Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The present matters arise out of a judgment dated 10.07.2019 passed by the 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, convicting the accused Vishnu Bhamore under Sections 302, 376(a)(b), 377, 201, 363, and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to death for offences under Sections 302 and 376(a)(b) IPC in connection with the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a minor girl. The trial court's judgment was referred to the High Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence, and the convict simultaneously preferred a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging both conviction and sentence.
The appellant contended that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, there being no direct witness to the last seen theory, no independent evidence establishing his ownership of the hut where the offence allegedly occurred, and that he was out of station at the time of the incident. It was further argued that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting the extreme penalty of death, and that the sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Supreme Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court on the principles governing confirmation of death sentences and the 'rarest of rare' test.
The High Court examined the evidence on record, the principles of penology, and the law governing circumstantial evidence and death sentence confirmation, including the obligations to independently assess both conviction and sentence, and to apply the 'crime test' and 'criminal test' before affirming or commuting a death sentence.
Catchwords:
death sentence · rarest of rare · circumstantial evidence · murder of minor · sexual assault · abduction · Section 302 IPC · Section 376 IPC · Section 377 IPC · Section 363 IPC · Section 366 IPC · Section 201 IPC · criminal reference · confirmation of death sentence · last seen theory · alibi · child victim · penology · reformation
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
