1. Kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor — Conviction under Sections 376-A, 302, 363, 201 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Arvind @ Chhotu Thakur – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8428 of 2018
Decided On : 04-01-2022
Advocates appeared:
Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocate, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Advocate, Ms. Sneh Bairwa, Advocate, Mr. Prakhar Srivastav, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocate, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Advocate, Ms. Sneh Bairwa, Advocate, Mr. Prakhar Srivastav, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Important Points
The severity of the offenses, provisions of Section 376-A IPC, and DNA evidence were crucial in determining the appropriate sentence.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offenses
Act Referred
Headnote
DNA Evidence - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 376-A, 302, 363, 201 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act') Section 6
Fact of the Case:
Preeti @ Mona Thakur filed a complaint about her missing 10-year-old daughter, whose dead body was found with signs of sexual assault. The appellant was convicted under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act, initially sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment till natural life.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the appellant's conviction but modified the sentence to 30 years without remission, considering the severity of the offenses.
Issues: Conviction under Sections 376-A, 302, 363, 201 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, and the appropriate sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the severity of the offenses, the provisions of Section 376-A IPC, and the DNA evidence linking the appellant to the crime in modifying the sentence.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction and sentencing to 30 years without remission were upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the sentence of imprisonment for life until the natural life of the appellant. (Para 5 )
3. The court upheld the conviction but determined that the sentence of life imprisonment until natural life should be modified to a fixed term. (Para 6 )
4. A sentence of life imprisonment until natural life may be modified to a fixed term of 30 years without remission. (Para 6 )
5. Sentence modified from life imprisonment until natural life to 30 years of imprisonment without remission; appeal disposed of. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. What is the statutory punishment range for offences under Section 376-A of the Indian Penal Code?
The punishment for an offence under Section 376-A IPC shall not be less than 20 years and may extend to imprisonment for life. (Para 6 )
7. Can a sentence of life imprisonment until the natural life of the convict be modified to a fixed term?
Yes, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court may modify a sentence of life imprisonment until the natural life of the appellant to a fixed term, such as 30 years without remission. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Can a court specify that a convict is not entitled to seek remission of their sentence?
Yes, the court may sentence a convict to a fixed term of imprisonment and explicitly direct that the convict shall not be entitled to seek remission. (Para 7 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Preeti @ Mona Thakur (PW 1) filed a complaint on 27.02.2013 that her 10-year-old daughter was missing. The dead body of her daughter was found lying in the field of Rajkumar Chouksey. The dead body was sent for post-mortem to the Primary Health Centre, Amgaon. Post-mortem examination was done by Dr. Vinay Thakur (PW-18) and Dr. Rashi Patel. They found blood oozing from the vagina of the deceased and froth from her nostrils. Without giving any information relating to the cause of death, the body was sent to Medical College, Jabalpur. Dr. Ashok Najan (PW-22) conducted the post-mortem and found blood oozing from the nostrils of the deceased and also found blood in the vaginal opening. There was laceration to the hymen which was 3 cm. inside the vaginal opening and upto 1 cm. deep. Slides of the vaginal swab were prepared. The clothing worn by the deceased and samples of her hair were also collected. The cause of death was stated to be asphyxia. Devendra Choudhary (PW-3) and Birju Thakur (PW-4) saw the appellant on the night of 26.02.2013 at 8 p.m. at the field of Rajkumar Chouksey. The appellant was behaving in a doubtful manner by trying to hide himself. Rajesh Kori (PW-5) saw the appellant going towards the field of Vishnu Kuchbandiya along with the deceased girl. Chen Singh Lodhi (PW-6) deposed in Court that the appellant confessed his guilt.
3. The DNA report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory showed that there was male Y chromosome STR in the vaginal swab and on the clothes of the deceased. The DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the appellant and from the vaginal swab of the deceased was found to be the same.
4. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376-A, 302, 363, 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act') and imposed death penalty. While answering the death reference, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but converted the death sentence into life imprisonment. However, the High Court held that the imprisonment of life shall be till the natural life of the appellant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and examined the material on record.
6. Without disturbing the findings recorded by the courts below relating to the conviction of the appellant, we are of the considered view that the life imprisonment till the natural life of the appellant should be modified to a sentence of 30 years without remission. Section 376-A IPC provides for a punishment for commission of an offence for a term which shall not be less than 20 years and which may extend to imprisonment for life.
7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is convicted for offences under Sections 376-A, 302, 363, 201 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 30 years. He shall not be entitled to seek remission.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.
