Penal Code 1860: ss.363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 and 376A – Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the minor daughter of complainant was found missing – They went in search for her but she was not found anywhere – When they came back home, PW-3 told them that appellant who was neighbour had said that if they would allow him to conduct worship, he could find the child in an hour – They agreed and after the worship, appellant informed them that the child was tied and kept inside the sack in the bushes – PW-1 informed police and on suspicion, appellant was interrogated and he confessed his crime before police – Thereafter, sack was recovered from bushes containing the blood soaked body of the victim girl – Trial court convicted appellantfor offences punishable u/s363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 and 376A and s.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and passed death sentence for the offence punishable u/s.302 – High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence – On appeal, held: For resting a conviction in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused – In the instant case, proven circumstances established a chain of circumstances, which lead to no other conclusion than the guilt of the appellant – In the statement recorded under s.313 Cr.P.C., though all these incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant, he did not offer any explanation except saying that it was wrong and false – Conviction u/ss.363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 r/ws.376A and s.6 of the POCSO Act is maintained – However, taking into consideration the state of mind of appellant, his socio-economic background, etc., it cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment.
Partly allowing the appeals, the court
HELD: 1. For resting a conviction in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and it must be such as to show that within all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. [Para 14][817-C-D]
2. The circumstances establish a chain of circumstances, which lead to no other conclusion than the guilt of the appellant. Apart from that, in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., though all these incriminating circumstances have been put to the appellant, he has not offered any explanation except saying that it is wrong and false. It is trite law that though the false explanation cannot be taken to complete a missing link in the chain of circumstances, it can surely be taken to fortify the conclusion of conviction recorded on the basis of the proven incriminating circumstances. The non-explanation of the circumstances would fortify the finding, which is based on the chain of incriminating circumstances that leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the appellant. [Paras 44, 45] [829-G-H; 830-D]
Hanumant, son of Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 0 SCR 1091; Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 3 SCC 90 : [1979] 2 SCR 330; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 249 : [1972] 2 SCR 765; A.N. Venkatesh and Another v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh (1999) 4 SCC 370; John Pandian v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2010) 14 SCC 129: [2010] 15 SCR 1012; Krishan Mohar Singh Dugal v. State of Goa (1999) 8 SCC 552; Nilesh Dinkar
Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 143 : [2011] 3 SCR 792 – referred to.
3. The trial court as well as the High Court has only taken into consideration the crime but they have not taken into consideration the criminal, his state of mind, his socio-economic background, etc. The appellant is a young person, who was 23 years old at the time of commission of the offence. He comes from a rural background. The State has not placed any evidence to show that there is no possibility with respect to reformation and the rehabilitation of the accused. The High Court as well as the trial court also has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. The conduct of the appellant in the prison has been found to be satisfactory. There are no criminal antecedents. It is the first offence committed by the appellant. No doubt, a heinous one. The appellant is not a hardened criminal. It therefore cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative. The judgment and order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 read with Section 376A of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act is maintained. However, the death penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is commuted to life imprisonment. The sentences awarded for the rest of the offences by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court, are maintained. [Paras 50, 52, 54][832-E-F; 833-G; 835-B-C]
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (2013) 14 SCC 266 : [2013]
3 SCR 1172; Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584 : [2019] 8 SCR 266; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 : [1983] 3 SCR 413; Mofil Khan and Another v. The State of Jharkhand 2021 (14) SCALE 249; Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 : [2018] 14 SCR 585; Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 4 SCC 393 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
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.