1. Conviction for rape and murder of a minor child under the IPC and POCSO Act based on circumstantial evidence and recovery of the body. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 272
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Sachin Kumar Singhraha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 473-474 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 2453-2454 of 2016]
Decided on : 12-03-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mrigendra Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Mohendra Singh, Adv.,
For the Respondent: Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
For the Appellant : Mr. Mrigendra Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Mohendra Singh, Adv.,
For the Respondent: Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(a) Criminal justice should not become a casualty because of minor mistakes committed by Investigating Officer.
(b) Traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Kidnapping, rape and murder of girl child – Screening of evidence – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Accused/appellant was registered owner of vehicle in which he was last seen with victim and was driving vehicle on day of incident – Minor variations should not be taken into consideration while assessing reliability of witness testimony and consistency of prosecution version as a whole – Evidence of PWs fully supports case of prosecution – Recovery of dead body as well as school bag of child based on disclosure statement made by accused/appellant – Criminal justice should not become a casualty because of minor mistakes committed by Investigating Officer – No error in reliance placed by Courts upon circumstance of recoveries effected at instance of accused/appellant – Accused/appellant has assigned a false explanation about leaving company of victim – Justice cannot be made sterile by exaggerated adherence to rule of proof, inasmuch as benefit of doubt given to accused must always be reasonable and not fanciful – Trial Court as well as High Court have rightly concluded that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction maintained. (Paras 8, 10 to 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) – Kidnapping, rape and murder of girl child – Screening of evidence – Death sentence – Life imprisonment is rule to which death penalty is exception – Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inappropriate punishment, having regard to relevant facts and circumstances of crime – Sentencing is a difficult task and often vexes mind of Court – But where option is between life imprisonment and death sentence, if Court itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate that lesser punishment be awarded – Court is not convinced that probability of reform of accused/appellant is low, in absence of prior offending history and keeping in mind his overall conduct – Crime in question may not fall under category of cases where death sentence is necessarily to be imposed – However, keeping in mind aggravating circumstances of crime, sentence of life imprisonment simpliciter would be grossly inadequate in instant case – Accused/appellant directed to undergo sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment (without remission) – Sentence already undergone shall be set off. (Paras 17 to 21)
(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or “should be” and not merely “may be” fully established – Facts so established should be consistent only with guilt of accused – They should not be explicable through any other hypothesis except that accused was guilty – Circumstances should be conclusive in nature – There must be a chain of evidence so complete so as to not leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability, offence was committed by accused. (Para 7)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Crime investigation – If Investigation Officer suppresses real incident by creating certain records to make a new case altogether, Court would definitely strongly come against such action of Investigation Officer – Benefit of doubt arising out of major flaws in investigation would create suspicion in mind of Court and consequently such inefficient investigation would accrue to benefit of accused – Criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film – Such trial is conducted to ascertain guilt or innocence of accused arraigned and in arriving at a conclusion about truth, courts are required to adopt a rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth and animus of witnesses – Courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to prosecution or loosely construe law in favour of accused – Traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. (Para 12)
Facts of Case:
Trial Court convicted accused/appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to death. Judgment of Trial Court was confirmed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. These appeals are presented by convicted accused.
Findings of Court:
We deem it proper to impose a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years’ imprisonment (without remission). Imprisonment of about four years as already undergone by accused/appellant shall be set off. We have arrived at this conclusion after giving due consideration to age of accused/appellant which is currently around 38 to 40 years.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the reliability of last seen evidence, validity of recoveries due to procedural lapses in investigation, and the applicability of the death penalty. (Para 5 )
3. The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, minor procedural lapses by the investigating officer do not vitiate the trial, and the accused provided a false explanation. (Para 10 , 12 , 14 , 16 )
4. Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain consistent only with guilt; minor investigative errors do not override substantial evidence; death penalty requires the rarest of rare criteria. (Para 7 , 12 , 17 )
5. Conviction confirmed; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years without remission. (Para 21 )
6. What is the standard for conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused, forming a complete chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence. (Para 7 )
7. Do minor procedural mistakes by an Investigating Officer entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
No, criminal justice should not become a casualty of minor mistakes by the Investigating Officer. Unless the officer suppresses the real incident to create a false case, the court adopts a rational approach based on intrinsic evidence. (Para 12 )
8. What is the legal effect of an accused providing a false explanation under Section 313 CrPC?
When an accused offers a false explanation regarding material events, such as the last seen circumstance, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against the accused. (Para 14 )
9. When should the death penalty be imposed versus life imprisonment?
Life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty is the exception. Death sentences are imposed only when life imprisonment is an altogether inappropriate punishment given the facts and circumstances of the crime. (Para 17 )
10. Can a court impose a life sentence with a specific minimum term without remission?
Yes, the court may substitute the death penalty with imprisonment for a term exceeding 14 years and specify that such a sentence be beyond remission. (Para 19 )
JUDGMENT
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Leave granted.
2. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2015 vide judgment dated 06.08.2015 convicted the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") and Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "the POCSO Act") and sentenced him to death.
3. The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur vide its judgment and order dated 03.03.2016 in Criminal Reference No. 5 of 2015 and in Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2015, except in respect of the offence under Section 363 IPC which means the accused was acquitted under Section 363 IPC by the High Court.
These appeals are presented by the convicted accused.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.02.2015, PW4 (the elder brother of the victim's father) came over from his village to drop the victim child to school in a vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 19 T 2374, owned and driven by the accused/appellant. PW4, on the assurance of the accused/appellant that he would go along with the victim child to her school, as he had to pay his own daughter's fees, alighted from the vehicle near the Sabzi Mandi. The child went along with the accused/appellant towards her school in the vehicle, but did not return home that day. Despite a frantic search by her parents, relatives and the villagers, the victim child could not be traced. The father of the deceased suspected that the accused/appellant had left his daughter somewhere else, however, the first information report (Ext. P1) came to be lodged against an unknown offender and the accused/appellant was apprehended after two days. After the trial, as mentioned supra, the accused/appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and the order of conviction was confirmed by the High Court.
5. Shri Mrigandra Singh, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant, took us through the material on record, and submitted that the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the last seen circumstance, but the said circumstance has not been duly proved. This is because grave suspicion arises against PW4 also, having regard to the evidence of PW5 Ramji Shukla. He also submits that the evidence that led to the recovery of the dead body based on the confession of the accused/appellant is liable to be rejected on the ground that the panchnama was drawn at the police station and not on the spot of recovery of the dead body; and that the Investigating Officer deliberately tried to conceal the main offender and framed the accused/appellant, and such lapse in the course of investigation would tilt the balance of justice in favour of the accused/appellant. In the alternative, he submits that the case on hand does not fall under the definition of the rarest of rare cases and, therefore, the accused/appellant may not be punished with death.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State argued in support of the judgments of the Courts.
6. The instant case rests on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution relying mainly on the following circumstances:-
a) PW4 (uncle of the deceased) and the deceased child travelled from their native place Itma to Maihar in the vehicle owned and driven by the accused/appellant.
b) PW4 gave the custody of the child to the accused/appellant upon the assurance of the accused/appellant that he would take the child to school safely.
c) The deceased was last seen with the accused/appellant by PW4 and PW5.
d) The school bag and the dead body of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused/appellant pursuant to the disclosure statement.
e) The accused/appellant came out with a false explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 , CrPC.
7. There cannot be any dispute as to the well settled proposition that the cir
