bombay high court confirms double death sentence

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

1conf01.15

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY,NAGPURBENCH,NAGPUR.

CRIMINALCONFIRMATIONCASENO.01OF2015

TheStateofMaharashtra,throughPoliceStationOfficer,PoliceStation,Parwa,TalukaGhatanji,DistrictYavatmal. ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

ShatrughnaBabanMeshram,aged21years,OccupationLabour,R/oZatala,TalukaGhatanji,DistrictYavatmal. ...RESPONDENT

....

Smt.BhartiDangre,PublicProsecutorfortheappellant/State.ShriT.G.Bansod,Advocatefortherespondent.

....

WITHCRIMINALAPPEALNO.321OF2015

ShatrughnaBabanMeshram,aged21years,OccupationLabour,R/oZatala,TalukaGhatanji,DistrictYavatmal.(InCentralJail,Nagpur). ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED

VERSUS

TheStateofMaharashtra,throughPoliceStationOfficer,PoliceStation,Parwa,TalukaGhatanji,DistrictYavatmal. ...RESPONDENT

....

ShriT.G.Bansod,Advocatefortheappellant/accused.Smt. Bharti Dangre, Public Prosecutor with Shri M.K. Pathan, AdditionalPublicProsecutorfortherespondent/State.

....

::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2015 20:49:07 :::

Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

2conf01.15

CORAM:B.R.GAVAIANDPRASANNAB.VARALE,JJ.

DATEOFRESERVINGTHEJUDGMENT:29THSEPTEMBER,2015.DATEOFPRONOUNCINGTHEJUDGMENT:12THOCTOBER,2015.

JUDGMENT:(PerPrasannaB.Varale,J.)

TheConfirmationCaseNo.01of2015arisesoutofthereference

bythelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,YavatmalinSpecialCase(POCSO

Act) No. 11 of 2013 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to

originalaccused.

2. Theappellant/original accusedhasalsopreferredtheCriminal

Appeal No. 321 of 2015 challenging the judgment and order dated 14th

August, 2015therebyconvictingtheappellant fortheoffencespunishable

underSection302oftheIndianPenalCodeandsentencingtodeath,also

convicting for the offence punishable under Section 376A of the Indian

PenalCodeandsentencingtodeath,convictingfortheoffencepunishable

underSection6oftheProtectionofChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct,2012

(POCSO)andsentencingtosufferRigorousImprisonmentforlifeandtopay

fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for

threemonths.

3. Onperusalofthematerialplacedonrecord,theprosecutioncase

emergesasfollows

Ontheunfortunatedayi.e.on11thFebruary,2013,thevictimwho


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

3conf01.15

wasa child of two years of age, was in the lap of her grandfather. The

appellant (original accused) is the son of the cousin brother of the

grandfather of the victimnamely Pundlik. The accused approached the

houseofPundlikatabout07:30p.m.Hetoldthegrandfatherthatthefather

ofthevictimisbackfromhisworkandhehasaskedhim(accused)tobring

thevictim.Thegrandfatherofthevictimwasnotinclinedtoallowthechild

tobetakenbytheaccusedonthegroundthatthefatherofthevictimisyetto

comefromwork. In spite of suchresistance, the accusedtook awaythe

victimwithhim.Thefatherofthevictimhadbeentoattendsomereligious

functioninthetemplenamelyDattaMandir.Onhisreturn,whenhefound

thatthechildwasnotinthehouse,hemadeanenquirywiththegrandfather

i.e.Pundlikaboutthechild. Pundlikinformedthattheaccusedtookaway

the child from his house. The father of the victim Maroti, grandfather

PundlikandoneShrawanMeshramproceededforthesearchofthechildin

thevillage. Theyfoundthevictimchildwaslyingatapartiallyconstructed

buildingof Anganwadi. Theaccusedwasalsolyingonthespot. Maroti,

Pundlik and Shrawan found that the victim had received severe injuries

includingbitesonlipsandcheeksandswellingonherprivatepart. They

immediately rushed to the private medical officer Dr. Jafar at Kurli by

arranginganautorickshaw. Dr.Jafardeclaredthatthevictimwasbrought

dead.ThevictimwasthenbroughtbacktovillageZatala.Inthemeantime,

aninformationwasreceivedinthePoliceStationandAPIShriVanjarialong

withhisotherstaffmembersrushedtothevillageZatala. Hesawthedead

bodyof thevictimandtookit toSubDistrict Hospital, Ghatanji. Maroti,

fatherofthevictimlodgedareportatPoliceStation,Parwaandonhisreport,


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

4conf01.15

CrimeNo.11/2013wasregistered. Astheinvestigatingagencywasset in

motion, Shri Vanjari carriedout necessary formalities of the investigation

process,suchas,effectingthearrestoftheaccusedonthenextdayi.e.on

12thFebruary,2013,attendingthespotoftheincidentanddrawingthespot

panchnama.Theclotheswornbythechildvictimwereseizedfromthespot

alongwiththepiecesoffleshandchappaloftheaccusedaswellearthfrom

the spot. Accordingly, seizure panchnama was drawn. An inquest

panchnamaofthedeadbodywasalsodrawn.Thedeadbodywasreferredto

postmortemandthenotesofautopsysurgeonwerecollected.Theapparels

wornbytheaccusedwerealsoseized,thesamplesofbloodofthevictim

werealsocollectedandvisceraandtheothermaterialwereforwardedtothe

Chemical Analyzer. A request was also made to the Naib Tahsildar to

prepare themapof thespot. TheInvestigating Officer alsorecordedthe

statementsofthewitnesses.

4. Oncompletionoftheinvestigationprocess,chargesheetcameto

be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghatanji.

SincethecasewasexclusivelytriablebythelearnedSessionsJudge,thesame

committedtothelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,Yavatmal.Theaccused

waschargedfortheoffencepunishableunderSections376(1)(2)(f)(m),376

A,302oftheIndianPenalCodeandunderSection6of theProtectionof

ChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct,2012.Theaccusedpleadednotguiltyand

claimedtobetried. Hisdefencewasoftwofolds;oneoftotaldenialand

otherwasoffalseimplicationandthedefencetheoryputupwasthatthe

fatherofthevictimhimselfkilledthevictimsoastopleasetheGoddess.In


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

5conf01.15

short,acaseofhumansacrificewasputupbytheaccusedasdefence.The

prosecution,initssupport,examined13witnesses. ThelearnedAdditional

Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the

conclusionthattheprosecutionwassuccessfulinprovingtheincriminating

circumstances and also successful in establishing chain of proved

circumstanceslendingtonootherconclusionthantheguiltoftheaccused.

The learned Sessions Judge thus found that the accused is guilty of the

offenceschargedagainsthimandfurtherfoundthatthecasebeingabrutal

rapeandmurderofhelplessminorvictimchild,thesamefallsinthecategory

of rarest of rare case warranting imposition of death sentence of the

offencepunishableunderSections376Aand302oftheIndianPenalCode.

Sincethedeathpenaltywasimposed,thelearnedtrialJudgepreferredthe

mattertothisCourtforconfirmationofthesaidsentence.Theappellantalso

assailed the said finding by way of an appeal assailing the order of

conviction.Both,ConfirmationCaseandtheAppeal,areheardanddecided

byustogether.

5. Smt.BhartiDangre,thelearnedPublicProsecutor,insupportof

the judgmentandorderpassedbythe learnedAdditional SessionsJudge,

Yavatmal, submits that the learned Sessions Judge appreciated the oral

evidence as well as the scientific evidence in its proper perspective and

arrivedatajustandproperconclusion.Shefurthersubmitsthatconsidering

thepeculiar facts, suchasthevictimbeingaminorchildandhardlytwo

yearsofage,subjectedtoabrutalsexualexploitationresultingindeathofthe

childandtheaccusedbeingthematernaluncleofthechild,thisisafitcase


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

6conf01.15

wherenolesserpunishmentthanthedeathpenaltycanbeawardedtothe

appellant/accused. ThelearnedPPalsoreliesonthevariousjudgmentsof

theApexCourtaswellasthisCourtinsupportofhersubmission.

6. Percontra,ShriBansod,thelearnedCounselfortherespondent

(originalaccused)submitsthatthelearnedSessionsJudgeutterlyfailedto

appreciate the evidence and was swayed away on the superficial

circumstances,suchasthevictimwasachild. ThelearnedCounselfurther

submitsthatasthecaseisbasedonthecircumstances,itwasthefirstand

foremostdutyoftheprosecutiontoestablisheachandeverycircumstance

withclinchingevidenceagainsttheaccused. ShriBansodalsosubmitsthat

therearemanymissinglinksintheevidencebroughtbytheprosecution.He

furthersubmitsthatthelearnedSessionsJudgealsofailedtoconsiderthe

defence put up by the appellant/accused. The learned Counsel for the

appellant/accusedthensubmitsthatassumingbutnotadmittingthatthere

issomeevidenceagainsttheappellant/accused,thesameisnotsufficient

enough to award a capital punishment to the appellant/accused. Shri

Bansod then submits that the appellant/accused was in his prime youth

when the unfortunate incident took place and it is alleged that the

appellant/accusedistheauthorofthesaidcrime. Consideringthesefacts,

an opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant/accused to

rehabilitate and reform him in his life. In stead of adopting such an

approach, the learned Sessions Judge awarded the death penalty to the

appellant/accused. Thus, it is an alternative submission of the learned

Counselfortheappellant/accusedthattheappellant/accusedbeawardeda


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

7conf01.15

lesserpunishmentifhispleaofacquittalisnotacceptedbythisCourt.

7. WiththeassistanceofthelearnedCounsel,wehavegonethrough

the material placed on record. As stated above, the prosecution has

examined 13 witnesses. For better appreciation, we would classify these

witnesses, suchasthewitnesseswhosupport theprosecutioncaseof the

accused and the deceased last seen together and the dead body of the

deceasedbeingfoundseenthereafter,thepanchwitnesses,thewitnesseson

scientificaspectsandthepolicepersonnelcarryingoutvariousformalitiesof

theinvestigationaswelltheInvestigatingOfficer.

