2022 Supreme(SC) 543

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Manoj Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S) 910 & 911 of 2022 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 7899-7900 of 2015)
Decided On : 24-06-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against arrest and detention, do not expand into a corresponding right with accused person to question swiftness of investigation and expeditious proceedings of trial or to suggest that he has to be tried at a pace of his choice.
(2) Mandate for awarding punishment which is greater in degree does not correspondingly lead to proposition that appellant could not have been convicted of offence under Section 376 IPC as also under Section 6 POCSO Act.

Headnote:

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f) and 302 – Kidnapping, rape and murder of physically and mentally challenged girl child – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Trial Court and High Court have concurrently findings that prosecution has been able to successfully establish chain of circumstances leading to only conclusion that appellant is guilty of offences of kidnapping, rape and murder of victim girl – Fundamental fact, as held proved against appellant is that victim, a seven-and-a-half-year old mentally and physically challenged girl, was lastly seen in company of appellant when he lured her and took her along with himself on his motorcycle – Other significant fact proved is that dead body of victim girl, her clothing and motorcycle used in crime were recovered at a faraway place at instance of appellant – Coupled with these two aspects are factors that there were bloodstains on clothes of appellant – DNA profile obtained from these bloodstains matched with DNA profile of blood sample of victim girl – These facts and factors, taken together with medical evidence are said to be of a complete chain of circumstances, leading to conclusion on guilt of appellant in relation to offences of kidnapping, rape and murder – Legal aid counsel left no stone unturned to defend appellant and thoroughly cross-examined each and every witness to minutest and minor details – Constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against arrest and detention, do not expand into a corresponding right with accused person to question swiftness of investigation and expeditious proceedings of trial or to suggest that he has to be tried at a pace of his choice. (Paras 32, 35.3 and 35.4)

(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f) and 302 – Kidnapping, rape and murder of physically and mentally challenged girl child – Death sentence – In given set of circumstances and cogent expert medical evidence, absence of semen on body of victim or in vaginal swab is hardly of any bearing on substance of matter – Doctors had been clear, categorical and consistent that victim girl died due to injuries caused on her head – Victim girl was a mentally and physically challenged child – Percentage of disablement is not the matter in issue here – Relevant facts are that she was suffering from mental and physical disabilities and was below 8 years of age – These facts are duly proved on record – It had been a case of brutal rape – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court holding appellant guilty are imminently just and proper and call for no interference whatsoever – Mandate for awarding punishment which is greater in degree does not correspondingly lead to proposition that appellant could not have been convicted of offence under Section 376 IPC as also under Section 6 POCSO – After final conclusion on guilt and after pronouncing conviction, no concept of residual doubt as such is available for the purpose of sentencing – Horrific manner of killing victim, by causing ghastly head injuries had been nothing less than beastly conduct of appellant – Even though appellant was about 28 years of age and was having family of wife, a daughter who was also about 8 years of age and aged parents, he was continuously involved in criminal activities – Quest for justice in such cases, with death sentence being awarded and maintained only in extreme cases, does not mean that matter would be approached and examined in the manner that death sentence has be avoided, even if matter indeed calls for such a punishment – Crime had been of extreme depravity which shocks conscience – There is absolutely no reason to commute sentence of death to any other sentence of lesser degree – Even alternative of awarding sentence of imprisonment for whole of natural life with no remission does not appear justified in view of nature of crimes committed by appellant and looking to his incorrigible conduct – Sentences awarded to appellant, including death sentence for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, also confirmed. (Paras 37.2, 37.2.2, 37.4, 39, 40, 41, 48.4, 50.2, 51, 54, 56.1, 57, 58 and 60)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 354(3) and 235(2) – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Imposition of death sentence – As per sub-section (2) of Section 235 Cr.P.C., on being convicted and not being released on probation or after admonition in terms of Section 360 Cr.P.C., accused has to be heard by Judge concerned on question of sentence and then, sentence has to be passed according to law – As per sub-section (3) of Section 354 Cr.P.C., if conviction is for an offence punishable with death or in alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a particular term of years, judgment has to state reasons for sentence awarded; and in case of death sentence, judgment has to state ‘special reasons’ therefor. (Para 43)

(D) Constitution of India – Articles 134 and 136 – Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 – Section 2 – Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – It is not a matter of regular appeal – Supreme Court would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is scope of these appeals that Supreme Court would enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by Trial Court and approved by High Court. (Para 33)

(E) Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability act must have been done by accused. (Para 36.1)

Facts of the case:

High Court, while upholding conviction of appellant of offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f), 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has confirmed the death sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Two major points would arise for determination in these appeals; first, as to whether conviction of the appellant calls for any interference; and second, if conviction is maintained, as to whether the sentence of death awarded to the appellant deserves to be affirmed or deserves to be substituted by any other sentence?

Findings of Court:

In present case, where appellant is found to be indulging incessantly in criminal activities before the crime in question; has carried out gruesome deeds of the present crime; has further been involved in questionable jail conduct, including quarrelling with a fellow inmate and earning 7 days’ punishment; and then, to cap it all, has been involved in an offence of no less degree than murder of another jail inmate, calling for any further report of the likelihood of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant could be proposed only if the judicial process is determined to annul the death sentence altogether, by finding one way or the other to avoid the same in every case. Such an approach would be counter-productive to the entire system of maintenance of order in the society.

Result : Appeals dismissed.