Date of judgement:
9th February, 2022
Bench:
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J; DINESH MAHESHWARI, J; C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Parties:
Plaintiffs – Pappu
Defendants – State of Uttar Pradesh
SUBJECT
The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to death penalty and in view of the grave nature of the offence, the High Court had affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. An appeal was thus preferred before the Apex Court.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code
- Section 301: Culpable homicide
- Section 302: Punishment for murder
- Section 376: Punishment for rape
Constitution of India
- Article 134: The Appellate jurisdiction of the Apex Court with respect to criminal matters
- Article 136: Special Leave to appeal
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Section 29: Presumption as to certain offenses
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the conviction order called for any interference by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the death sentence of the appellant deserved to be substituted by any other sentence?
OVERVIEW
- The convict, Pappu, had enticed and raped a seven-year-old girl and had resultantly caused her death. He had then dragged her body for more than one kilo-meter and had dumped the body near a bridge.
- The circumstantial evidence was such that the victim was last seen with the appellant and her body was discovered at his instance. Furthermore, the medical evidence and scientific evidence also supported the prosecution's case.
- The Trial Court had found him guilty of offences under Sections 201, 301, 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 56 of the POCSO Act and had sentenced him to capital punishment.
- A subsequent appeal to the High Court was dismissed with the High Court upholding the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge.
- The appellants had argued before the High Court that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and also highlighted the delay in registration of the FIR.
- The High Court held that the minor inconsistencies in testimonies could be attributed to the fact that the witnesses were deposing after a period of one year. Furthermore, the Court held that such minor inconsistencies indicated that the testimonies were natural and not a result of tutoring.
- In context of the delay in lodging of FIR, the Court observed that initially the family members searched for the victim and only when they
- Considering the nature of the offense, the Court found it to be "rarest of rare case". Thus, the Court held that the death sentence was "eminently desirable".
- Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The counsel for the appellants relied on the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra: (2019) 12 SCC 460 and contended that the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of convicts must be considered by the Court before awarding death sentence.
- Furthermore, the counsel relied on the cases of Gudda Alias Dwarikendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2013) 16 SCC 596 and Kalu Khan v. State of Rajasthan: (2015) 16 SCC 492 to contend that age and absence of Criminal antecedent must be considered a mitigating factor.
- With respect to the scope of the appeals, the Court referred to Article 134 and 136 of the Indian Considered and held that "only those points can be urged at the final hearing of the appeal which are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when leave to appeal is asked for, and it would be illogical to adopt different standards at two different stages of the same case.”
- The Court stated that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts and would neither enter into the credibility of the evidence. The Court would interfere only where the High Court's assessment was vitiated by error of law or where the High Court did not act in accordance with the judicial process or acted against the principles of natural justice.
- The Court relied on a host of judgments such as Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1952 SC 343 while holding that the foundation facts of the offenses that the appellant was alleged to have committed were well established.
- The appellant had failed to rebut the assumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
- The Apex Court relied on the judgment on Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat: (2009) 5 SCC 740 and held that the balance between mitigation and aggravating factors must be considered while deciding upon the sentence of the convict. Furthermore, the Court also relied on the judgment of Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat :(2011) 2 SCC 764, and held that the Trial Court must consider the possibility of reformation of the convict while arriving on the sentence.
- The Apex Court observed that the abhorrence of the crime shall not be the sole factor for awarding capital punishment.
- The Court noted that it was "noticeable that the appellant has no criminal antecedents, comes from a very poor socio-economic background, has a family comprising of wife, children and aged father, and has unblemished jail conduct." Resultantly, the possibility of reformation could not be ruled out.
CONCLUSION
The Court thus commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with the condition that the convict must not be prematurely released before a period of 30 years. The Apex Court in this case held that factors other than the nature of the offense must also be taken into consideration while awarding death sentence. These factors may include the socio-economic conditions of the convicted person, his past record and behaviour, etc.