8. Inthefirstcategoryofwitnesses,PW1MarotiPendor,fatherof

the victim, PW2 Pundlik Masram, grandfather of the victim and PW9

ChandrakantBijapwar,ownerofgroceryshopwouldfindtheirplace.PW3

Ravindra Masramand PW4 Raju Dhadewar are the panch witnesses on

variouspanchnamas,suchasspotpanchnama,seizureoftheclothesofthe

victim,effectingarrestoftheaccused,seizureoftheclothesoftheaccused,

seizureofvisceraetc.PW5GaneshGhose,PW8RameshYedmeandPW11

PrakashUddhaoraoKshirsagararethepolicepersonnelwhotookpartinthe

processofinvestigation,suchascarrierofdeadbody,carrierofmuddemal

propertyetc. PW12RameshMendheistheNaibTahsildarwhoprepared

themapofthespot.PW13PanjabVanjari,theAPIandistheInvestigating

Officer.PW6Dr.JafarandPW7Dr.LingawararetheMedicalOfficerswho

areonthescientificaspectssuchasmedicalexaminationofthevictimand

medicalexaminationoftheaccused. PW10isDr.Gadgeandthroughthis


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

8conf01.15

witness,postmortemnotesareproved.

9. Firstly, we would deal with PW2 Pundlik, grandfather of the

victim child. PW2 Pundlik states that PW1 Maroti is his soninlaw;

whereas Vaishali is his daughter. He further states that the couple was

initially residing at a place TekadiRampur, District Adilabad and four

monthspriortotheincident,theyshiftedtoZatalawhereinPW2andhis

familywereresiding. ThecouplestartedresidingnearthehouseofPW2

Pundlik and was doing labour work. He further states that the victim

deceasedSrushtiwasthedaughterofPW1MarotiandVaishali;whereasthe

accusedisthesonofhiscousinbrother.Hethenstatesthaton11thFebruary,

2013 at about 07:30 p.m., both the grand daughters namely Srushti and

Drushti were in his lap. Theaccusedcamethere and informedthat the

fatherofSrushtihadcomefromworkandaskedhimtobringSrushti.PW2

Pundlikalsostatesthatinspiteofhisresistanceonaccountthatthefatherof

Srushtiwasyettoreturnbackfromhiswork,theaccusedpaidnoheedand

tookawaySrushti. Hefurtherstatesthataftersometime,healongwithhis

wifewenttothehouseofPW1MarotiandaskedastowhetherSrushtiwas

broughttohimbytheaccused.PW1Marotirepliedinnegative.Therefore,

Pundlik,PW1MarotiandoneShrawantooksearchofSrushti. Whenthey

wereontheirwaytowatertank,oneVikasMasraminformedthemthathe

saw accused with Srushti going towards Anganwadi. On receiving this

information, Pundlik, Maroti and Shrawan proceeded to the site of

constructionof theAnganwadi andonreachingthere, theyfoundSrushti

andaccusedwerelyinginthepremisesofAnganwadi. Hethenstatesthat


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

9conf01.15

thejeanspantofSrushtiwaslyingaside;whereasTshirtwasonherperson.

HefurtherstatesthattheyfoundSurshtihadsustainedbitingwoundsonher

lips,cheeks,chestandhipandalsofoundthattherewasbleedingfromthe

privatepartofSrushti. HealsostatesthattheyimmediatelytookSurshtito

their house andthereafter immediately she was takento oneDr. Jafar of

village Kurli. Dr. Jafar declaredher dead. Thentheycamebackto their

house. Thepolicepersonnel alsoreachedtheir houseandtookthedead

bodyofSrushtitoGhatanji.Pundlikidentifiedtheaccusedwhowaspresent

intheCourt.PW2Pundlikfurtherstatesaboutdrawinginquestpanchnama

inhispresenceandanotherpanchArvindSidam.Hethenstatesthaton13th

February,2013,hisstatementwasrecordedbythepoliceaswellason08th

March,2013intheCourt.

10. This witness was subjected to crossexamination. An attempt

wasmadetosuggestthatthewitnessisdeposingfalseandalsoanattempt

wasmadetosuggest that thevictimSrushti waskilledbyhimforgetting

certainbenefitashumansacrificetopleasetheGoddess. Thewitnesshas

flatly deniedthis suggestion. Thoughcertainomissions were brought on

record,theseomissionsarenotsufficientenoughtodiscreditthewitnessor

falsifytheversionofthiswitnessonthematerialaspecti.e.theaccusedtook

awaythevictiminspiteofhisresistanceandwithinashortspanoftime,the

victimfoundataplaceandshewassubjectedtoaviolentsexualexploitation

andtheaccusedwaslyingonthespot. Perusaloftheinquestpanchnama

shows that there were bite marks on the cheeks, lips, chest and on the

buttock.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

10conf01.15

11. PW1Maroti isthefatherofthevictim. Maroti statesthatthe

victimchildSrushtiwashisdaughterandshewasoftwoyearsofage. He

deposesthathewasresidinginahousenearthehouseofhisfatherinlaw

PW2 Pundlik and on 11th February, 2013, there was a programme of

MahaprasadinDattaMandirandhehadgonetothetempleatabout07:00

p.m.andcamebackabout07:30p.m.Hefurtherstatesthatonfindingthat

Srushtiwasnotinahouse,hemadeenquirywiththefatherinlawPundlik

andhetoldthattheaccusedtookawaySrushtitohishouse. PW1further

statesthatastheaccusedhadnotbroughtSrushtitohim,asearchwastaken

inthevillagebyhimself,hisfatherinlawandoneShrawan.Thenhestates

thathesawhisdaughterSrushtilyingonthespoti.e.apartiallyconstructed

buildingofAnganwadiandtheaccusedwasalsolyingthereandthepantof

thechildvictimwasnotonherpersonandthesamewaslyingaside. He

furtherstatesthatitwasajeanspantofbluecolourandtherewerewounds

ofbitesonthelipsandcheeksofhisdaughterandswellingonherprivate

part.Healsostatesthathetookthedaughterfromthespottothehouseand

thereafter immediately by arranging anautorickshawtookher to private

doctoratvillageKurli. Afterexamininghisdaughter,Dr.Jafardeclaredher

dead. Hebroughtbackthedeadbodyofhisdaughtertohishouse. PW1

MarotifurtherstatesthatbyapproachingParwaPoliceStation,helodgedthe

report. Onhis oral report, offencewasregisteredandaprintedFIRwas

preparedandthesamebearshissignature.Healsostatesaboutshowingthe

spot to the police personnel, conducting the postmortemand thereafter

handingoverthedeadbodytohimbythepolice. Hethenstatesthathis


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

11conf01.15

statementwasrecordedon13th February,2013andheidentifiedthejeans

pant(Article1)andTshirt(Article2). Healsoidentifiedtheaccusedwas

presentintheCourt.

12. Thiswitnesswasalsosubjectedtoadetailedcrossexamination.

Suggestions were given to this witness that the spot namely the said

Anganwadiwassurroundedbyvarioushousesanditwasinthemiddleofthe

village. Asuggestionwasalsogiventothiswitnessthathealongwithhis

fatherinlawkilledhisdaughterashumansacrificetopleasetheGoddess

and the accused on coming to knowthis fact, threatened them to lodge

report against them. It wasalsosuggestedthat tosavethemselves, PW1

MarotilodgedafalsereportagainsttheaccusedandhewasbeatenbyPW1

Maroti and others. These suggestions are flatly denied by the witness.

Certain omissions were brought on record in respect of beating of the

accusedbyShrawan,GovardhanandVikas.

13. Perusal of the version of this witness who was subjected to

detailedcrossexamination,showsthatthiswitnesswasnotatallshattered

andstoodfirmonmaterialaspectsuchasreceivinganinformationfromPW

2PundlikthattheaccusedtookawaythechildSrushtiandthenfindingthe

childlyingonthespot.Healsostoodfirmontheaspectofreachingthespot,

findingthatthejeanspantofthevictimwasnotonherpersonbutwaslying

asideandtheaccusedwasalsolyingthereandmarksofviolenceonthebody

ofthechildvictim.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

12conf01.15

14. PW9ChandrakantBijapwar,wassoughttobeexaminedonthe

aspect of theaccusedvisiting his shopon11th February, 2013 alongwith

Srushti andpurchasing biscuits andchiwda, however this witness turned

hostile.Itwillbeusefultonotethattothecrossexaminationofthiswitness

bythelearnedAPP,thiswitnessadmitsthathewashavinggoodrelations

withtheaccusedandhisfamilyandalsoadmitsthatonthedayofhiscross

examination in the Court, he was accompanied by the relatives of the

accused.

15. PW3 Ravindra Masram, PW4 Raju Dhadewar, PW5 Ganesh

Ghose,PW8RameshYedmeandPW11PrakashKshirsagararethepanchas

andthepolicepersonnel.PW12RameshMendheistheNaibTahsildarwho

preparedthemapofthespot. Theysupportthecaseoftheprosecutionon

the role played by themandnothing damaging could be brought by the

defenceintheircrossexamination.

16. Itwillbeusefultorefertothemedicalevidence.PW6Dr.Jafaris

themedical officer to whomPW1Maroti andPW2Pundlik approached

withthevictimchild. Dr.Jafarstatesthaton11th February,2013,whenhe

wasinhisclinic,atabout09:30p.m.to10:00p.m.,threepersonsfromZatala

broughtonegirlchildpatient.Hefurtherstatesthatthechildwaswrapped

in bed sheet, she was aged about 2 and to three years and on her

examination,hefoundthatshewasdead.Therewerewoundsofbitesonher

mouthandthereafterthosepersonstookawayherdeadbody.Healsostates

thatthepolicehadrecordedhisstatement. Inthecrossexamination,Dr.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

13conf01.15

Jafar states that he had not seen the cutting marks on the lips of the

deceased.Hefurtherdeposesinthecrossexaminationthathehadseenthe

woundsonthemouthofthedeceasedandmerelyheexaminedtheheart

beatsandpulse.

17. PW10isDr.Gadgeandheconductedthepostmortem.Hestates

thaton12th February,2013,hereceivedarequisitionletterandaletterfor

video shooting of the process of postmortem and also received certain

queries.Hefurtherstatesthatthepostmortemexaminationwasconducted

on12th February, 2013between1505 to 1705hoursalongwith Dr. Major

Kuchewar,Dr.R.D.Meshram,Dr.R.R.KhetreandDr.L.P.Durgawad. Dr.

