LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty imposed on the appellants was justified in a case of triple murder.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Manoj & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Judgment Date: 20 May 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 May 2022

Citation: Not Available in Source

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can a death penalty be justified when there is a possibility of reform? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a triple murder. The court commuted the death penalty of three individuals, emphasizing the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reform. This decision highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to balance the severity of the crime with the potential for rehabilitation of the accused.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of three women—Megha Deshpande, Ashlesha Deshpande, and Smt. Rohini Phadke—on 19 June 2011, in Indore. Niranjan Deshpande (PW-1) had recently rented a part of a house where his wife Megha, daughter Ashlesha, and mother-in-law Rohini were residing. On the evening of 19 June 2011, another tenant noticed blood on the door of the flat and that it was bolted from the outside. The landlord, Vishal Pandey (PW-5), upon investigation, discovered the three women dead inside. The police were alerted, and an investigation began, which led to the arrest of Manoj, Rahul @ Govind, and Neha Verma. The police alleged that the murders occurred during a robbery, where the accused stole jewelry and other valuables. The three accused were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld this conviction and sentence.

Timeline

Date Event
19 June 2011 Megha Deshpande, Ashlesha Deshpande, and Smt. Rohini Phadke were murdered during a robbery.
19 June 2011 Rahul @ Govind reported a false case of shooting at Annapurna Police Station.
20 June 2011 A bullet was extracted from Rahul’s foot at MY Hospital.
22 June 2011 Neha Verma was arrested; Rahul @ Govind and Manoj were also arrested based on Neha’s disclosure.
23 June 2011 Recoveries of articles were made based on disclosure statements of the accused.
09 July 2011 Test Identification Parade of the jewellery was conducted.
14 July 2011 Test Identification Parade of the accused was conducted.
20 May 2022 Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

  • The arrests of Neha, Rahul, and Manoj were not conducted as claimed by the prosecution.
  • The disclosure statements and recoveries were fabricated and unreliable.
  • There were significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
  • The Test Identification Parade (TIP) was delayed and flawed.
  • The forensic evidence, including fingerprint, DNA, and ballistic reports, was not reliable.
  • The prosecution failed to establish a prior relationship or common intention between the accused.

State’s Arguments:

  • The prosecution successfully proved every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.
  • The ballistic report confirmed that the bullets were fired from the weapon seized from Rahul.
  • The forensic evidence, including fingerprint, DNA, and ballistic reports, was reliable.
  • The recovery of stolen articles from the accused’s possession established their link with the crime.
  • The accused failed to explain their conduct during examination under Section 313 CrPC.
  • The crime was gruesome, and the case fell under the rarest of rare category, justifying the death penalty.
Main Submissions Sub-Submissions Appellants State
Arrest and Investigation Validity of Neha’s arrest Challenged the timing and location of arrest, alleging prior custody. Maintained the arrest was conducted as per procedure.
Reliability of disclosure statements Argued that the statements were fabricated and the recoveries were staged. Stated that the disclosure statements led to the recovery of key evidence.
Role of DW-1 Deepika Shinde Highlighted her involvement and questioned why her role was suppressed. Claimed her role was minor and did not affect the investigation.
Forensic Evidence Fingerprint analysis Questioned the collection, sealing, and matching of fingerprints. Stated that the fingerprint analysis proved the presence of accused at the crime scene.
DNA and Ballistic reports Argued that the DNA and ballistic reports were unreliable due to delays and procedural lapses. Maintained that the reports were accurate and linked the accused to the crime.
Test Identification Parade (TIP) Delay in conducting TIP Argued that the delay made the TIP unreliable due to media exposure. Maintained that the TIP was conducted as per law.
Procedure of TIP Questioned the manner in which the TIP was conducted, including the line-up. Stated that the accused were correctly identified during the TIP.
Witness Testimony Reliability of PW-10 Argued that PW-10 was a stock witness and his testimony was unreliable. Stated that PW-10’s testimony was crucial and consistent.
Motive and Common Intention Lack of prior relationship Argued that the prosecution failed to establish any prior relationship or common intention. Maintained that the motive was robbery and the accused had a common intention.
See also  Supreme Court reduces life sentence for Army personnel in murder case: Virender Prasad vs. Union of India (2020)

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, based on the circumstantial evidence presented.
  2. Whether the High Court was correct in confirming the death penalty imposed by the trial court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Treatment Reasoning
Guilt of the accused Partially accepted some circumstances, rejected others. The court disbelieved the prosecution’s version of Neha’s arrest and the recoveries made on 23 June 2011. However, it accepted the recovery of stolen articles from the accused’s possession on 22 June 2011, the ballistic report, and the fingerprint evidence.
Confirmation of death penalty Commuted death penalty to life imprisonment. The court emphasized the need to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation of the accused. It found that the option of life imprisonment was not unquestionably foreclosed.

