2019 Supreme(SC) 1239

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SURYA KANT, SANJIV KHANNA JJ.
Manoharan – Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore – Respondent(s)
Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 446-447 OF 2019 In Criminal Appeal Nos. 1174-1175 OF 2019
Decided On : 07-11-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Review can only be on a glaring error apparent on the face of the judgment or order. A mere change or addition of grounds cannot be allowed at the stage of review.
Confessional statement can still be relied upon despite retraction, if corroborated by evidence.
Inadequacy of legal representation, if not prejudicing the accused, has no effect on sentencing.
Section 164 CrPC Does not contemplate recording of a confession or statement in presence of advocate(s) except when such confessional statement is recorded with audio-video electronic means.
Issues not raised at any stage before cannot be raised in review.
Opinion of the society and not the personal opinion of the judge should be considered whilst awarding sentence of death.
Dissenting opinions have little precedential value.
Circumstantial evidence is no bar to award death sentence.
Exculpatory parts in a belated retraction of confessional statement ought to be excluded.
Mere young age and presence of aged parents cannot be grounds for commutation.

Headnote:

(a) Constitution of India - Article 137 r/w Rule XL(1), Supreme Court Rules - Review - Review can only be on a glaring error apparent on the face of the judgment or order - A mere change or addition of grounds cannot be allowed at the stage of review - A party cannot be allowed to reurge the case on merits to effectively seek re-appreciation of evidence when the matter has already been decided earlier, even if on different grounds. (Para 18, 20)

(b) Criminal trial - Confessional statement - Voluntariness and effect of retraction - Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Procedural safeguards - Instantly Magistrate complying with all procedural safeguards and satisfying himself about voluntariness of the confession - Petitioner not putting forth any protest against the confessional statement despite having multiple opportunities during the course of trial - Petitioner partly disputing the statement through a secret letter written just before his examination u/s 313 CrPC - Such retraction at the fag-end of the trial, not natural - Confessional statement can still be relied upon despite retraction, if corroborated by evidence - Admissions made by petitioner in his retraction read with prosecution evidence, sufficient for his conviction. (Para 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)

(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Sufficient inculpatory admissions in petitioner’s retraction - Places strong burden of proof on him. (Para 31)

(d) Constitution of India - Article 137 - Review sought on the ground that the Court decided the appeal without independently re-appreciating all the material on record - Factually incorrect. (Para 33)

(e) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Legal representation of accused - Alleged inadequacy - Petitioner failing to show that the assistance of the counsel was deficient per an objective standard of reasonableness - As also that such deficiency has affected the outcome of the case - Held cannot complain of inadequacy of legal assistance - Moreover alleged inadequacy has not prejudiced the petitioner. (Para 37, 39)

(f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 164 - Does not contemplate recording of a confession or statement in presence of advocate(s) - Except, when such confessional statement is recorded with audio-video electronic means. (Para 41)

(g) Constitution of India - Article 137 - Issues not raised at any stage before - Cannot be raised in review. (Para 49)

(h) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Medical evidence on deceased girl and the petitioner - Establishing sexual assault by petitioner - Conviction u/s 376 justified. (Para 55)

(i) Criminal jurisprudence - Sentencing - Opinion of the society and not the personal opinion of the judge should be considered whilst awarding sentence of death - A change in law during pendency of the case is an apt indicator of societal opinion as legislated by elected representatives. (Para 57, 67)

(j) Jurisprudence - Precedents - Interpretation of judgments - Minority view - Dissenting opinions have little precedential value - Contention that death sentence should not be awarded even if one Judge differs, rejected. (Para 60)

(k) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Death sentence - Circumstantial evidence - No bar to award death sentence owing to recent developments in medical science and the possibility of abuse by seasoned criminals. (Para 62)

(l) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 164 - Confessional statement - Belated retraction - Exculpatory parts ought to be excluded. (Para 64)

Criminal jurisprudence - Death sentence - Commutation - Mere young age and presence of aged parents cannot be grounds for commutation. (Para 65)

Facts of the case:

These review petitions are directed against the judgment dated 01.08.2019 passed in Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, (2019) 7 SCC 716 wherein this three-Judge Bench had affirmed conviction of the accused Manoharan for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and (g) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and by majority upheld the death sentence confirmed by the High Court.

The appellant was convicted u/s 364(A), 376, 302 read with Section 201, IPC for abduction and rape of two minor children. He was sentenced to death, which has been confirmed up to Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court :

Present offence(s) of the Petitioner are so grave as to shock the conscience of this Court and of society and would without doubt amount to rarest of the rare.

Result: Petition dismissed.