Gadge.Hethenstatesthathefoundbothupperandlowerlipsweremissing

andtherewasevidenceofperennialtearwithmergingofvaginalandanal

orifice, the details of whichwere referred in columnNos.17 and 21. He

furtherstatesthatdriedbloodanddriedbloodstainsandfaecalmatterover

genitalandperennialregionwerefound,limbswerestraightandhandswere

partlyclenched. Dr. Gadgefurtherstatesabouttheinjuriesfoundonthe

deadbodyasunder:

(1) Multiple abrasions over right zygomatic regionof sizesrangingfrom0.5cmx0.5cmto0.3cmx0.2cmreddish.

(2) Abrasionover left uppereyelidof size 0.5 cmx0.5cmreddish.

(3) Abrasionoverrightcheekofsize4cmx4cmreddish.

(4) Abrasionoverleftcheekofsize8.5cmx7cmreddish.

(5) Evidenceofmissingbothupperandlowerlipsexposing


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

14conf01.15

labialfatwithcleancutmarginsseenperiorallywithoutbloodinfiltration(postmorteminnature).

(6) Laceratedwoundoverchin,midlineofsize3cmmuscledeep with tissue missing, margins irregular and bloodinfiltratedreddish.

(7) Bitemarkoverandaroundrightnippleoveraregionofsize5cmx5cm,marginscontusedreddish.

(8) Bitemarkoverandaroundleftnippleoveraregionofsize3cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.

(9) Bite mark over abdomen, 1 cm right at the level ofumbilicusoveraregionofsize,4cmx3.5cm,marginscontusedreddish.

(10) Bitemarkoverabdomeninthemidline,5cmbelowtheumbilicus, over a regionof size 3 cmx 3 cm, marginscontusedreddish.

(11) Bitemarkoverabdomeninthemidline,5cmbelowtheumbilicus, over a regionof size 3 cmx 3 cm, marginscontusedreddish.

(12) Bite mark over lateral aspect of right shoulder, over aregionofsize5cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.

(13) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.

(14) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx3cm, margins contused reddish, separated from injuryNo.13by1.5cm.

(15) Bitemarkoverrightbuttock,overaregionofsize3cmx2.5cm,marginscontused,reddish,separatedfrominjuryNo.14by1cm.

(16) Bitemarkoverleftbuttock,overaregionofsize3.7cmx3cm,marginscontusedreddish.

(17) Multiplelacerationsovervaginalandanalregionmergingvaginalandanalorifice(perennialtearat3, 6and9O'clock positions), margins irregular, blood infiltrated,reddish.

(18) Abrasionoverleftkneejointregion,inanterioraspectofsize1cmx0.5cmreddish.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

15conf01.15

PW10Dr.GadgefurtherstatesthattheinjuryNo.6wascausedbynibbling

byteethandinjuryNos.7to16arecausedbyhumanbitesandinjuryNo.17is

caused by forceful sexual assault. He also states that on internal

examination, he found that under scalp contusion over frontoparietal

region of size 6 cm x 5 cm, irregular and reddish and under the scalp

contusion over left temporal region of size 2.5 cmx 2 cm, irregular and

reddish. No evidence of fracture to vault and base of skull. Ribs and

cartilagesintactnoinjury.Haemotomaoverleftsideofchestwall,anteriorly

correspondingtoinjuryNo.8undercolumnNo.17ofsize4.5cmx3cmwith

bloodinfiltrationinsurroundtissue,reddish.Dr.Gadgefurtherstatesabout

theevidenceoftear(perforation)invictimrectumof size3cmx2.5cm,

margins irregular with blood infiltration present corresponding to injury

No.17 under column No.17 with evidence of faecal matter coming out

throughthevent. Hethenstatesthattheevidenceoftearintheposterior

vaginalwallwithmergingofvaginalandanalcanal(perennialtear)surface

ragged, margins irregular, blood infiltrated and reddish extending and

tearing (perforating) the rectum corresponding to injury No.17 under

columnNo.17. Dr.Gadgethenstatesthatthedeceaseddiedwithinthree

hoursfromlastmeal. Hefurtherstatesthattheviscerawaspreservedand

bloodsoakedgaugedpiecekeptforD.N.A.analysisandcomparisonandskin

andtissuekeptforD.N.A.analysis. Hethenstatesthatthebloodsoaked

gaugedpiecekeptforbloodgroup,nailclippingskeptfordetectionofforeign

bloodgroupandtheskinandtissueskeptforhistopathologicalexamination.

Dr. Gadge thenstates that the cause of death is shockandhaemorrhage


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

16conf01.15

followingperennialtearwithmultipleinjuries. Hefurtherstatesthatthere

wasforcefulsexualassaultonthechildandtheinjuryNo.17wascausedby

forceful insertion of penis. PW10 Dr. Gadge further deposes that the

material was sent for histopathological examination and also for DNA

analysistoruleoutwhetheritisofthesamedeceased.Hethensubmitsthat

accordingtotheExh.54,theDNAreportshowstheperfectmatchingthatof

deceased.

18. Thewitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination.Anattemptwas

madetosuggestthattheinjuriesreferredbythewitnesscouldnothavebeen

caused by teeth bite. An attempt was also made to suggest that the

mentioning of injuries incolumnNos.21 and17 is a false opinionof the

witness. Anattemptwasalsomadetosuggestthatattheinstanceofthe

Investigating Officer and the relatives of the complainant, the witness is

giving a false version. The suggestions are flatly denied. Perusal of the

evidenceofthiswitnessleavesusnodoubtthatthevictimwassubjectednot

onlytoaforcefulsexualviolationbutabrutalandbeastlymanner.

19. Theaccusedwasalsosubjectedtomedicalexamination. Itwill

beusefultorefertotheevidenceofPW7Dr.Lingawar.Hestatesthaton12th

February,2013,whilehewasondutyandwasattachedtoPrimaryHealth

Centre,ParwaandMedicalOfficer,theaccusedwasbrought.Dr.Lingawar,

onexaminationtheaccused,statesthattherewasinjuryofabrasiononthe

tipoftheglanspenisof5mmx3mmsizeandthesaidinjurywascaused

within24hoursandtheaccusedwasfoundcapableforsexualintercourse.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

17conf01.15

Hefurtherstatesthathecollectedthesampleofblood,pubichair,nailsand

thesamplewashandedovertoHeadConstableaftersealingthesame. He

then states that a query letter was issued on 19th February, 2013 to him

throughAPIabouttheinjuryonthepenisoftheaccused.Hefurtherstates

thathehadopinedthatthesignofsexualintercoursewithin24hourswas

present andthe injury in the certificate could have beenpossible due to

sexualintercourse.

20. Thewitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination. Inthecross

examination,hestatesthattheinjuryofabrasionisasuperficialinjuryand

the healing period depends on the nature of abrasion. Though it was

suggested that he wrongly referred the age of injury, the suggestion was

denied.Inthecrossexamination,itisstatedbythewitnessthattheabrasion

couldbepossibleduetosexual intercourseorforsomeotherreasons. A

suggestionwasalsogiventothiswitnessthathehadgivenafalseopinion

andissuedfalseinjuryreportattheinstanceoftheInvestigatingOfficerand

thesuggestionwasdenied.

21. PW3RavindraMasramisthepanchwitness. HestatesthatPSI

VanjarihadcalledhimandoneYadaoTodsamtoactasapanchonthespot.

Thespotpanchnama(Exh.19)preparedbythepolice,bearshissignature.

He further states that the seizure panchnama (Exh.20) also bears his

signature. Hefurtherstatesthatfromthespot, thepolicehadseizedthe

pant,pairofchappal,piecesoffleshandearthfromthespot. Thiswitness

wassubjectedtocrossexamination.Incrossexamination,hestatesthathe


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

18conf01.15

hadnotreceivedsummonsfrompoliceandwascalledinthepoliceStation.

Anattemptismadetosuggestthatthepanchnamawasalreadypreparedand

hedeposedfalselyattheinstanceofthefatherofthevictim,heflatlydenied

thesuggestion.

22. PW5GaneshGhoseisthePoliceConstable attachedtoParwa

PoliceStationattherelevanttime.Hestatesaboutreceivingthedutypass

forreferringdeadbodyofthevictimtoconductpostmortemalongwithone

questionnaire.ThiswitnessalsodeposesabouttheletterissuedbyPIAmol

Malvetothehospitalauthoritiesforvideoshootingofthepostmortembeing

conducted by the hospital authorities. Then he refers to sealing of the

articles,suchasviscera,clothesetc.,beingdonebyDr.R.R.Khetreandthe

articleshandedovertohim. HealsodeposesaboutthelettergivenbyPSI

VanjaritoHeadoftheDepartmentofForensicSciencesforexaminationand

sealingthepiecesoffleshandtheearthseizedfromthespot. Thoughthe

witnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination,nothingwaselicitedfromthis

witnesssoastoshaketheversionofthiswitness.

23. PW4RajuDhadewarisalsothepanchwitness.Hestatesthathe

andoneHadaoTodsamwerecalledbythepoliceaspanch.Hefurtherstates

thattheaccusedwasarrestedintheirpresenceandthearrestpanchnama

(Exh.23)preparedbythepolice,bearshissignature. Hefurtherstatesthat

theseizurepanchnama(Exh.24)alsobearshissignature. PW4alsostates

thaton12thFebruary,2013at06:00p.m.,heandoneNareshwerecalledas

panchandHeadConstableRameshhadbroughtthesampleofblood,hair


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

19conf01.15

andnailoftheaccused. Aseizurepanchnama(Exh.26)bearshissignature.

Thiswitnesswassubjectedtocrossexamination. Incrossexamination,he

statesthathedoesnotalwaysgotopolicestationaswitness. Hefurther

states that it is false that the articles were brought in the police station.

Though it was suggested that the panchnama was not prepared in his

presenceandhedeposedfalsely,heflatlydeniedthesame.

24. PW8 Ramesh Yedme is the Head Constable who took the

accusedformedicalexaminationandreceivedtheinjurycertificatefromthe

MedicalOfficer.Hewasalsohandedoverthebloodsample,pubichair,nail

andstainedbloodbythedoctor.Thiswitnessalsodeposesthatthesearticles

weresealed.Nothingdamagingwasbroughtinthecrossexamination.

25. PW11 Prakash Kshirsagar is the Head Constable and is the

carrierof muddemalpropertytoChemicalAnalyseralongwiththeletters

issuedbyPSIVanjari.

26. PW12 Ramesh Mendhe was working as Circle Officer at the

relevanttime. HedeposesthatonthedirectionsofNaibTahsildar,hehad

preparedthemapofthespotbyvisitingthespotinpresenceoftwopanchas.

ThesaidpanchnamaisatExh.74.Perusalofthesaiddocumentrevealsthat

thespotisthepartiallyconstructedbuildingoftheAnganwadiandtheactual

spotisoneofthecornersofthispartiallyconstructedbuilding.

27. Thus, on considering the evidence brought on record by the


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

20conf01.15

prosecution, we have no hesitation to say that the prosecution has

established and proved that the child victim Srushti was subjected to a

forceful sexual violence. The death of the victim is homicidal. On

consideringallthecircumstances,suchasthevictimwaslastlyseeninthe

company of the accused, within a short span the victim found dead

subjectedto sexual violation, the accusedwhowas lyingnear the victim,

MedicoLegalCertificateprovedbyPW7,weareoftheconsideredviewthat

theaccusedandtheaccusedaloneistheauthorofthecrimeofrapeand

murderofchildvictimSrushti.

28. Insofar as the aspect of confirmationof the death sentence is

concerned,itisthesubmissionofSmt.BhartiDangre,thelearnedPPthatthe

accusedwhoisthematernaluncleofthevictim,tookawaythechildvictim

fromthecustodyofhergrandfatheronapretextandthenthevictimwas

subjectedtoaviolentsexualassault.ThelearnedPPfurthersubmitsthatthe

actoftheaccusedisnotonlycruelbutshowingtheutmostperversityofthe

psycheoftheaccusedsatisfyinghislustandoverpoweringthehelplesschild

victimandsuchheinousactoftheaccusedhasshockedtheconsciousofthe

societyandforthesaidact,theonlypunishmentisthedeathpunishment.

ThelearnedPPplacesheavyrelianceonthejudgmentsoftheApexCourtas

wellasthisCourtinthecasesofBachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab(reported

inAIR1980SC,898);MachhiSinghandothers.v.StateofPunjab(reported

inAIR1983SC957);LaxmanNaik.v.StateofOrissa(reportedin1994(3)

SCC, 381); Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana .v. State of West Bengal

(reportedin 1994 (2) SCC, 220); Molai andanother .v. State of Madhya


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

21conf01.15

Pradesh (reported in AIR 200 SC, 177); Kunal Majumdar .v. State of

Rajasthan(reportedin2012(9)SCC,320);RajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.

State of Maharashtra (reported in 2012 (4) SCC, 37); Shankar Kisanrao

Khade.v. Stateof Maharashtra(reportedin2013(5)SCC,546); Gurvail

SinghaliasGalaandanother.v.StateofPunjab(reportedin2013(2)SCC,

713);BhaikonaliasBakulBorah.v.StateofAssam(reportedin2013(9)

SCC,769);VasantaSampatDupare.v.StateofMaharashtra(reportedin

2015(1)SCC,253);Sangeetandanother.v.StateofHaryana(reportedin

2013(2)SCC,452);Sandeep.v.StateofUttarPradesh(reportedin2012(6)

SCC, 107); State of Maharashtra .v. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @ Niraj

Ramesh Wakekar and another (reported in 2014 All MR (Cri), 2043);

Purushottam Dashrath Borate and another .v. State of Maharashtra

(Criminal Appeal No. 1439 of 2013, decidedon 08 th May, 2015); Swamy

Shraddananda alias Murali Manohar Mishra .v. State of Karnataka

(reported in 2008 (13) SCC, 767); and Deepak Rai .v. State of Bihar

(reportedin2013(10)SCC,421).

29. Per contra, Shri Bansod, the learned Counsel for the

appellant/accusedsubmitsthattheappellant/accusedisayoungboyhaving

a poor family backgroundandthe case would not fall in the category of

rarest of rare cases. Hesubmits that there is every possibility that the

appellant/accusedcouldberehabilitatedandwouldnotcommitanyoffence

infuture.Hefurthersubmitsthatatthemost,theappellant/accusedcanbe

directedtoservethemaximumterminjailwithoutremission.ShriBansod

also submits that the witnesses on which the prosecution relies are the


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

22conf01.15

interestedwitnessesbeingthefatherandthegrandfatherofthevictim. In

support of his submission, the learnedCounsel for theappellant/accused

placesheavyrelianceonthejudgmentsof theApexCourt inthecasesof

RameshbhaiChandubhaiRathod.v.StateofGujarat(reportedinAIR2011

SC,903)andNeelKumaraliasAnilKumar.v.StateofHaryana(reportedin

2012(5)SCC,766).

30. Beforewedealwiththeaspectreferredtoabove,itwillnotbeout

ofplacetostatethatthisCourtrecentlywasposedwiththesimilarquestion

inthematterof StateofMaharashtra.v.RakeshManoharKamble@Niraj

RameshWakekarandanother(citedsupra) towhich,oneofus(JusticeB.R.

Gavai)isaparty.

31. Asthevictiminthecaseisachild,itwillnotbeoutofplaceto

quotethewordsofKahlilGibraninhisfamousworkTheProphetas

Yourchildrenarenotyourchildren.

TheyarethesonsanddaughtersofLife'slongingforitself.

Theycomethroughyoubutnotfromyou,

Andthoughtheyarewithyouyettheybelongnottoyou.

Youmaygivethemyourlovebutnotyourthoughts,

Fortheyhavetheirownthoughts.

Youmayhousetheirbodiesbutnottheirsouls,

Fortheirsoulsdwellinthehousesoftomorrow,whichyoucannot

visit,noteveninyourdreams.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

23conf01.15

Hereis thecasewhereinthevictim,aminorchildof 2and years, was

subjectedtoaviolentsexualactinmostgruesomeandleasttosayinbeastly

manner.

32. As stated above, this Court in somewhat the similar

circumstance,whileconsideringtheconfirmationofdeathpenalty,indepth

and detailed, considered the various aspects in the matter of State of

Maharashtra .v. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @ Niraj Ramesh Wakekar and

another (cited supra). It will not be out of place to refer the relevant

observationsofthisCourtinthematterof StateofMaharashtra.v.Rakesh

ManoharKamble@NirajRameshWakekarandanother(citedsupra).Inthe

saidmatter,theaccusedRakeshandaccusedAmaraskedfordrinkingwater

toPW1Prabhaandshegavewaterthroughwindowofthehouse.Accused

RakeshaskedPW1Prabhatoopenthedoor. Asshepaidnoheedtohis

demand,bygivingblowsonthedoor,hemadePW1Prabhatoopenthe

door. AccusedRakeshwasbehindthedaughter of PW1Prabha, namely

Kanchan.PW1Prabhasensingdanger,gavesignaltodaughterKanchanto

runaway.ThereafterKanchanranaway.AccusedRakeshandAmarchased

her.ThoughKanchanmadeanattempttotakeshelterofoneBhimrao,they

ledassaultonBhimraoandtookawayKanchantowardsthelandownedby

oneMankar. WhenthewitnessPW1Prabhaandotherwitnessesrushed

towardsthesaidland,theyfoundthatKanchanwaslyingintheland. She

wasdeadandhavinginjuriesonhercheek,headandbreast. Inthecaseof

RakeshKamble, thisCourtfoundthatthedeceasedwaslastseenwiththe


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

24conf01.15

accusedpersonsinlatenightandthedeadbodywasdiscoveredinthenext

morning. ThisCourt,onappreciatingtheevidenceofthosewitnesseswho

heard the screams of the deceased for help, immediate disclosure of the

namesoftheaccusedbythemothertothepolicepatilandfindingthebody

in the morning, held that the last seen theory was established by the

prosecution. Inthepresentmatter,thetimegapbetweenthedeceasedlast

seenwiththeaccusedandfindingthedeadbodyofthedeceasedvictimwho

wassubjectedtosexual exploitationandtheaccused lyingnear thedead

bodyisverynarrowandproximate.

33. Inthepresentcase,theevidenceofthegrandfathershowsthat

thevictimwascarriedbytheaccusedat07:30p.m.andwithinashortspanof

lesserthananhour,thegrandfatherandthefatherfoundthedeadbodyof

thevictim. Thematerialonrecordshowsthatontheverydayi.e.on11th

February,2013,PW1Marotihadlodgedthereportinthepolicestationat

about21:25hours.ThisCourt,inthematterofRakeshKamble,byreferring

tovariousjudgmentsoftheApexCourt,observedthus

71. What is most important inthepresent case is

thetimegapbetweentheperiodwhentheaccusedwere

lastseentogetherwiththedeceasedandfindingofthedead

bodyofthedeceased.Fromtheevidenceoftheprosecution

witnesses,itcansafelybeconcludedthatthedeceasedwas

last seen together with the accusedbetween3.00 to 3.30

a.m.inthemidnightof17to18December,2005.Thedead

bodywasdiscoveredimmediatelythereafterinthemorning

after P.W.4 Sanjay Mankar had noticed blood stained


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

25conf01.15

clothesofthedeceasedinhisfarm.Itwillbeappropriateto

refertotheobservationsmadebytheHon'bleApexCourtin

the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Satish (cite supra)

whichareasunder:

"22. The lastseen theory comes into playwherethetimegapbetweenthepointoftimewhenthe accused and the deceased were last seenaliveandwhenthedeceasedisfounddeadissosmallthatpossibility of any person other than the accusedbeingtheauthorofthecrimebecomesimpossible.Itwould be difficult in some cases to positivelyestablish that the deceased was last seen with theaccusedwhenthereisalonggapandpossibilityofother persons coming in between exists. In theabsenceofanyotherpositiveevidencetoconcludethat the accused and the deceased were last seentogether, it would be hazardous to come to aconclusionofguiltinthosecases.Inthiscasethereispositiveevidencethatthedeceasedandtheaccusedwere seen together by witnesses Pws 3 and 5, inadditiontotheevidenceofP.W.2.

(emphasissupplied)

34. Shri Bansod, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused

submits that the witnesses brought by the prosecutionare the interested

witnessesbeingthefatherandgrandfatherofthevictim. ThisCourtalso

consideredthat aspect in thematter of RakeshKamble whereina similar

standwastakenbythedefence.ThisCourtobservedthus

47. Theanotherlimbofattackontheevidenceofthese

witnessesisthattheyaretheinterestedwitnessesandassuch

reliancecouldnotbeplacedontheevidenceofthesewitnesses.

