NDLI: Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Sentencing Imposition of death sentence Rape/murder of minor Conviction based on circumstantial evidence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Sentence/Sentencing: Rape/murder of minor – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Imposition of death sentence – Held: There is no absolute principle of law that no death sentence can be awarded in a case where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence – Such a standard would be ripe for abuse by seasoned criminals who always make sure to destroy direct evidence – Further, in many cases of rape and murder of children, the victims owing to their tender age can put up no resistance – In such cases, it is extremely likely that there would be no ocular evidence – It cannot, therefore, be said that in every such case notwithstanding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court must not award capital punishment for the mere reason that the offender has not been seen committing the crime by an eye-witness – Such a reasoning, if applied uniformly and mechanically will have devastating effects on the society which is a dominant stakeholder in the administration of our criminal justice system.Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Residual doubt – This Court has increasingly become cognizant of ‘residual doubt’ in many recent cases which effectively create a higher standard of proof over and above the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard used at the stage of conviction, as a safeguard against routine capital sentencing, keeping in mind the irreversibility of death. Penal Code, 1860: ss.363, 366, 376(2)(m), 376(2)(n), 376- A, 302 and 201 – Rape and murder of minor girl – Trial court held appellant guilty of kidnapping a 13 years old girl committing rape on her and killing her by throttling and thereafter destroying evidence by throwing her half naked body in dry well – Trial court as well as High Court awarded death sentence – On appeal, held: This is a case of circumstantial evidence which is supported by ocular and medico-scientific evidence – DNA evidence using the established STR technique proved that appellant committed sexual intercourse with the deceased – Various injuries on her body along with signs of struggle proved that such crime was committed in a barbaric manner – A slipper was recovered through the appellant which was later identified as belonging to the deceased, giving finality to the circumstantial chain – The findings of kidnapping, rape, resultant death and destruction of evidence were proved beyond reasonable doubt, as evidenced by concurrent findings of the Courts below – As regards the sentencing, there were some residual doubts – A crucial witness for constructing the last seen theory, was partly inconsistent in cross-examination and quickly jumped from one statement to the other – Two other prosecution witnesses had seen the appellant feeding biscuits to the deceased one year before the incident and their long delay in reporting the same failed to inspire confidence – The mother of the deceased deposed that the wife and daughter of the appellant came to her house and demanded the return of the money which she had borrowed from them but failed to mention that she suspected the appellant of committing the crime initially – Ligature marks on the neck evidencing throttling were noted by doctors and in the postmortem report, but find no mention in the panchnama prepared by the police – Viscera samples sent for chemical testing were spoiled and hence remained unexamined – Although nails’ scrappings of the accused were collected, no report was produced to show that DNA of the deceased was present – All these factors of course have no impact in formation of the chain of evidence and are wholly insufficient to create reasonable doubt to earn acquittal – However, ‘residual doubt’ as a mitigating factor would effectively raise the standard of proof for imposing the death sentence – This case falls short of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the death sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the appellant – Death penalty is set aside and is substituted with the life imprisonment. Penal Code, 1860: s. 376A – Conviction under – High Court while confirming death sentence observed that the girl was found bleeding due to forcible sexual intercourse - which fact, however, is not supported by medical evidence – Held: Such erroneous finding has no impact on conviction under s.376A for a bare perusal of the section shows that only the factum of death of the victim during the offence of rape is required, and such death need not be with any guilty intention or be a natural consequence of the act of rape only – It is worded broadly enough to include death by any act committed by the accused if done contemporaneously with the crime of rape – Any other interpretation would defeat the object of ensuring safety of women.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1116
Petitioner	Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma
Respondent	The State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2019] 14 S.C.R. 285
Judgement Date	2019-10-03
Case Number	1523

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dattatraya @ Datta Ambo Rokade Vs. The State of Maharashtra

B. A. Umesh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Jaharlal Das Vs. State of Orissa

Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Ravishankar Tandon Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Madala Venkata Narsimha Rao Vs. State of A.p.

Ram Deo Prasad Vs. State of Bihar

Usman Mian and Ors Vs. State of Bihar

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dattatraya @ Datta Ambo Rokade Vs. The State of Maharashtra

B. A. Umesh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Jaharlal Das Vs. State of Orissa

Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Ravishankar Tandon Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Madala Venkata Narsimha Rao Vs. State of A.p.

Ram Deo Prasad Vs. State of Bihar

Usman Mian and Ors Vs. State of Bihar

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh