Supreme Court commutes death penalty in POCSO case: Vijay Raikwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: February 5, 2019

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015, 2019 INSC 79

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a death penalty be upheld when the accused is not a repeat offender and was a young adult at the time of the crime? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while hearing an appeal against a death sentence for the rape and murder of a minor. The core issue was whether the case qualified as the ‘rarest of rare’ to justify capital punishment. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves the rape and murder of a 7 1/2-year-old girl. The accused, Vijay Raikwar, was convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m), and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and also imposed the death penalty. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld both the conviction and the death sentence.

The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the fact that the accused was last seen with the victim, that he gave her a one-rupee coin, and that her frock was found in his house with bloodstains matching her blood group. The accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for these incriminating circumstances.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused, Vijay Raikwar, for rape and murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment and the death penalty. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the accused’s appeal and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court against the conviction and the death sentence.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offence of rape committed by a person in a position of authority or trust, or by a public servant, or by a member of the armed forces, or by a person in a custodial institution.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section pertains to causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Sections 5(i), 5(m), and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): These sections deal with aggravated sexual assault on a child. Section 6 of the POCSO Act provides for punishment for aggravated sexual assault.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Accused:

• The accused argued that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, lacking any direct eyewitness accounts.
• It was submitted that the chain of evidence did not conclusively prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The accused relied on the decisions in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Shyam Singh alias Bhima v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 11 SCC 265 to argue that the death penalty should be commuted to life imprisonment.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

• The State contended that the accused was last seen with the victim.
• The State highlighted that the victim’s frock was found in the house of the accused with blood stains.
• The State argued that the accused failed to explain the incriminating evidence found against him during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed was:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 of the IPC, as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m), and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, was justified.
2. Whether the death penalty imposed on the accused should be commuted to life imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684* to determine whether the case fell under the ‘rarest of rare’ category, and held that it did not.
• The Court also relied on Shyam Singh alias Bhima v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 11 SCC 265* to support its decision to commute the death sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death penalty was primarily influenced by the consideration that the case did not qualify as the ‘rarest of rare’ as per the guidelines established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684. The court noted that the accused was not a previous convict or a professional killer, and his young age (19 years) at the time of the crime, along with his good jail conduct, were mitigating factors. The court acknowledged the brutality of the crime but concluded that it did not warrant the death penalty.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the offense, describing it as brutal, but emphasized that the case did not meet the criteria for the ‘rarest of rare’ category. The Court noted that the accused was not a previous convict or a professional killer, and was 19 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. His good jail conduct was also a factor. The Court stated, “Though, we acknowledge the gravity of the offence, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this case would fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ warranting the death sentence.” The Court further noted, “It is required to be noted that the accused was not a previous convict or a professional killer. At the time of commission of offence, he was 19 years of age. His jail conduct also reported to be good.” The final decision was that, “it will be in the interest of justice to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for rape and murder based on circumstantial evidence.
• The death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment because the case did not qualify as the ‘rarest of rare’ as per established legal principles.
• Mitigating factors such as the accused’s age, lack of prior convictions, and good jail conduct played a significant role in commuting the death sentence.
• This case reinforces the principle that the death penalty is reserved for the most exceptional cases of extreme depravity.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the offence was brutal, it did not warrant the death penalty as it did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category. This case reinforces the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 regarding the imposition of the death penalty. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Vijay Raikwar for rape and murder but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court emphasized that the death penalty is reserved for the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, and the circumstances of this case, including the accused’s age and lack of prior convictions, did not warrant capital punishment. This judgment underscores the importance of considering mitigating factors when determining the appropriate sentence in criminal cases.