Itwillberelevanttorefertoparagraphno.39oftheJudgmentof

theApexCourtinthecaseofSubalGhoraiandothersvs.Stateof


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

26conf01.15

West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 607 :

[2014ALLSCR184],whichreadsasunder:

"39. It is true that the prosecution has relied on theevidenceofinterestedwitnessesbut,interestedwitnessisnotnecessarilyabadwitness.Infact,ifthewitnessisrelated to the deceased, there is less chance of hisleaving aside the real assailants. The evidence ofinterestedwitness has to be analysedwith care. But,oncethecourtcomestotheconclusionthatitistruthfuland in accord with the relevant circumstances onrecord, the court shouldnot hesitate to accept it andrecordconvictiononthebasisthereof.Inthiscase,alltheeyewitnesses areconsistent about the prosecutioncaseasregardsassaultonthedeceasedandsettingonfire of the houses of Dharas. We are, therefore, notinclinedtorejecttheirevidenceonthegroundthattheyarerelatedtothedeceased.Asalreadynoted,twooftheeyewitnessesi.e.P.W.12JaminiandP.W.13Mandakiniare injuredwitnesses, whose presenceat the sceneofoffencecannot bedoubted. Theycompletely bear outtheprosecutioncase."

(emphasissupplied)

48. It can, thus, beclearly seenthat theattackonthe

groundthatthesewitnessesareinterestedwitnesseswouldalso

benotsustainable.

35. In the present matter also, as we find that the version of the

witnesses namely the father and grandfather i.e. Maroti and Pundlik

respectively is truthful and reliable version, we are unable to accept the

submissionofthelearnedCounselfortheappellant/accused.Itisalsonotin

disputethatthepresentcaseisbasedonthecircumstantialevidence. The

lawiswellsettledonthisaspect.Itwillnotbeoutofplacetorefertheoftenly

quotedthejudgmentoftheApexCourtonthecircumstantialevidencei.e.in


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

27conf01.15

thecaseofSharadBirdichandSarda.v.StateofMaharashtra(reportedin

2009ALLSCR(O.C.C.),281). ThesameisalsoreferredbythisCourtinthe

matterofRakeshKambleandtheobservationsreadthus

37. Undoubtedly, the present case is based on the

circumstantialevidence.Thelawontheaspectofconvictionin

the case of circumstantial evidence has nowbeenvery well

crystalized.Itwillberelevanttoreferparagraphs152,153and

154oftheJudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof Sharad

BirdhichandSardavs. Stateof Maharashtra, 116 : [2009ALL

SCR(O.C.C.)281]whichreadasunder:

"152.BeforediscussingthecasesrelieduponbytheHighCourt, we would like to cite a few decisions on thenature, character and essential proof required in acriminal case which rests on circumstantial evidencealone.ThemostfundamentalandbasicdecisionofthisCourt is Hanumant V. State of MadhyaPradesh. Thiscase has beenuniformly followed andapplied by thisCourtinalargenumberoflaterdecisionsuptodate,forinstance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi .v. State of UttarPradeshandRamgopalv.StateofMaharashtra.ItmaybeusefultoextractwhatMahajan,JhaslaiddowninHanumantcase:

Itiswelltorememberthatincaseswheretheevidenceisof a circumstantial nature, the circumstances fromwhichtheconclusionofguiltistobedrawnshouldinthefirst instance be fully established, and all the facts soestablished should be consistent only with thehypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, thecircumstances should be of a conclusive nature andtendencyandtheyshouldbesuchastoexcludeeveryhypothesisbuttheoneproposedtoberoved.Inotherwords,theremustbeachainofevidencesofarcompleteasnottoleaveanyreasonablegroundforaconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedanditmustbesuchastoshowthatwithinallhumanprobabilitytheactmusthavebeendonebytheaccused.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

28conf01.15

153.Acloseanalysisofthisdecisionwouldshowthatthefollowing conditions must be fulfilled before a caseagainstanaccusedcanbesaidtobefullyestablished:

(1)thecircumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionofguiltistobedrawnshouldbefullyestablished.

ItmaybenotedherethatthisCourtindicatedthatthecircumstancesconcerned'mustorshould'andnot'maybe'established. There is notonlyagrammatical butalegaldistinctionbetween'maybeproved'and'mustbeorshouldbeproved'aswasheldbythisCourtinShivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra where thefollowing observations were made:(SCC para 19, p.807:SCC(Cri)p.1047).

Certainly,itisaprimaryprinciplethattheaccusedmustbe and not merely may be guilty before a court canconvictandthementaldistancebetween'maybe'and'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures fromsureconclusions.

(2) thefactssoestablishedshouldbeconsistentonlywiththehypothesisoftheguiltoftheaccused,thatistosay, they should not be explainable on any otherhypothesisexceptthattheaccusedisguilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusivenatureandtendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesisexcepttheonetobeproved,and

(5) theremustbeachainofevidencesocompleteasnottoleaveanyreasonablegroundfortheconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandmustshowthat in all humanprobability the act must havebeendonebytheaccused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,constitutethepanchsheeloftheproofofacasebasedoncircumstantialevidence."

36. We have already referred to the circumstances on which the

prosecutionrelies,weneednotrepeatthesame. Sufficetosaythatthese

circumstancesareprovedbytheprosecution. Thecrucialquestionforour

consideration is now whether the death penalty awarded to the

appellant/accusedneedstobeconfirmedornot. Thisaspectisalsonow


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

29conf01.15

crystallized by the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Bachan

Singh.v.StateofPunjabandMachhiSinghandothers.v. StateofPunjab

(citedsupra)as

75. TheConstitutionBenchoftheHon'bleApexCourt

inthecaseof BachanSinghvs. Stateof Punjab(supra) while

upholding the constitutionality of Section 302 of the Indian

PenalCode,insofarasitprovidesdeathsentenceand section

354(3)ofCr.P.C.hasobservedthus:

195. In Jagmohan, this Court had held that thissentencing discretion is to be exercised judicially onwellrecognised principles, after balancing all theaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesofthecrime.By "wellrecognised principles" the Court obviouslymeant the principles crystallised by judicial decisionsillustratingastowhatwereregardedasaggravatingormitigatingcircumstancesinthosecases.ThelegislativechangessinceJagmohanaswehavediscussedalreadydonothavetheeffectofabrogatingornullifyingthoseprinciples.Theonlyeffectisthattheapplicationofthoseprinciples is now to be guided by the paramountbeacons of legislative policy discernible from Sections354(3)and235(2),namely:(1)Theextremepenaltycanbeinflictedonlyingravestcasesofextremeculpability:(2)Inmakingchoiceofthesentence,inadditiontothecircumstancesoftheoffence,dueregardmustbepaidtothecircumstancesoftheoffenderalso.

196. We will first notice some of the aggravatingcircumstanceswhich, intheabsenceofanymitigatingcircumstances,havebeenregardedasanindicationforimpositionoftheextremepenalty.

197.Preplanned,calculated,coldbloodedmurderhasalwaysbeenregardedasoneofanaggravatedkind.InJagmohan,itwasreiteratedbythisCourtthatifamurderis"diabolicallyconceivedandcruellyexecuted",itwouldjustify the imposition of the death penalty on themurderer. The same principle was substantiallyreiterated by V. R. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for theBench,inEdigaAnamma,intheseterms:


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

30conf01.15

"The weapons used and the manner of their use, thehorrendousfeaturesofthecrimeandhapless, helplessstateofthevictim,andthelike,steeltheheartofthelawforasternersentence."

198.ItmaybenotedthatthisindicatorforimposingthedeathsentencewascrystallisedinthatcaseafterpayingdueregardtotheshiftinlegislativepolicyembodiedinSection354(3)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973,althoughonthedateofthatdecision(February11,1974),thisprovisionhadnotcomeintoforce.InParasRam'scase,also,towhichareferencehasbeenmadeearlier,itwasemphaticallystatedthatapersonwhoinafitofantisocial piety commits "bloodcurdling butchery" of hischild, fully deserves to be punished with death. InRajendra Prasad, however, the majority (of 2 : 1) hascompletely reversed the view that had been taken inEdigaAnammaregardingtheapplicationof Section354(3)onthispoint.Accordingtoit,aftertheenactmentofSection354(3), 'murdermostfoul'isnotthetest. Theshockingnatureofthecrimeorthenumberofmurderscommittedisalsonotthecriterion.Itwassaidthatthefocushasnowcompletelyshiftedfromthecrimetothecriminal."Specialreasons"necessaryforimposingdeathpenalty"mustrelatenottothecrimeassuchbuttothecriminal".

199. With great respect, we find ourselves unable toagree to this enunciation. As weread Sections 354 (3)and235(2)andotherrelatedprovisionsoftheCodeof1973,itisquitecleartousthatformakingthechoiceofpunishmentorforascertainingtheexistenceorabsenceof"specialreasons"inthatcontext,theCourtmustpaydueregardbothtothecrimeandthecriminal. Whatisthe relative weight to be given to the aggravating andmitigating factors, depends on the facts andcircumstances of the particular case. More often thannot, these two aspects are so intertwined that it isdifficult to give a separate treatment to eachof them.Thisissobecause'styleistheman'.Inmanycases,theextremelycruelorbeastlymannerofthecommissionofmurder is itself a demonstratedindexof thedepravedcharacter of the perpetrator. That is why, it is notdesirabletoconsiderthecircumstancesofthecrimeandthecircumstancesofthecriminalintwoseparatewatertightcompartments.Inasense,tokillistobecruelandtherefore all murders are cruel. But such cruelty mayvaryinitsdegreeofculpability.Anditisonlywhentheculpabilityassumestheproportionofextremedepravitythat"specialreasons"canlegitimatelybesaidtoexist.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

31conf01.15

200.DrawinguponthepenalstatutesoftheStatesinU.S. A. framedafter Furmanv. Georgia, in general, andclauses2(a),(b),(c),and(d)oftheIndianpenalCode(Amendment)Billpassedin1978bytheRajyaSabha,inparticular,Dr.Chitalehassuggestedthese"aggravatingcircumstances":

"Aggravatingcircumstances:ACourtmay,however,inthe following cases impose the penalty of death in itsdiscretion:

(a) if the murder has been committed after previousplanningandinvolvesextremebrutality;or

(b)ifthemurderinvolvesexceptionaldepravity;or

(c) if themurder is of a memberof anyof the armedforcesoftheUnionorofamemberofanypoliceforceorofanypublicservantandwascommitted

(i)whilesuchmemberorpublicservantwasonduty;or

(ii)inconsequenceofanythingdoneorattemptedtobedoneby suchmember or public servant in the lawfuldischargeofhisdutyassuchmemberorpublicservantwhetheratthetimeofmurderhewassuchmemberorpublicservant,asthecasemaybe,orhadceasedtobesuchmemberorpublicservant;or

(d) if themurder is of a personwhohadacted in thelawfuldischargeofhisdutyunderSection43oftheCodeof Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had renderedassistancetoaMagistrateorapoliceofficerdemandinghisaidorrequiringhisassistanceunder Section37andSection129ofthesaidCode."

