| Headnote |
Sentence / Sentencing – Death Sentence – Rarest of Rare case – Kidnapping, rape and murder of a seven-and-a-half-year old mentally and physically challenged girl – Case of circumstantial evidence – Trial Court found appellant-accused guilty and imposed death sentence u/s. 302 IPC – High Court found it to be a ‘rarest of rare case’ and upheld the conviction and death sentence – Appeal before the Supreme Court on two issues – First, whether concurrent findings of fact required interference – Second, whether death sentence be maintained or substituted by any other sentence – Held: On facts, the chain is so complete in itself that no stretch of imagination could take the court to any other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellant in relation to the offences charged – Hence, the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court holding appellant guilty are imminently just and proper; and call for no interference whatsoever – Insofar as sentence is concerned, in the present case, the crime had been of extreme depravity, which shocks the conscience, particularly looking to the target (a seven-and-a-half-year old mentally and physically challenged girl) and then, looking to the manner of committing murder, where the hapless victim’s head was literally smashed, resulting in multiple injuries including fracture of frontal bone – This is apart from the facts that the innocent victim was kidnapped on a stolen motorcycle by misusing the trust gained by offer of confectionary items and also, apart from the fact that she was brutally and inhumanly raped – Taking up the test parameters pertaining to the criminal (i.e., the appellant), of course, he has a family with wife and minor daughter and aged father and the crime was committed when he was only 28 years of age – However, these mitigating factors are pitted against several other factors pertaining to the appellant himself – One, being of his activities and actions before the present crime where he was found involved in at least four cases with offences ranging from s. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, s.379 IPC and even s.307 IPC – Second, being the fact that the present crime itself was carried out with the aid of a stolen motorcycle – Third, and crucial one being his conduct post-conviction where he not only earned 7 days’ punishment in jail for quarrelling with a co-inmate but he has also been convicted of the offence of murder of another jail inmate – A fortiori, there appears no probability of his reformation and rehabilitation – This possibility of the appellant relapsing in the same crime over again and nil probability of his reformation/rehabilitation is a direct challenge as also danger to the maintenance of order in the society – Consequently, it is a case of no other option but to confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellant – Penal Code 1860 – ss. 302, 363, 365 and 376(2)(f).Sentence / Sentencing – Death Sentence – Evolution of principles and norms – Discussed – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 235 and 354.Sentence / Sentencing – Death Sentence – Rarest of rare doctrine – Effect, if any, of death sentence being awarded and maintained only in extreme cases – Held: Even though rarest of rare doctrine and its accompanying principles, as enunciated and explained in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh cases, have been almost uniformly applied by Courts in the country while dealing with the question of sentencing when the statute provides for death penalty; and over the time, even the proposition of larger/longer term of actual imprisonment with no remission or curtailed remission has also evolved but, it has never been the effort of the Courts to somehow make the punishment of death sentence redundant and non-existent for all practical purposes – The quest for justice in such cases, with death sentence being awarded and maintained only in extreme cases, does not mean that the matter would be approached and examined in the manner that death sentence has be avoided, even if the matter indeed calls for such a punishment – The judicial process would be compromising on its objectivity if the approach is to nullify the statutory provision carrying death sentence as an alternative punishment for major offences (like that of s. 302 IPC), even after it has passed muster of judicial scrutiny and has been held not unconstitutional – The pursuit in collecting mitigating circumstances could also not be taken up with any notion or idea that somehow, some factor be found; or if not found, be deduced anyhow so that the sentence of death be forsaken – Such an approach would be unrealistic, unwarranted and rather not upholding the rule of law – Rule of law.Sentence / Sentencing – Death Sentence – Post-conviction conduct – Relevance – Held: Courts have refrained from awarding or approving death sentence even in cases of gruesome killings, essentially on the premise that even a semblance of probability of reformation of the convict ought to be given a chance, rather than awarding capital punishment, which is of irretrievable nature – In this regard, the jail conduct of the convict carries its own bearing and relevance in the overall consideration; and the Supreme Court has leaned in favour of commuting the sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life in case of unblemished jail conduct, even if the crime itself had been of gruesome or abhorrent nature.Sentence / Sentencing – Psychological evaluation report – Report on likelihood of reformation and rehabilitation – When may be called for – Held: In appropriate cases, after conviction, the Court may call for report to determine whether the accused could be reformed or rehabilitated; and it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case – There cannot be any universal formula for calling for such a report – In the present case, where the appellant-convict was incessantly indulged in criminal activities before the crime in question; carried out gruesome deeds of the present crime; was further involved in questionable jail conduct, including quarrelling with a fellow inmate and earning 7 days’ punishment; and then also involved in 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 and would strike at the roots of the rule of law – In the circumstances of the present case, the suggestions about calling for any so-called psychological evaluation report could only be termed as impractical and unrealistic and could only be rejected.Sentence/Sentencing – Sentencing principles – Crime and criminal tests – Aggravating and Mitigating circumstances – Discussed. Criminal jurisprudence – Case of circumstantial evidence – Theory of residual doubt – If available for the purpose of sentencing – Held: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the conclusion of guilt is recorded only after the circumstances are found to be forming an unbreakable chain, so consistent as to rule out any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused – These being stringent norms, as followed consistently by the Courts based on the panchsheel principles expounded in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, and requirement being of the proof of the case beyond reasonable doubt, theoretically there is no scope for any ‘residual doubt’ operating even in the cases of circumstantial evidence – The cases in which theory of residual doubt has at all been referred, had been standing on their own facts, where alternative to death sentence was considered appropriate – However, while taking up the matter for sentencing, it is not expected to reopen the chain of circumstantial evidence to find any weak link which may fall in the category of residual doubt – If at all any such doubt is reasonably existing, the very basis of conviction would be in question – After the final conclusion on the guilt and after pronouncing conviction, no concept of residual doubt as such is available for the purpose of sentencing – Sentence/Sentencing. |
