Author – Anand Pandey, Atal Bihari Vajpayee School Of Legal Studies, Csjmu Kanpur Nagar
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH V. SATE OF RAJASTHAN
Citation- 2022 SCC Online SC 768
Case NO- Special leave petition (CRL) No(s). 7899- 7900
Appellant- Manoj Pratap Singh
Respondent- State of Rajasthan
Bench- A.M Khanwilkar;j , Dinesh Maheshwari, C.T Ravikumar; j.
Factual matrix
In this case, the appellant has been accused of kidnapping of aged seven -and -a – half-year who is mentally and physically in front if his parents from their vegetable and fruit cart; then he taken her to a secluded place where he commits rape upon her and caused severe head injuries due to which she died. The girl was last seen with the appellant who was taking her on his motorcycle. In this consequence all the crimes were committed by a stolen motorcycle.
The prosecution case was completely relied on circumstantial evidence that the victim was lastly seen with the appellant when he took her away, the dead body of victim and other related articles with the crime were recovered at the instance of appellant; that the appellant unsatisfactorily explain the location of dead body and the medical and other scientific evidence was consistent with the prosecution case. Per contra, the appellant asserted that he was falsely implicated, though he didn’t come up with any evidence in defence.
On the basis of aforesaid, the Trial court in its judgment dated 28.09.2013, convicted the appellant of the offences aforesaid with the fi findings that the prosecution proves the charges beyond doubt that the appellant kidnapped the victim girl, committed rape with rape and then murder. On 01.10.2013, after hearing both the accused(appellant) on the question of sentence , Trial Court found no reason take any lenient view, particularly looking to the nature of offence commited by the appellant, the trial court awarded the punishment of death sentence under section 302 of Indian penal code. The sentence of death was submitted to the High Court for confirmation in accordance of Section 366of the Code of Criminal Procedure.On the other hand, the accused(appellant) preffered an appeal against the judgement and order of the trial court. Both the reference made to High court for confirmation of death sentence and the appeal preferred by the appellant, were considered together and the High Court, after finding that each and every circumstances had clearly been established, affirmed the conviction.
The appellant who was about 28 years old having the family of wife ,a daughter who was also about 8 years and aged parents, was continously involved in criminal activities as mentioned under section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984,section 379 IPC and even 307 IPC.
Points of determination
- Whether conviction of the appellant calls for any interference?
- Whether the death sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be affirmed or substituted by any other sentence?
Appellant’s Arguments
- The learned senior counsel for the appellant affirms that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were only bruises and abrasions, apart from the injury on the head and relying on the testimony of PW-21 that the appellant does not have the intention to cause the death of victim, it might have been caused as a result of rape. According to learned counsel, only the knowledge of consequence of act may be attributed but doubts are still exist regarding the absolute Certainty of the intention to commit such offence in a brutal manner.
- It is also submitted by learned counsel that appellant accused of an offence of rape cannot be convicted under both POCSO and IPC. It can only be punishable under any one of the enactment that the Court could impose the maximum punishment hence, the sentence under Section 376 IPC as also under Section 6 of POCSO is unsustainable as awarded by the trail court.
- It is further submitted by the appellant counsel that the appellant was only about 28years of age when FIR lodged against him; that he comes has a family of wife ,8 year old daughter and aged parents. On these basis learned counsel argues that the appellant doesn’t deserve death and the sentence as awarded in this present case.
Respondent’s argument
- Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the evidence addicted by the mother, father and maternal grandfather of the deceased is credit worthy and unimpecahble, and the same is duly corroborated by the other witnesses , who are independent of the relevant facts ,particularly those relating to the kidnapping of the victim girl from the vending cart of her cart. Thus, according to he learned counsel, the fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellant is established beyond any doubt.
- It is further submitted by counsel that the name of the appellant was indeed mentioned in missing report lodged by PW-1,though it was mentioned as “Manoj Singh” instead of “Manoj Pratap Singh” ; and FIR which was registered on the basis of the said report also carries name of appellant.
Medical Evidence
In this present case, in the opinion of the Medical Board found varying injuries on the body of the victim, including those on head and on private parts. It is opined by the board that the cause of death was head injury and that the deceased had been to ante- mortem rape.
Judgement
The Supreme Court while observing the circumstances, ruled that (a) the appellant was continously involved in criminal activities prior to this crime in question,(b) The crime was carried by motorcycle itself was a stolen property.(c)Post conviction was also earned 7 days punishment in jail for quarrelling with co -inmate.
The apex Court refused to commute the death sentence to life Imprisonment awarded to the appellant who was convicted for brutal rape and murder of a physically and mentally girl of 7 years . The Court also remarked that it is unlikely that the appellant, if given an absolution, would not be capable of and would not be inclined to commit such a heinous crime.
The bench consists of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheswari and Justice CT Ravikumar confirmed the punishment of appellant of offences under section 363,365,376(2)(f),302of penal Code and section 6 of Protection of child from Sexual Offences Act, and the death sentence awarded to appellant under section 302 of Indian penal code.
NAGENDRA SHAH v. STATE OF BIHAR
Citation-Criminal Appeal no. 1903 of 2019
Date of judgement- 14 September 2021
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S Oka
Appellant- Nagendra Shah
Respondent- State of Bihar
Factual matrix
In this case the appellant’s wife died by several burn injuries on her body. An autopsy reports revealed that the reason to death is asphyxia because of immense pressure over neck by hand or a blunt object. Under section 302 of IPC FIR was registered and further under section 201 of the Code.
After considering all the relevant facts including autopsy report, the session court awarded conviction to appellant. An appeal wad preferred before the High Court of Patna and such appeal was dismissed by HC and upheld the order of session Court of conviction . Then the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s argument
- The Counsel for Appellant argued that the none of the witness was in favour of the respondent, except the autopsy report relied upon the respondent. It was also submitted that there are other people in the premise at time incident occurred and the appellant and he deceased wife were living a normal life. According to appellant, while the deceased was boiling milk for their children, then the accidently fire caught on her saree as a result of which she suffered severe burn injuries and succumbed to death.
- It was further submitted by counsel that proper chain of event was not established by the respondent, hence the conviction awarded by sessions subject to set aside.
Respondent’s argument
- The learned counsel for respondent argued that the contention of the appellant that the death of deceased was due to burn injuries is thoroughly falsely and autopsy report was completely contrary to his contention. Hence, the appeal preffered by appellant is vague and he is subject to conviction.
Points of determination
- Whether burden of proof lies on the accused as mention under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act?
- Whether the Chain of events is complete and provide an absolute hypothesis that the guilt lies with the appellant?
Judgement Analysis
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after Considering all facts including the examination of witness, held that there were no fractions in the matrimonial life of appellant and deceased. As per all the witnesses that the fire was breakout and the appellant and his relatives tried to extinguish the same but due to severe injuries his wife died. The Court was also observed the view that no guilt has been show n or proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the order delivered by the session court was set aside and appellant was acquitted of the charges.
The court also relied on the judgement of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra observed that the five significant principles laid out in this case wherein it was provided that the facts established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis.