201. Stated broadly, there can be no objection to theacceptanceoftheseindicatorsbutaswehaveindicatedalready,wewouldprefernottofetterjudicialdiscretionbyattemptingtomakeanexhaustiveenumerationonewayortheother.

202. In Rajendra Prasad, the majority said : "It isconstitutionally permissible to swing a criminal out ofcorporeal existence only if the security of State andsociety, public order and the interests of the generalpubliccompelthatcourseasprovidedinArticle19(2)to(6)."Ourobjectionisonlytotheword"only".Whileitmaybeconcededthatamurderwhichdirectlythreatens,orhasanextremepotentialitytoharmorendangerthesecurity of State and society, public order and theinterests of the general public, may provide "specialreasons"tojustifytheimpositionoftheextremepenaltyonthepersonconvictedofsuchaheinousmurder,itisnotpossibletoagreethatimpositionofdeathpenaltyon


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

32conf01.15

murdererswhodonotfallwithinthisnarrowcategoryisconstitutionally impermissible. WehavediscussedandheldabovethattheimpugnedprovisionsinSection302,PenalCode,beingreasonableandinthegeneralpublicinterest, donotoffend Article19, or its 'ethos'; nordothey in anymanner violate Articles 21 and14. All thereasonsgivenbyusforupholdingthevalidityofSec.302,Penal Code, fully apply to the caseof Section354 (3),Code of Criminal Procedure, also. The same criticismappliestotheviewtakeninBishnuDeoShawv.Stateof WestBengal,(1979)3SCC714,whichfollowsthedictuminRajendraPrasad(ibid).

203. In several countries which have retained deathpenalty,preplannedmurderformonetarygain,orbyanassassinhiredformonetaryrewardis,also,consideredacapitaloffenceofthefirstdegreewhich,intheabsenceof any ameliorating circumstances, is punishable withdeath. Such rigid categorisation would dangerouslyoverlap the domain of legislative policy. It maynecessitate, asitwere, aredefinitionof 'murder'or itsfurther classification. Then, insomedecisions, murderbyfirearm,oranautomaticprojectileorbomb,orlikeweapon,theuseofwhichcreatesahighsimultaneousriskofdeathorinjurytomorethanoneperson,hasalsobeen treated as an aggravated type of offence. Noexhaustiveenumerationofaggravatingcircumstancesispossible. But this much can be said that in order toqualify for inclusion in the category of "aggravatingcircumstances" which may form the basis of 'specialreasons'in Section354(3), circumstancefoundonthefactsofaparticularcase,mustevidenceaggravationofanabnormalorspecialdegree.

204.Dr.Chitaleyhassuggestedthesemitigatingfactors"Mitigating circumstances : In the exercise of itsdiscretionintheabovecases,theCourtshall takeintoaccountthefollowingcircumstances:

(1)Thattheoffencewascommittedundertheinfluenceofextremementaloremotionaldisturbance.

(2)Theageoftheaccused.Ittheaccusedisyoungorold,heshallnotbesentencedtodeath.

(3)Theprobabilitythattheaccusedwouldnotcommitcriminal acts of violence as would constitute acontinuingthreattosociety.

(4)Theprobabilitythattheaccusedcanbereformedandrehabilitated.TheStateshallbyevidenceprovethattheaccuseddoesnotsatisfytheconditions3and4above.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

33conf01.15

(5)Thatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasetheaccused believed that he was morally justified incommittingtheoffence.

(6) That the accused acted under the duress ordominationofanotherperson.

(7)Thattheconditionoftheaccusedshowedthathewasmentallydefectiveandthatthesaiddefectimpairedhiscapacitytoappreciatethecriminalityofhisconduct."

205. We will do no more than to say that these areundoubtedlyrelevantcircumstancesandmustbegivengreatweightinthedeterminationofsentence.Someofthese factors like extreme youth can instead be ofcompellingimportance.InseveralStatesofIndia,thereare in force special enactments, according to which a'child'thatis,'apersonwhoatthedateofmurderwaslessthan16yearsofage',cannotbetried,convictedandsentencedtodeathorimprisonmentforlifeformurder,nordealtwithaccordingtothesamecriminalprocedureasanadult. ThespecialActsprovideforareformatoryprocedureforsuchjuvenileoffendersorchildren.

206. According to some Indian decisions, thepostmurder remorse, penitence or repentence by themurdererisnotafactorwhichmayinducetheCourttopassthelesserpenalty(e.g. MominuddinSardar). AIR1935Cal591.Butthosedecisionscannolongerbeheldtobegoodlawinviewofthecurrentpenologicaltrendsandthesentencingpolicy outlinedin Sections 235 (2)and 354 (3). We have already extracted the views ofMessingerandBittner(ibid),whichareinpoint.

207.Therearenumerousothercircumstancesjustifyingthe passing of the lighter sentence; as there arecountervailing circumstances of aggravation. "Wecannotobviouslyfeedintoajudicialcomputerallsuchsituationssincetheyareastrological imponderables inan imperfect and undulating society." Nonetheless, itcannotbeoveremphasisedthatthescopeandconceptofmitigatingfactorsintheareaofdeathpenaltymustreceive a liberal and expansive construction by thecourtsinaccordwiththesentencingpolicywritlargeinSection 354 (3). Judges should never be bloodthirsty.Hangingofmurderershasneverbeentoogoodforthem.Facts and figures albeit incomplete, furnished by theUnion of India, show that in the past, Courts haveinflictedtheextremepenaltywithextremeinfrequencyafactwhichatteststothecautionandcompassionwhichtheyhavealwaysbroughttobearontheexerciseoftheirsentencing discretion in so grave a matter. It is,


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

34conf01.15

therefore, imperative to voice the concernthat courts,aidedbythebroadillustrativeguidelinesindicatedbyus,will discharge the onerous function with evermorescrupulouscareandhumaneconcern,directedalongthehighroadoflegislativepolicyoutlinedinSec.354(3),viz.,thatforpersonsconvictedofmurder,lifeimprisonmentistheruleanddeathsentenceanexception.Arealandabidingconcernforthedignityofhumanlifepostulatesresistancetotakingalifethroughlaw'sinstrumentality.Thatoughtnottobedonesaveintherarestofrarecaseswhen the alternative option is unquestionablyforeclosed.

77. TheApexCourt inthecaseof MachhiSinghand

othersvs.StateofPunjab(supra)hasobservedthus;

32.Thereasonswhythecommunityasawholedoesnotendorse the humanistic approach reflected in "deathsentenceinnocase"doctrinearenotfartoseek.Inthefirstplace,theveryhumanisticedificeisconstructedonthefoundationof"reverenceforlife"principle.Whenamemberofthecommunityviolatesthisveryprinciplebykillinganothermember, thesocietymaynot feel itselfboundbytheshacklesofthisdoctrine.Secondly,ithastoberealisedthateverymemberofthecommunityisableto live with safety without his or her own life beingendangered because of the protective arm of thecommunityandonaccountoftheruleoflawenforcedbyit.Theveryexistenceoftheruleoflawandthefearofbeingbroughttobookoperatesasadeterrenttothosewho have no scruples in killing others if it suits theirends.Everymemberofthecommunityowesadebttothecommunityforthisprotection.Wheningratitudeisshowninsteadofgratitudeby'killing'amemberofthecommunity which protects the murderer himself frombeingkilled, orwhenthecommunityfeelsthat forthesakeof self preservationthekiller hastobekilled, thecommunity may well withdraw the protection bysanctioningthedeathpenalty. Butthecommunitywillnotdosoineverycase.Itmaydoso(inrarestofrarecases)whenitscollectiveconscienceissoshockedthatitwill expect the holders of the judicial power centre toinflict death penalty irrespective of their personalopinionasregardsdesirabilityorotherwiseofretainingdeath penalty. The community may entertain such asentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromtheplatformofthe motive for, or the manner of commission of the


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

35conf01.15

crime, or the antisocial or abhorrent nature of thecrime,suchasforinstance:

IMannerofCommissionofMurder

Whenthemurderiscommittedinanextremelybrutal,grotesque,diabolical, revolting,ordastardlymannersoas to arouse intense and extreme indignation of thecommunity.Forinstance.

(i)Whenthehouseofthevictimissetaflamewiththeendinviewtoroasthimaliveinthehouse,

(ii) When the victim is subjected to inhuman acts oftortureorcrueltyinordertobringabouthisorherdeath.

(iii)Whenthebodyofthevictimiscutintopiecesorhisbodyisdismemberedinafiendishmanner.

IIMotiveforcommissionofmurder.

When the murder is committed for a motive whichevincestotaldepravityandmeanness.forinstancewhen(a) a hired assassin commits murder for the sake ofmoney or reward; (b) a coldblooded murder iscommittedwitha deliberatedesigninorder to inheritpropertyortogaincontroloverpropertyofawardoraperson under the control of the murderer or visaviswhomthemurdererisinadominatingpositionorinapositionoftrust;(c)amurderiscommittedinthecourseforbetrayalofthemotherland.

IIIAntisocialorsociallyabhorrentnatureofthecrime.

(a)WhenmurderofamemberofaScheduledCasteorminoritycommunityetc.,iscommittednotforpersonalreasonsbutincircumstanceswhicharousesocialwrath.Forinstancewhensuchacrimeiscommittedinordertoterrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeingfroma place or in order to deprive themof, or makethem surrender, lands or benefits conferred on themwith a view to reverse past injustices and in order torestorethesocialbalance.

(b) Incasesof 'brideburning' andwhatareknownas'dowrydeaths'orwhenmurderiscommittedinordertoremarryforthesakeofextractingdowryonceagainortomarryanotherwomanonaccountofinfatuation.