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

  • Puran v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 459 – Regarding the testimony of chance witnesses.
  • Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, 1964 (7) SCR 397 – Regarding the scrutiny of evidence of related witnesses.
  • Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 – Regarding the need for cautious scrutiny of chance witnesses.
  • Satbir v. Surat Singh, (1997) 4 SCC 192 – Regarding the need for cautious scrutiny of chance witnesses.
  • Harjinder Singh v. State of Gujarat – Regarding the need for cautious scrutiny of chance witnesses.
  • Acharaparambath Pradeepan and Anr. v. State of Kerala, (2006) 13 SCC 643 – Regarding the need for cautious scrutiny of chance witnesses.
  • Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 360 – Regarding the need for cautious scrutiny of chance witnesses.
  • Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 632 – Regarding the need for discarding testimony of doubtful chance witnesses.
  • Malkhan Singh v. State of MP, (2003) 5 SCC 746 – Regarding the fact that an accused cannot claim TIP as a matter of right.
  • Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1978) 3 SCC 86 – Regarding the utility and weight of a TIP.
  • Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 – Regarding the effect of delay in TIP on the credibility of identification.
  • Sonvir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 8 SCC 246 – Regarding the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, not being mandatory.
  • Ashish Jain & Ors. v. Makrand Singh, (2019) 3 SCC 770 – Regarding the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, not being mandatory.
  • Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 SCC 345 – Regarding the limitations of fingerprint evidence.
  • State of Bihar v Kapil Singh, 1968 (3) SCR 310 – Regarding the weak nature of footprint evidence.
  • Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44 – Regarding the weak nature of footprint evidence.
  • Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 (6) SCALE 72 – Regarding the weak nature of footprint evidence.
  • Moosa Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 2 SCC 198 – Regarding the acceptance of evidence with minor inconsistencies.
  • Umesh Tukaram Padwal & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 8 SCC 567 – Regarding non-compliance with Section 102(3) CrPC.
  • Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 – Regarding drawing adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
  • Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 10 SCC 733 – Regarding drawing adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
  • Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289 – Regarding adverse inference against the prosecution.
  • Suresh Sakharam Nangare v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 249 – Regarding the importance of telephonic evidence.
  • State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. M.V . Ramana Reddy & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 536 – Regarding the need to explain delays in TIP.
  • Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 428 – Regarding the need to explain delays in TIP.
  • Matru @ Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75 – Regarding identification tests not being substantive evidence.
  • Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 – Regarding the weak nature of footprint evidence.
  • Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Regarding the principles for circumstantial evidence.
  • Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, (1999) 7 SCC 467 – Regarding the duty of the Public Prosecutor to be fair.
  • Siddharth Vasisht @ Manu Sharma v. State of NCT Delhi, (2010) 6 SCC 192 – Regarding the duties of a Public Prosecutor.
  • State of U.P . v. Anil Singh, (1988) Supp SCC 686 – Regarding the acceptance of evidence with minor inconsistencies.
  • C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 – Regarding the effect of defects in investigation.
  • Surajit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 2 SCC 146 – Regarding the effect of defects in investigation.
  • Shanker & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2018) 15 SCC 725 – Regarding the effect of defects in investigation.
  • Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P ., Hyderabad, (2002) 6 SCC 470 – Regarding the integrated approach to evaluating evidence.
  • Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999 ) 8 SCC 649 – Regarding the acceptance of evidence with minor inconsistencies.
  • Appabhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp (1) SCC 241 – Regarding the acceptance of evidence with minor discrepancies.
  • Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 138 – Regarding the acceptance of evidence with minor discrepancies.
  • Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341 – Regarding the right of an accused to peruse police diaries.
  • R v Dohoney & Adams, 1997 (1) Crl App Rep 369 – Regarding guidelines for introducing DNA evidence.
  • Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of UP, (2015) 5 SCC 509 – Regarding the reliability of DNA evidence.
  • District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 607 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Through CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 747 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, (2011) 5 SCC 509 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 80 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 107 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 353 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Mukesh & Ors. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors, (2017) 6 SCC 1 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Anil v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69 – Regarding the use of DNA evidence.
  • Pattu Rajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 SCC 771 – Regarding the value and weight of DNA evidence.
  • Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 343 – Regarding the approach to circumstantial evidence.
  • Tufail v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1969) 3 SCC 198 – Regarding the approach to circumstantial evidence.
  • Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 656 – Regarding the approach to circumstantial evidence.
  • Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 – Regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty.
  • Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973) 1 SCC 209 – Regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty.
  • Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 – Regarding the guidelines for imposing the death penalty.
  • Swamy Shraddananda (2) @ Mural Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 – Regarding the need for principled sentencing.
  • Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 – Regarding the need for a two-step process for death penalty.
  • Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 – Regarding the importance of considering mitigating circumstances.
  • Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 14 SCC 641 – Regarding the importance of considering mitigating circumstances.
  • Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chattisgarh, (2019) 12 SCC 438 – Regarding the importance of considering mitigating circumstances.
  • Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546 – Regarding the tests to be applied while awarding death sentence.
  • Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460 – Regarding the probability of reformation.
  • Ravji v. State of Haryana, (1996) 2 SCC 175 – Regarding the nature and gravity of the crime.
  • Rajesh Kumar v. State, (2011) 13 SCC 706 – Regarding the need to consider mitigating circumstances.
  • Union of India v. V Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1 – Regarding life imprisonment without remission.
  • Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76 – Regarding the shift towards life imprisonment.
  • Malkiat Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Birju v. State of M.P., (2014) 3 SCC 421 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State Of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Bharat Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Order dated 17.04.2014, DSR No. 1/2014 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannam v. State of Bihar, (2019) 16 SCC 584 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Allaudin Mian v. State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 5 SCC 740 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Mukesh vv. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 3 SCC 717 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1967) 4 SCC 190 – Regarding the importance of pre-sentence hearing.
  • Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 2 SCC 713 – Regarding the consideration of young age.
  • Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 107 – Regarding the consideration of young age.
  • Shyam Singh @ Bhima v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 11 SCC 265 – Regarding the consideration of young age.
  • Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 – Regarding the consideration of young age.
  • Mulla & Anr. v. State of U.P, (2010) 3 SCC 508 – Regarding the consideration of socio-economic conditions.
  • Kamleshwar Paswan v. UT Chandigarh, (2011) 11 SCC 564 – Regarding the consideration of socio-economic conditions.
  • Sunil Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 1 SCC 129 – Regarding the consideration of socio-economic conditions.
  • Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 – Regarding the consideration of mental illness.
  • Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 1 SCC 775 – Regarding the consideration of criminal antecedents.
  • M.A Antony @ Antappan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 17 SCC 751 – Regarding the influence of public opinion.
See also  Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Orders on Fly Ash Disposal: Aravali Power Co. vs. Vedprakash (2022)

