1. Rape, murder, and destruction of evidence — Conviction under Sections 376(2)(g), 302/34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code — Appeal against death sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1240
1999(8) Supreme 669
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S.P. Kurdukar, K.T. Thomas and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Molai & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 1999
Decided on 26-10-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.N. Shukla, Sr. Advocate, Shiv Sagar Tiwari and Ms. Sushila Shukla, (A.S. Pundir) Advocate (A.C.) Advocates.
For the Respondent : R. Sandhir Jain, Naveen Kr. Singh and Uma Nath Singh, Advocates.
Important Points
The court upheld the conviction and death sentence for rape and murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. It affirmed that the brutal nature of the crime and breach of trust categorized the case as 'rarest of rare,' justifying capital punishment.
Subject
Criminal Law - Rape and Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376 and 302/34-Rape and murder-Conviction awarding capital punishment-Accused persons sent to work in house and garden of victim by her father an Assistant Jailor-Breach of confidence and causing rape and murder-Circumstantial evidence-Defence of alibi-Witnesses proved presence of accused persons at relevant time in place of occurrence of crime-All chain of circumstances proved by prosecution witnesses-Medical evidence showed rape and strangulation of victim and stab injuries on body of deceased-Accused persons threw victim in septic tank alongwith her cycle-Case fell within category of rarest of rare cases-No mitigating circumstances shown for reduction of sentence-Death sentence justified.
Held : The present case squarely falls in the category of one of the rarest of rare cases, and if this be so, the courts below have committed no error in awarding capital punishment to each of the accused. It cannot be overlooked that Naveen, a 16 year old girl, was preparing for her 10th examination at her house and suddenly both the accused took advantage of she being alone in the house and committed a most shameful act of rape. The accused did not stop there but they strangulated her by using her under-garment and thereafter took her to the septic tank along with the cycle and caused injuries with a sharp edged weapon. the accused did not even stop there but they exhibited the criminality in their conduct by throwing the dead body into the septic tank totally disregarding the respect for a human dead body. Learned counsel for the accused (appellants)) could not point any mitigating circumstance from the record of the case to justify the reduction of sentence of either of the accused. In a case of this nature, in our considered view, the capital punishment to both the accused is the only proper punishment and we see no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the courts below. There is no mitigating circumstance to justify the reduction of sentence of either of the accused. In a case of this nature, the Capital punishment is the only proper punishment. (Para 35)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the legality of conviction and death sentence — Plea of alibi — Contention that the case does not fall within the rarest of rare category. (Para 8 , 33 )
3. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence including presence at scene, false explanations, medical findings of rape and strangulation, and recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27, Evidence Act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 )
4. Capital punishment is justified in rarest of rare cases involving brutal crimes, breach of trust, and extreme depravity, where no mitigating circumstances exist. (Para 35 )
5. Criminal appeal dismissed — Convictions and death sentences upheld. (Para 36 )
6. How does the court evaluate the significance of false explanations given by the accused regarding the victim's whereabouts in a circumstantial evidence case?
False and misleading information provided by the accused to cover up a crime constitutes a circumstance that can be used against them to establish complicity. (Para 13 , 14 , 29 , 30 )
7. What is the evidentiary value of recoveries made based on disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Recoveries of incriminating articles, such as blood-stained weapons or clothing, pursuant to disclosure statements connect the accused to the crime, especially when corroborated by forensic reports. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
8. When is a plea of alibi considered insufficient to rule out the complicity of an accused?
A plea of alibi is insufficient if the evidence produced does not specify the exact time of presence elsewhere and is contradicted by positive evidence of presence at the crime scene. (Para 31 )
9. What factors contribute to a case being classified as rarest of rare for the imposition of the death penalty?
Factors include the brutality of the act, breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the absence of mitigating circumstances. (Para 34 , 35 )
Judgment
S.P. Kurdukar, J.-This criminal appeal is filed by the two appellants challeging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court on 9.12.98 in Criminal References Nos. 3/97, 4/97 and Criminal Appeal No. 525/97 upholding convictions and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Reeva, for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial court awarded Capital Punishment to both the appellants subject to confirmation by the High Court. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide its judgment and order dated 9.12.98 upheld the conviction and confirmed death sentence of both the appellants.
2. The first appellant Molai (A-2) at the relevant time was working as a guard in Central Jail, Reeva. The second appellant, Santosh (A-1) was a prisoner undergoing a sentence for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and was kept in Central Jail, Reeva.
3. The prosecution case unfolded at the trial is as under :
R.S. Somvanshi (PW 6) was posted as an Assistant Jailor at Central Jail, Reeva. He was having his quarter in the Jail compound and was staying alongwith his wife, two daughters, namely Naveen aged about 16 years (since deceased), Pratibha (PW 3)) aged about 12 years and a son. Some more jail officers were also staying in the same jail compound. The adjoining quarter No. 3, was occupied by Mr. R.K. Mishra, Assistant Jailor and was residing with his wife Shobha Mishra (PW 2) and a daughter Ruchi Mishra (PW 1). Another neighbouring quarter was occupied by Assistant Jailor Shyamji Singh (PW 7). Krishna Kumar Pathak, who also happened to be the Assistant Jailor attached to the Central Jail, Reeva was residing in the same campus.
4. The incident in question took place on February 20, 1996 between 10 and 11 a.m. Mr. R.S. Somvanshi (PW 6) had left his house on that day at about 9 a.m. for his official duty whereas Pratibha (PW 3)) had left for her school at about 7.30 a.m. Naveen was studying in 10th standard and as she had finished her practical examination, she was staying at home and preparing for annual examination. The wife of Mr. Somvanshi (PW 6) had gone to her parents house along with her son. Resultantly Naveen at the relevant time was alone in the quarter. On the day of incident, Molai (A 2) was sent by Somvanshi (PW 6) to look after his quarter and also to do the house job. Santosh (A 1) who was undergoing a sentence, was also sent to the quarter of Somvanshi (PW 6) to do the work in garden attached to the said quarter. This is how both the appellants A 1 and A 2 were working at the quarter of Somvanshi (PW 6) between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on February 20, 1996.
5. At about 10 a.m. a shriek was heard by Ruchi Mishra (PW 1) and Shobha Mishra (PW 2) coming from the quarter of Somvanshi (PW 6). Both of them came out of their quarter to find out the reason thereof. But nothing suspicious was found from outside. The door was however found closed. At about 11 a.m. Ruchi Mishra (PW 1) went to return a cassette to Naveen and when she gave a call to Naveen there was no reply. She then noticed that both the accused were standing outside the quarter and they told Ruchi Mishra (PW 1) that Naveen was not in the house and that she had gone along with her friend. At about the same time Shailendra (PW 4) and his friends were playing cricket near the quarters of the jail officers and it so happened that cricket ball went towards the quarter of Somvanshi (PW 6). When he was searching the ball he noticed both the accused standing in front of the quarter. After some time Ruchi Mishra (PW 1) came out of her quarter and noticed that Santosh (A 1) was taking away the cycle of Naveen towards the back side of the quarter.
6. At about 12 noon Pratibha (PW 3) returned home from the school and found that her sister was not there. She, therefore, enquired with the accused who told her that she had gone on cycle along with her friend. At about 12.30 p.m. Molai