IVMagnitudeofcrime.

Whenthecrimeisenormousinproportion.Forinstancewhen multiple murders say of all or almost all themembersofafamilyoralargenumberofpersonsofaparticularcaste,community,orlocality,arecommitted.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

36conf01.15

VPersonalityofvictimofmurder.

Whenthevictimofmurderis(a)aninnocentchildwhocould not have or has not provided even an excuse,much less a provocation, for murder. (b) a helplesswoman or a person rendered helpless by old age orinfirmity.(c)whenthevictimisapersonvisaviswhomthemurdererisinapositionofdominationortrust,(d)whenthevictimis a public figuregenerally lovedandrespectedbythecommunityfortheservicesrenderedbyhimandthemurderiscommittedforpoliticalorsimilarreasonsotherthanpersonalreasons.

33. In this background the guidelines indicated inBachanSingh'scase(supra)willhavetobeculledoutandapplied to the facts of each individual case where thequestion of imposing of death sentence arises. Thefollowing propositions emerge from Bachan Singh'scase:

(i) Theextremepenalty of deathneednot he inflictedexceptingravestcasesofextremeculpability;

(ii)Beforeoptingforthedeathpenaltythecircumstancesof the 'offender' also require to be taken intoconsideration along with the circumstances of the'crime';

(iii)Lifeimprisonmentistheruleanddeathsentenceisan exception. In other words death sentence must beimposedonlywhenlifeimprisonmentappearstobeanaltogetherinadequatepunishmenthavingregardtotherelevantcircumstancesofthecrime,andprovidedandonly provided, the option to impose sentence ofimprisonment for life cannot be conscientiouslyexercisedhavingregardtothenatureandcircumstancesofthecrimeandalltherelevantcircumstances;

(iv) A balancesheet of aggravating and mitigatingcircumstanceshastobedrawnupandindoingsothemitigating circumstances have to be accorded fullweightageandajustbalancehastobestruckbetweentheaggravatingandthemitigatingcircumstancesbeforetheoptionisexercised.

34. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia thefollowingquestionsmaybeaskedandanswered:

(a) Is there something uncommon about the crimewhich renders sentence of imprisonment for lifeinadequateandcallsforadeathsentence?

(b)Arethecircumstancesofthecrimesuchthatthereisnoalternativebuttoimposedeathsentenceevenafteraccording maximum weightage to the mitigating


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

37conf01.15

circumstanceswhichspeakinfavouroftheoffender?

ThisCourt,inthejudgmentofRakeshKamblebyreferringthejudgmentsof

theApexCourt,observedthus

76. Itcan,thus,beseentheConstitutionBenchofthe

ApexCourtclearlyheldthatinfindingoutpresenceorabsence

ofspecialreasonsthecourtmustpaydueregardbothtothe

crimeandthecriminal.Ithasbeenheldthatwhatistherelative

weight to be givento the aggravating andmitigating factors,

depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular

case.Ithasfurtherbeenheldthatinmanycasestheextremely

cruelorbeastlymannerofthecommissionofmurderisitselfa

demonstrated index of the depraved character of the

perpetrator. It has been held that only when the culpability

assumes the proportion of extreme depravity that special

reasonscanlegitimatelybesaidtoexist.

78. It has, thus, been held that when community's

collective conscience is so shocked, that it will expect the

holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty

irrespectiveoftheirpersonalopinionasregardsdesirabilityor

otherwise of retaining death penalty. The Apex Court has

further held that the factors that are to be taken into

consideration while considering as to whether the death

sentenceistobeinflictedornot,arethemannerofcommission

of murder, motive for commission of murder, antisocial or

sociallyabhorrentnatureofthecrimeandmagnitudeofcrime

andpersonalityofvictimofmurder.It hasbeenfurtherheld

that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an

exception. It has beenfurther held that the balancesheet of


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

38conf01.15

aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstanceshastobedrawn,full

weightageistobegiventomitigatingcircumstancesandajust

balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the

mitigatingcircumstancesbeforetheoptionisexercised.Ithas

beenfurtherheldthatwhiletakingdecisionquestionmaybe

asked and answered as to whether there is something

uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of

imprisonmentforlifeinadequateandcallsforadeathsentence.

Another question that is required to be answered is, are the

circumstancesofthecrimesuchthatthereisnoalternativebut

to impose death sentence even after according maximum

weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in

favouroftheoffender.

37. ByapplyingyardsticksetbytheApexCourtinthecaseofBachan

Singh.v.StateofPunjabandMachhiSinghandothers.v. StateofPunjab

(cited supra) and the observations of this Court in the matter of Rakesh

Kambleifthepresentmatterisconsidered,inouropinion,intheguidelines

ofaggravatingcircumstances,thereisamentionofclause(b)whichdeals

withthemurderwhichinvolvesexceptionaldepravity. Inthelightofthis

clause,ifthepresentmatterisseen,therecordrevealsthatthevictimisa

childoftwoandhalfyearsofage. Thevictimwassubjectedtoaforceful

sexualexploitation. Themedicalevidenceshowsthatthedeathiscaused

duetotheforcefulintercourse.Inouropinion,thepresentcasealsocovers

clause (a) of aggravating circumstances wherein it is referred that if a

murderiscommittedafterpreviousplanningandinvolvesextremebrutality.

Inthepresentmatter,achildwastakenfromthecustodyofthegrandfather

andinspiteofhisresistance,achildwassubjectedtosexualviolenceand


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

39conf01.15

thenwasdonetodeath. Inouropinion,theactoftheappellant/accused

fallsinclauses(a)and(b)oftheaggravatingcircumstances.Wewouldalso

take into consideration the mitigating circumstances referred to in the

judgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof BachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab

(citedsupra).Inouropinion,theonlymitigatingcircumstanceonwhichthe

appellant/accusedseeksbenefitisclause(2)i.e.theaccusedisayoungboy.

Even though the said mitigating circumstance of being at young age is

available to the appellant/accused while balancing the aggravating and

mitigating factors, we are of the opinion that the said mitigating

circumstancewouldnotbeofanyhelptotheappellant/accused.

38. Inouropinion,astheApexCourtobservedinMachhiSinghand

others.v.StateofPunjab(citedsupra),theactoftheappellant/accusedisof

suchanaturewhereinthecollective conscience is so shockedthat it will

expecttheholdersofthejudicialpowercentretoinflictdeathpenalty. The

Apex Court further observed that the community may entertain such a

sentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromtheplatformofthemotivefor,or

the manner of commission of the crime, or the antisocial or abhorrent

nature of the crime. (emphasis supplied). The Apex Court then quoted

certaininstances. Underthecaptionofmannerofcommissionofmurder,

theApexCourtrefersthatwhenthemurderiscommittedinanextremely

brutal,grotesque,diabolical,revolting,ordastardlymannersoastoarouse

intenseandextremeindignationofthecommunity. TheApexCourtthen

alsoreferstothecategoryofpersonalityofvictimofmurder.Whenitrefers

tothevictimofmurderis(a)aninnocentchildwhocouldnothaveorhasnot


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

40conf01.15

provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder. In the

presentcase,thereisabsolutelynodoubtinourmindthatthemurderis

committedinextremelybrutalanddastardlymanner.Whileconsideringthe

aspect of thepersonality of thevictim, therecordclearly reveals that the

victimisaninnocentchildoftwoandhalfyearswhohardlycouldhaveeither

providedevenanexcuseoraprovocationandwasahelplessvictimofthe

lustandtheappellant/accusednotonlyravishedthegirlwithaviolentsexual

attackbutalsoactedinbeastlymanner. Themedicalevidencehasshown

thatthevictimreceivedbitewoundsonthepartsofherbodynamelythe

cheeks,chestandbuttock.Thematerialalsoshowsthatthebodywaslying

onthespothavingthejeanspantremovedfromthepersonofthevictim.

The inquest panchnama shows that the victim was subjected to sexual

violenceandthevictimhadreceivedwoundsandbitesoncheeks,chestand

buttock. The version of the witnesses namely Maroti and Punclik, the

scientificevidenceintheformofpostmortemreport,leavesnodoubtthat

theaccusedactedinabsolutepervert,inhumanandbeastlymanner.

39. InthematterofRakeshKamble,whereinthevictimwasagirlof

19yearsofage,thisCourtbyconsideringthecruelandgruesomeactofthe

appellant/accused,posedcertainquestionsandarrivedataconclusionthat

thecasewouldsurelyfallinthecategoryofrarestofrarecases.ThisCourt

observedthus

99. Wouldthesocietynotexpecttheaccusedwhohave

committed such terror and in extreme brutal, dastardly,


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

41conf01.15

gruesome,cruelmannercommittedrapeofhelplessvictimand

killedherfornofaultofher,tobehanged.Wouldthesociety

notexpect,theholdersofthejudicialpowerscentre,toaward

proportionatesentencetotheaccusedwhohavenorespectfor

humanvaluesandhavetreatedayounggirlof19yearsinthe

mostbrutal,cruelanddastardlymanner.WouldtheSocietynot

expectsuchdepravedacttobedealtwithinasternmanner.We

also cannot ignore the recent amendments brought to the

IndianPenalCodeonaccountofhugepublichueandcrythat

aroseonaccountofdastardlyactintheheinousandgruesome

rapeandmurderof Nirbhaya.Theamendmentasamatterof

factecho'sthesentimentsoftheSocietyatlarge.Thesentiment

of theSociety is glaringexplicit, that suchheinouscrimeon

haplesswomenarerequiredtobedealtwithanironhand.We

have,therefore,nohesitationtoholdthat,intheperceptionof

theSocietyitwouldsurelybea"rarestofrare"casewhereinthe

deathsentenceisrequiredtobeimposed.

Inthepresentcase,aswehavestatedabove,thevictimwasoftwoandhalf

yearsofage,assuch,theheinousandgruesomerapeandmurderofthechild

victimat the hands of the appellant/accused, needs to be dealt with the

deterrentpunishmentlikedeathsentence.Itwillnotbeoutofplacetorefer

tocertainjudgmentsoftheApexCourt. TheApexCourtinthematterof

LaxmanNaik.v.StateofOrissa(citedsupra)hasheldthatthedeathsentence

imposedbythetrialCourtandconfirmedbytheHighCourtwasjustified.