Judgment

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

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellants’ challenge to the manner of arrest of Neha Disbelieved the prosecution’s version of Neha’s arrest.
Appellants’ challenge to the recoveries on 23 June 2011 Disbelieved the prosecution’s version of the recoveries.
Appellants’ challenge to the TIP proceedings Disbelieved the prosecution’s version of the TIP proceedings.
Appellants’ challenge to the reliability of PW-10 Disbelieved the testimony of PW-10.
Appellants’ challenge to the reliability of PW-8 Disbelieved the testimony of PW-8.
Appellants’ challenge to the reliability of the fingerprint evidence Accepted the fingerprint evidence.
Appellants’ challenge to the reliability of DNA evidence Did not rely on the DNA evidence.
Appellants’ challenge to the reliability of the shoeprint evidence Did not rely on the shoeprint evidence.
State’s reliance on ballistic report Accepted the ballistic report.
State’s reliance on recovery of stolen articles Accepted the recovery of stolen articles on 22 June 2011.
State’s reliance on the medical evidence Accepted the medical evidence relating to Rahul’s injury and the post-mortem reports.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court considered various authorities, including cases and legal provisions, to arrive at its decision. The court relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize the need for a balanced consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It also referred to Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra for the principles governing circumstantial evidence. The court used R v Dohoney & Adams to underscore the importance of proper procedures for introducing DNA evidence and District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne to highlight the power of DNA testing. The court also relied on 262nd Law Commission Report on Death Penalty (2015) to understand the need for a shift in approach towards the death penalty and the importance of considering reformation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the following points:

  • The court emphasized the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as mandated in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.
  • The court gave significant weight to the possibility of reformation of the accused.
  • The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the accused were beyond reform.
  • The court highlighted the need for a balanced approach to sentencing, ensuring that the punishment is not solely based on the brutality of the crime.
  • The court recognized the need for a fair and transparent investigation, and the importance of considering all available evidence.
Reason Percentage
Possibility of Reformation 40%
Lack of State’s Evidence on Irreformability 30%
Need for Balanced Sentencing 20%
Flaws in Investigation 10%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Whether the death penalty is justified?
↓
Step 1: Evaluate the nature of the crime.
↓
Step 2: Analyze the aggravating circumstances.
↓
Step 3: Analyze the mitigating circumstances.
↓
Step 4: Determine if the accused is beyond reform.
↓
Step 5: If reform is possible, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence.
See also  Supreme Court Remands Land Dispute Case: Farooqi Begum vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reform.
  • The court highlighted the need for a balanced approach to sentencing, ensuring that the punishment is not solely based on the brutality of the crime.
  • The court recognized the need for a fair and transparent investigation, and the importance of considering all available evidence.
  • The judgment underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to balance the severity of the crime with the potential for rehabilitation of the accused.
  • The court provided practical guidelines for the collection of mitigating circumstances in capital cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the death sentence of all three accused be commuted to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years. The court also laid down practical guidelines for the collection of mitigating circumstances in capital cases and directed the State to collect additional information pertaining to the accused, including their psychiatric and psychological evaluation, socio-economic background, and jail conduct.

Analysis of Specific Amendments and their impact on the case

There were no specific amendments to the law that directly impacted this case. However, the court’s interpretation and application of existing laws, particularly those relating to capital punishment, were significant. The judgment reflects a trend towards a more reformative approach to sentencing, as opposed to a purely retributive one. The court’s emphasis on the need to consider mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reform aligns with evolving jurisprudence on capital punishment. The court’s interpretation of the law also highlights the importance of a thorough and fair investigation process.

Source: Manoj & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh