IMPORTANT POINTS
When each incriminating circumstance is clearly established and chain of circumstances conclusively point to the guilt of the accused, he has to be convicted.
Brutal rape and barbaric murder of a helpless minor girl; the crime speaking of depravity, degradation and uncommonality and showing premeditation, the proclivity and the rapacious desire makes the case rarest of rare calling for death sentence.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Last seen theory – Eye witnesses establishing that deceased was last seen with appellant – His identification in open court beyond doubt – Appellant not explaining the circumstances – Last seen theory established. (Para 17)
       (2002) 7 SCC 295; (2014) 5 SCC 509 – Relied upon
       (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Discovery of dead body and personal articles and blood smeared stones at instance of appellant – Discovery witnesses independent witnesses – Principles – Discovery of fact and discovery of articles – Conduct of appellant – Showing the water tap where he washed his cloths after the crime – Discovery and seizure as per law – No infirmity. (Para 17, 18, 25, 27, 30)
       AIR 1947 PC 67; (1976) 1 SCC 828; (2010) 2 SCC 583; (2000) 6 SCC 269; (2000) 1 SCC 471; (2009) 11 SCC 225; (2011) 6 SCC 396; (2010) 6 SCC 1; (2013) 7 SCC 417; (1979) 3 SCC 90; (1972) 1 SCC 249; (2006) 10 SCC 151 – Relied upon
       (c) Criminal trial – Blood of same group found on clothes of deceased, stones used to batter her and clothes of appellant – An important circumstance showing complicity of the appellant in the crime in question. (Para 28)
       (d) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Under section 313 CrPC, except making a bald denial, appellant not stating anything – Each incriminating circumstance clearly established – Chain of circumstances conclusive in nature to exclude any kind of hypothesis, and leading to a definite conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused – Judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge and affirmed by the High Court confirmed. (Para 35)
       AIR 1952 SC 343; (1984) 4 SCC 116; (1996) 10 SCC 193; (2000) 1 SCC 471 – Relied upon
       (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Brutal rape and barbaric murder of a helpless minor girl – The crime speaks of depravity, degradation and uncommonality – Crime showing premeditation, the proclivity and the rapacious desire – Appellant aged 47 years at the time of crime and having family – No remorse noticeable on his part – He would remain menace to society – Case falling under rarest of rare cases. (Para 58, 59)
       (1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (2011) 12 SCC 56; (2010) 9 SCC 567; (2011) 2 SCC 490; (2011) 4 SCC 80; (2011) 5 SCC 317; (2011) 7 SCC 125; (1994) 2 SCC 220; (1994) 3 SCC 381; (1996) 6 SCC 250; (2008) 11 SCC 113; (2002) 5 SCC 234; (2012) 4 SCC 37; (1998) 2 SCC 372; (1999) 6 SCC 60; (2002) 1 SCC 622 – Relied upon
        33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408 US 238 (1972) – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant was convicted u/s 302, 376(2)(f), 363, 367 and 201 IPC for kidnapping, raping and murdering a four year old girl child. He was sentenced to death by the trial court.
       The conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       This is a rarest of rare cases.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

In these two appeals, we are required to deal with a sordid and despicable act of a married man who, at the time of incident was in wedlock for more than two scores having a criminal background, has yielded not only to the inferior endowments of nature but also has exhibited the gratification of pervert lust and brutish carnality. The prey of such degradation and depravity was a minor girl aged about four years, daughter of Pinki, PW-1, and Krushna, PW-4. The appellant, as per the prosecution version, after satisfying his uncontrolled, insatiable and rapacious savage desire, battered the girl to death. This led to his facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 363, 367 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) in Sessions Trial No. 252/2008 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who considering the evidence on record and keeping in view the nature of the crime vide judgment dated 23.02.2012 after recording the conviction in respect of aforesaid offences, imposed the death sentence, apart from other punishment in respect of other offences and sent, as required under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “CrPC”), for confirmation by the High Court. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence was challenged by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 112/2012 and it was heard along with the Criminal Confirmation Case No.1 of 2012 wherein the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the sentence of death awarded by the trial Court and as a logical corollary dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by him. The said judgment is the subject of assailment in the present appeal.

2. According to the prosecution case on 3.4.2008 about 9-10 p.m., informant, Krushna Dudhraj Sharma, father of the deceased, lodged a report at the police station Wadi stating that he was staying in a tenanted house with his wife and two daughters, the kidnapped girl aged about 4 years and her sister aged about six months. One Subhash Sonawane was residing along with his wife and son in the neighbourhood of the informant as a tenant of the common landlord, Kushal Bansod. The appellant, Vasanta Dupare, a friend of Subhash Sonawane, was a frequent visitor to the house of Subhash. On the fateful day when the informant, carpenter by profession, returned home about 7.00 p.m., he found his wife weeping and on a query being made, she disclosed that Vasanta Dupare had taken the elder daughter on his bicycle while she was playing in the courtyard of the house and she had not yet returned home. He, being perturbed, searched for his daughter in the vicinity, but it was an exercise in futility. Thus, the initial allegation was that the appellant had kidnapped his minor daughter. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a crime was registered against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC.

3. As the prosecution version further undrapes, on the same day, Santosh Ghatekar, PW-13, Assistant Police Inspector, while returning to the police station, received the information that the appellant was moving around Gati Godown located on Khadgaon Road, and he passed on the said information to Police Inspector D.J. Chauhan, PW-16, and eventually the appellant was apprehended and brought to the police station. While in police custody, on 4.4.2008, he took the investigating agency to the spot where he had after ravishing the minor girl child had murdered her. A memorandum of panchnama to that effect was prepared in the morning of 4.4.2008 and thereafter he led the police to the place of incident wherefrom the dead body of the minor girl was recovered. At his instance, the bicycle used was recovered from the godown located in between Khadgaon to Kamleshwar road belonging to one Ashwin Prakash Agrawal. Thereafter, the initial offence registered under Section 363 IPC was converted to offences under Section 376(2)(f), 367, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Investigatin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 833

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADIPAK MISRA, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.Vasanta Sampat Dupare - AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra - RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2486-2487 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 330-331 of 2013]Decided On: 26-11-2014

Cases Referred (34)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Vasanta Sampat Dupare - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2486-2487 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 330-331 of 2013]
Decided On: 26-11-2014