Thefactsofthecasewerethevictimwasachildofsevenyearsofageandthe

accusedwasheruncle. Aftercommittingrapeonthevictim,theaccused

committedmurderofthevictim. TheApexcourtreferredtotheevidence

relatingtotheinjuriesonthedeceasedasunder


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

42conf01.15

16. Thesearchpartywhichdiscoveredthedeadbodyof

thedeceased in jungle, noticedthat her clothes weresoaked

withbloodandthereweremultipleinjuriesonthepersonofthe

deceasedasaredescribedbyDrPushpLataPW11inherpost

mortemreportEx.11aswellasinherstatementmadeinthe

Court.Therewasabrasionontheandfifthlumbarvertebra,as

wellasonleftindexfinger,backofforearm,rightmiddlefinger.

There was lacerated wound in the vagina extending towards

rectum and bruises over neck, right and left sternomastoid

muscles. Ondissectingtheunderlinedtissuesoftheneck,the

doctornoticedextravasationofbloodintosubcutaneoustissues

aswellasintheunderlyingsternomastoidmuscles.Thelarynx

andtracheawerecongestedcontainingfrothymucous.Bloody

froths were coming out from the mouth and nostrils. This

evidenceeloquentlyspeaksthattheinnocent,helplesssoulwas

firstsubjectedtobrutalandforciblesexualintercourseandthen

mercilesslydonetodeathbythrottlingsothatthereremainsno

directevidenceagainsttheculprit.

TheApexCourtthenonthebackdropof theevidenceof MedicalOfficer,

observedthus

28. The evidence of Dr Pushp Lata, PW 12, who

conductedthepostmortemoverthedeadbodyofthevictim

goestoshowthatshehadseveralexternalandinternalinjuries

onherpersonincludingaserious injuryinherprivateparts

showing the brutality which she was subjected to while

committingrapeonher.ThevictimoftheageofNitmacould

not have even ever resisted the act with which she was

subjectedto. Theappellantseemstohaveactedinabeastly


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

43conf01.15

mannerasaftersatisfyinghislusthethoughtthatthevictim

mightexposehimforthecommissionoftheoffenceofforcible

rapeonhertothefamilymembersandothers,theappellant

withaviewtoscreentheevidenceofhiscrimealsoputanend

tothelifeofinnocentgirlwhohadseenonlysevensummers.

The evidence on record is indicative of the fact as to how

diabolically the appellant had conceived of his plan and

brutally executedit andsuchacalculated,coldbloodedand

brutalmurderofagirl ofaverytenderageaftercommitting

rapeonherwouldundoubtedlyfallinthecategoryofrarestof

therarecasesattractingnopunishmentotherthanthecapital

punishment and consequently we confirm the sentence of

death imposed upon the appellant for the offence under

Section 302 of the Penal Code. As regards the punishment

underSection376,neitherthelearnedtrialJudgenortheHigh

Courthaveawardedanyseparateandadditional substantive

sentenceand in viewof the fact that the sentence of death

awardedtotheappellanthasbeenconfirmedwealsodonot

deem it necessary to impose anysentenceon the appellant

underSection376.

(emphasissupplied).

40. TheApexCourtinthematterofRajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.

StateofMaharashtra(citedsupra),whereinthevictimwasachildofthree

yearsofage,byreferringtovariousjudgmentsincludingthejudgmentofthe

Apexcourtinthecaseof MachhiSinghandothers.v.StateofPunjaband

BachanSingh.v.StateofPunjab(citedsupra),observedthattheCourthasto

strikeabalancebetweenaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances. Itwill

notbeoutofplacetostatethatinthecaseofRajendraPralhadraoWasnik.v.

State of Maharashtra (cited supra), the victim was subjected to sexual


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

44conf01.15

violenceandtherewerebitemarksonchestleftsidearoundnippleelliptical

withdiameters1xxmuscledeep. TheApexCourtinthesaidcase

observedthus

37. When the Court draws a balance sheet of the

aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,forthepurposesof

determiningwhethertheextremesentenceofdeathshouldbe

imposedupontheaccusedornot,thescaleofjusticeonlytilts

against the accused as there is nothing but aggravating

circumstancesevidentfromtherecordof theCourt. In fact,

onehastoreallystruggletofindoutiftherewereanymitigating

circumstancesfavouringtheaccused.

38. Anotheraspectofthematteristhattheminorchild

washelplessinthecruelhandsoftheaccused. Theaccused

was holding the child in a relationship of trustbelief and

confidence, in which capacity he took the child from the

houseofPW2.Inotherwords,theaccused,byhisconduct,has

belied the humanrelationship of trust and worthiness. The

accusedleft thedeceasedinabadlyinjuredconditioninthe

open fields without even clothes. This reflects the most

unfortunateandabusivefacetofhumanconduct,forwhichthe

accusedhastoblamenooneelsethanhisownself.

41. Inthepresentcasealso,theaccusedisthematernaluncleofthe

victim child. The Apex Court recently in the matter of Purushottam

DashrathBorateandanother.v.StateofMaharashtra(citedsupra),wherein

the victim deceased who was serving in a private company and was

subjectedtorapeandmurderatthehandsofthesecurityguardandwas


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

45conf01.15

awarded death sentence on consideration of the submission that the

appellant/accused is a person of young age, observed that such

compassionategroundsarepresentinmostofthecasesandarenotrelevant

for interference in awarding death sentence. The Apex Court further

observed that the principle that when the offence is gruesome and was

committedinacalculatedanddiabolicalmanner,theageoftheaccusedmay

notbearelevantfactor.

15. In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a

givencase must dependupon the atrocity of the crime; the

conductofthecriminalandthedefencelessandunprotected

stateofthevictim. Impositionofappropriatepunishmentis

themannerinwhichtheCourtsrespondtothesociety'scryfor

justice against the criminals. Justice demands that Courts

should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the

Courtsreflectpublicabhorrenceofthecrime.TheCourtsmust

notonlykeepinviewtherightsof thecriminal butalsothe

rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while

consideringimpositionofappropriatepunishment.

TheApex Court also made it clear that lack of criminal antecedents also

cannotbeconsideredasmitigatingcircumstances,particularlytakinginto

consideration,thenatureofheinousoffenceandcoldandcalculatedmanner

inwhichitwascommittedbytheaccusedpersons.

42. TheApexCourtinthematterofVasantaSampatDupare.v.State

ofMaharashtra(citedsupra),whereinthevictimwasagirloffouryearsof


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

46conf01.15

ageandtheappellant/accused,aneighbourluringthevictimforgivingher

chocolate,rapedheranddonehertodeathbyhitofstones.TheApexCourt

onthebackdropofthemedicalevidence,namelythevictimwassubjectedto

forcefulsexualintercourse,thedeceasedwaslastseenwiththeaccusedand

theimmediatelodgementofreportbythefatherofthegirl,lendingcredence

totheprosecutioncase,observedthus

60. Inthecaseathand,aswefind,notonlywasthe

rape committed in a brutal manner but murder was also

committedin a barbaric manner. Therapeof a minor girl

childisnothingbutamonstrousburialofherdignityinthe

darkness.Itisacrimeagainsttheholybodyofagirlchildand

the soul of society and such a crime is aggravated by the

mannerinwhichithasbeencommitted. Thenatureofthe

crimeandthemannerinwhichithasbeencommittedspeaks

about its uncommonness. The crime speaks of depravity,

degradationanduncommonality.Itisdiabolicalandbarbaric.

The crime was committed in an inhuman manner.

Indubitably,thesegoalongwaytoestablishtheaggravating

circumstances.

61. We are absolutely conscious that mitigating

circumstancesaretobetakenintoconsideration.Thelearned

Counsel for the appellant pointing out the mitigating

circumstanceswouldsubmitthattheappellantisinhismid

fiftiesandthereispossibilityofhisreformation. Beitnoted,

theappellantwasagedaboutfortysevenyearsatthetimeof

commissionofthecrime.Asisnoticeable,therehasbeenno

remorseonthepartoftheappellant. Therearecaseswhen

this Court hascommutedthedeathsentenceto life finding

thattheaccusedhasexpressedremorseorthecrimewasnot


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

47conf01.15

premeditated.Buttheobtainingfactualmatrixwhenunfolded

stagebystagewouldshowthepremeditation, theproclivity

andtherapaciousdesire. ThelearnedCounselwouldsubmit

that theappellant hadnocriminal antecedents but wefind

that he was a historysheeter and had a number of cases

pendingagainsthim. Thatalonemaynotbesufficient. The

appalling cruelty shown by him to the minor girl child is

extremelyshockingandit getsaccentuated,whenhisageis

taken into consideration. It was not committed under any

mental stress or emotional disturbanceand it is difficult to

comprehendthathewouldnotcommitsuchactsandwould

be reformed or rehabilitated. As the circumstances would

graphicallydepict,hewouldremainamenacetosociety,fora

defenceless child has become his prey. In our considered

opinion,therearenomitigatingcircumstances.

62. As we perceive, this case deserves to fall in the

categoryoftherarestofrarecases.Itisinconceivablefromthe

perspectiveofthesocietythatamarriedmanagedabouttwo

scoresandsevenmakesafouryearsminorinnocentgirlchild

the prey of his lust and deliberately causes her death. A

helpless and defenceless child gets raped and murdered

becauseoftheacquaintanceoftheappellantwiththepeople

ofthesociety. Thisisnotonlybetrayalofanindividualtrust

butdestructionanddevastationofsocialtrust.Itisperversity

initsenormity.Itirrefragablyinvitestheextremeabhorrence

and indignationof the collective. It is ananathemato the

socialbalance.Inourview,itmeetsthetestoftherarestofthe

rarecaseandweunhesitatinglysohold.


Bomb

ay H

igh C

ourt

48conf01.15

43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the order of

convictionandsentenceasrecordedbythelearnedtrialJudgeandconfirm

thedeathsentenceawardedbyhimtotheappellant/accused.

Inviewofthejudgmentandorderpassedinaforesaidreference,

noordersarerequiredtobepassedinCriminalAppealNo.321of2015filed

bytheappellant/accused.Intheresult,theCriminalAppealNo.321of2015

isdismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE

*rrg. `


bombay high court confirms double death sentence

Documents

bombay high court1conf01

bombay high court3conf01

bombay high court2conf01

wasa child

victim maroti

victimnamely pundlik

theappellant original

public prosecutor