BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, G. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Embal Police Station, Pudukkottai District - Appellant
Versus
Samivel @ Raja - Respondent
R.T.(MD)No. 2 of 2021 & Crl.A.(MD)No. 534 of 2021
Decided On : 12-01-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 366 and 374 - SC/ST Act - 3(2)(V) - POCSO Act - 5(m), 5(j)(iv), 6(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 376, 302 and 201 – Offence of Rape and Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Appeal against conviction - Case of prosecution is that complainant (P.W.1), who is father of deceased child had entered into a marriage with 3rd wife, a mentally retarded and out of said marriage, two children were born, one is deceased child and another one was aged about 5 years - Accused had developed friendship with deceased child to fulfil his sexual desire - accused took her to an isolated place and committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her and had ravished child's genitalia. Later on, accused, fearing that deceased child would reveal commission of offence to others, dashed her head against a tree and also pierced face and neck of deceased child and threw body into a dried pond - Held, As per circumstantial evidence, otherwise known as last seen together theory, there should be corroborative evidences to connect the accused with crime and most important of it is that it can be a conclusive evidence, if time gap between accused and deceased seen together is very minimal – Court find that judgment of the Trial Court fulfilled all touchstone to determine that it is one of rarest of rare cases for imposition of death sentence, as imposition of any other punishment much less life imprisonment is completely insufficient and inadequate and would not meet ends of justice. Taking into consideration brutality of attack, barbaric manner in which the deceased child was murdered and mental agony undergone by the parents, court find that except death sentence, no other sentence will be adequate. Crto have examined this case more carefully and having given our anxious thought to the facts, we have found that mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused herein is no match to the aggravating circumstances - Crl.A.(MD) dismissed and R.T.(MD) order accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
Prayer: Referred Trial under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Pudukkottai, in Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2020, dated 29.12.2020.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Pudukkottai, in S.C.No.133 of 2018, dated 01.10.2021.
This case is arising out of murder of a victim child aged about 7 years, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community and was done to death after an aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the deceased victim child (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased child').
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Nagooran, (P.W.1), who is the father of the deceased child had entered into a marriage with the 3rd wife, namely, Selvi, a mentally retarded and out of the said marriage, two children were born, one is the deceased child and another one was aged about 5 years. The accused had developed friendship with the deceased child to fulfil his sexual desire. On 30.06.2020 at about 3:00pm, in order to satisfy his lust, he had taken the deceased girl to the Kali Temple. Thereafter, the accused took her to an isolated place and committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her and had ravished the child's genitalia. Later on, the accused, fearing that the deceased child would reveal the commission of offence to others, dashed her head against a tree and also pierced the face and neck of the deceased child and threw the body into a dried pond and covered the body of the deceased child with leaves and shrubs to screen the evidence.
3. The father of the deceased child (P.W.1) lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) to the respondent Police, on the basis of which, a case in Crime No.119 of 2020 came to be registered (Ex.P.18) initially for offences under Girl Missing under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, it was altered into one of Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC by way of alteration report (Ex.P.20) and again altered into Sections 364, 376, 302 and 201 IPC r/w 5(m), 5(j)(iv), 6(1) of POCSO Act and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act (Ex.P.23). The respondent police, after enquiry, arrested the accused and after a detailed investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (as the case has been registered under SC/ST Act, along with other IPC offences), a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, which was subsequently, made over to the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence against the accused, had examined 18 witnesses, marked 38 documents and exhibited 8 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor documents marked. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him as follows:
| Sl.No. | Offence | Sentence | Fine |
| 1. | Section 302 IPC | Sentenced to death by hanging | Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months |
| 2. | 5(m) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Amendment Act, 2019 | Sentenced to death by hanging | - |
| 3. | 5(j)(iv) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Amendment Act, 2019 | Sentenced to death by hanging | - |
| 4. | Section 363 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years | Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months |
| 5. | Section 201 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years | Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months |
| 6. | Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, 1989 | To undergo imprisonment for life | Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple im |
Circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' principle, can suffice for conviction in rape and murder cases yet demands rigorous scrutiny for reliability.
(1) Kidnapping and murder of child – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – If accused is last seen with deceased and particularly in a case of this nature when time gap between last seen stage a....
Death sentence – Standardisation of sentencing would not be possible because no two criminal cases are identical and standardisation would leave no room for judicial discretion.
The court upheld the conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, modifying the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime.
The court affirmed that the extreme brutality of the crime warrants the death penalty, emphasizing its classification as a rarest of rare case due to the specific circumstances surrounding the kidnap....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.