Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The appellant-accused was convicted by the 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal under Sections 302, 376(a)(b), 377, 363, 366, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to death penalty along with various terms of rigorous imprisonment. The matter came before the Madhya Pradesh High Court both as a Criminal Reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence, and as a Criminal Appeal preferred by the convicted accused under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence on grounds of circumstantial evidence, absence of last-seen witnesses, disputed ownership of the hut where the offence occurred, and the accused's alibi of being out of station at the time of the incident.
The defence contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, that only family members of the prosecutrix appeared as witnesses and no independent corroboration was available, and that even if the plea of alibi were rejected, the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting the death penalty. Reliance was placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, as well as a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, to urge that reformation through life imprisonment had not been ruled out and that the death sentence ought to be commuted.
The High Court was called upon to independently assess the correctness of the conviction on facts and law, and thereafter to determine whether the sentencing aims of reformation were unachievable so as to justify confirmation of the death penalty, applying the 'rarest of rare' doctrine and balancing the crime test and criminal test as evolved by judicial precedent.
Catchwords:
death sentence · confirmation of death sentence · rarest of rare · circumstantial evidence · alibi · last seen theory · child victim · rape and murder · carnal intercourse against order of nature · kidnapping · causing disappearance of evidence · Section 302 IPC · Section 376 IPC · Section 377 IPC · Section 363 IPC · Section 366 IPC · Section 201 IPC · criminal reference · life imprisonment · reformation · sentencing
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.