – Kidnapping, rape and murder of girl child – Death sentence – It is travesty of justice as Appellant was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself – This is a classic case indicating disturbing tendency of Trial Courts adjudicating criminal cases involving rape and murder in haste – Accused is entitled for a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India – In respect of order of conviction and sentence being passed on same day, object and purpose of Section 235 (2), Cr.P.C. is that accused must be given opportunity to make a representation against sentence to be imposed on him – Bifurcated hearing for convicting and sentencing is necessary to provide an effective opportunity to accused – Adequate opportunity to produce relevant material on question of death sentence shall be provided to accused by Trial Court – Appellant was aged 25 years on the date of commission of offence and belongs to a Scheduled Tribes community, eking his livelihood by doing manual labour – No evidence has been placed by prosecution on record to show that there is no probability of rehabilitation and reformation of Appellant and question of an alternative option to death sentence is foreclosed – Appellant had no criminal antecedents before commission of crime for which he has been convicted – There is nothing adverse that has been reported against his conduct in jail – Death sentence requires to be commuted to life imprisonment – However, taking into account barbaric and savage manner in which offences of rape and murder were committed by Appellant on a hapless 11 year old girl, Appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years during which he shall not be granted remission – Conviction of Appellant under Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(g) (m) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is upheld and sentence is converted from death to that of imprisonment for life for a period of 30 years without remission. (Paras 13, 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:

Present Appeals are preferred against the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Trial Court under Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(g)(m) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were upheld.

Findings of Court:

Perusal of the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court would disclose that the gravity of the crime was taken into consideration while imposing death sentence. The mitigating circumstances and the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused have not been considered.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.