NDLI: Veerendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	302 – POCSO Act – s. 6 – Penal Code 1860 – ss. 376A 376 (2)(i)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376A, 376 (2)(i), 302 – POCSO Act – s. 6 – Rape and murder of a minor girl – Prosecution case that appellant-accused had raped and throttled to cause death of victim, who was daughter of appellant’s cousin sister – While in custody during interrogation, the appellant made disclosure statement and thereafter, at his instance, the victim’s corpse concealed underneath gunny bags, was recovered – The post-mortem and the forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports revealed commission of rape in a diabolically and gruesome manner and causing of death by throttling – Trial Court convicted him for offence punishable u/s 302, 376A, 376(2)(i) of IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act and awarded him death sentence – High Court set aside the conviction u/s 376A of IPC and the rest of the sentences passed by trial Court were confirmed including death sentence recorded for the offence u/s 302 of IPC – On appeal, held: The recovery of the dead body, which was in a concealed condition from an unused and dilapidated building based on the disclosure statement of an accused is a crucial incriminating circumstance – Another incriminating circumstance considered against the appellant is the presence of nail marks on his face and neck and also his failure to offer explanation - The deceased was lastly seen with the appellant on that fateful day – It is evident that an additional link is available in this case owing to the failure on the part of the appellant to explain all the incriminating circumstances in the personal examination conducted u/s 313 of CrPC – The cumulative effect of all incriminating circumstances, would definitely justify the finding of the High Court as to the guilt of the appellant – The trial Court and also the High Court rightly concluded that the death of the victim is homicidal – The Courts have also rightly found that victim was raped – Thus, on a careful examination of the matter in its entirety, there is no perversity or manifest illegality with respect to the concurrent finding of the trial Court and the High Court that the appellant had committed the offences. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 354(3) – Death sentence – This penalty is awardable to a culprit only the category of the case falls under ‘rarest of rare cases’, the culprit has become a threat to the society at large and beyond reformation and his elimination is the only way for eradication of the threat – The present case cannot be considered as one falling in the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ in which there is no alternative but to impose death sentence – While commuting capital punishment, the appellant was awarded life imprisonment without application of the provisions of premature release/remission for a substantial length of period. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 304 – Culpable homicide and murder – The right approach in cases of culpable homicide is to first find out whether the offence falls under any of the four clauses viz., clauses firstly to fourthly u/s. 300 IPC - If it is so found, then the Court has to see whether the case is covered by any one of the five exceptions to section 300 IPC, which would make a culpable homicide ‘not amounting to murder’ – The offence, if proved, to fall under one of the said exceptions would be punishable u/s. 304, either under Part 1 or Part 2 as the case may be, or otherwise it would be murder punishable u/s. 302 IPC. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.53A – Examination of accused by medical practitioner – Non-conduct of – DNA Profiling - There can be no doubt with respect to the position that a fair investigation is necessary for a fair trial – However, solely on account of defects or shortcomings in investigation an accused is not entitled to get acquitted – The lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim. Evidence Act, 1872 – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – In the instant case, the conviction by the trial Court was not solely based on “last seen theory” – The confirmation of the con viction and sentence in the stated manner by the High Court is also not solely based on the “last seen theory” – Both the trial Court and High Court relied on the testimonies of the oral witnesses and other material evidences – Also, disclosure statement of the accused, which was resulted in recovery of the dead body.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 565
Petitioner	Veerendra
Respondent	State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2022] 4 S.C.R. 225
Judgement Date	2022-05-13
Case Number	5 and 6

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

Veerendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Lochan Shrivas Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Chotkau Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Bhagwani Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Ramnaresh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Devendra Singh

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babulal

Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Veerendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Veerendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Lochan Shrivas Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Chotkau Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Bhagwani Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Ramnaresh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Devendra Singh

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babulal

Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Veerendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh