Supreme Court commutes death sentence in child rape and murder case: Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar vs. State of Karnataka (2021) INSC 714

Date of the Judgment: 8 November 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 714
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when there are mitigating factors present, even in a heinous crime involving a child? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the rape and murder of a minor. The court examined whether the circumstances of the crime warranted the death penalty or if mitigating factors justified a life sentence. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and B.R. Gavai, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around the tragic death of a 5-year-old girl, R, who lived with her maternal grandfather in Khanapur village, Karnataka. On 28th December 2010, at around 6:30 PM, R was at her neighbor’s house watching TV when the appellant, Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar, arrived. He took R away, allegedly to buy her biscuits. R did not return home that night. The next day, after inquiries, it was revealed that the appellant was last seen with R. A missing person report was filed on 29th December 2010. Subsequently, villagers reported seeing the appellant carrying a child and a gunny bag towards the Bennihalla stream. On 1st January 2011, based on the appellant’s disclosure statement, R’s body was recovered from the stream, concealed in a gunny bag with stones.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to death for the murder charge. The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad upheld the conviction and the death sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 376: This section deals with the punishment for rape.
• Section 364: This section addresses kidnapping or abduction in order to murder.
• Section 366A: This section deals with the procuration of a minor girl.
• Section 201: This section relates to causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen offender.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the evidence of “last seen” was shaky and doubtful, as there was no mention of his involvement in the initial missing person report.
• The appellant contended that the witnesses who claimed to have seen him carrying the child were planted and that there was a discrepancy in the dates of their testimonies.
• The appellant argued that the High Court did not give a separate hearing on sentencing as required by Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The appellant submitted that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category, and that there were several mitigating factors, such as his young age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the possibility of reformation.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the circumstances of the case, including the brutal rape and murder of a minor, warranted the death penalty.
• The respondent contended that the appellant committed a grave and uncommon crime that endangered the moral fabric of society.
• The respondent emphasized that the deceased was a minor who could not have resisted or provoked the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in confirming the death sentence imposed by the trial court.
3. Whether there were sufficient mitigating factors to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
4. Whether the High Court had violated Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by not providing a separate hearing on sentencing.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Cited:

Legal Provisions Cited:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 12 SCC 158]* and Ranjit Kumar Haldar v. State of Sikkim [(2019) 7 SCC 684]* to emphasize the importance of the recovery of the body based on the accused’s disclosure statement as strong incriminating evidence.
• The five-fold test prescribed in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]* was applied to determine the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
• The court referred to Santa Singh v. State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 190]* and Dagdu and Others v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 3 SCC 68]* to address the procedural lapse of not hearing the accused separately on sentencing. The court clarified that the higher court can remedy this breach.
• The principle laid down in Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 1 SCC 596]* was used to show that the death sentence should not be commuted solely due to a procedural infraction.
• The court relied on Bantu alias Naresh Giri v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2001) 9 SCC 615]* to show that even in heinous crimes, the death penalty may not be warranted if there is no evidence that the accused poses a continuing threat to society.
• The court also relied on Purushottam Dashrath Borate v. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 6 SCC 652]*, Mulla v. State of U.P. [(2010) 3 SCC 508]*, Mohan v. State of T.N. [(1998) 5 SCC 336]* and Akhtar v. State of UP [(1999) 6 SCC 60]* to consider the mitigating factors such as young age, socio-economic background, lack of criminal antecedents, and non-premeditated nature of the crime.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was significantly influenced by several factors. The court considered the appellant’s young age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the absence of evidence indicating that the crime was pre-planned. The possibility of the appellant’s reformation and his satisfactory conduct in prison also weighed heavily in the court’s decision. The court also noted that the State had not provided any material to suggest that the appellant posed a continuing threat to society. The court emphasized that the death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, and in this instance, the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating circumstances.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The sentiment analysis reveals that the court’s decision was primarily driven by the presence of mitigating factors and the possibility of reformation, rather than the factual aspects of the crime. The ratio table shows that the court was more influenced by legal considerations than factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as upholding the death penalty based on the heinous nature of the crime. However, it rejected this interpretation by emphasizing the importance of considering mitigating factors and the possibility of reformation. The final decision was reached by weighing the mitigating factors against the aggravating circumstances and concluding that the former outweighed the latter.

The Court stated, “The five-fold test prescribed by Fazal Ali J. in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra are satisfied as the circumstances relied upon are fully established; they are conclusive in nature and tendency; the chain of evidence is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant; the facts established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and exclude every hypothesis except the one proved.”

The Court also noted, “We believe that there is hope for reformation, rehabilitation, and thus the option of imprisonment for life is certainly not foreclosed and therefore acceptable.”

Further, the Court observed, “Thus, we find sufficient mitigating factors to commute the sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court into imprisonment for life, with the direction that the appellant shall not be entitled to premature release/remission for the offence under Section 302 of the Code until he has undergone actual imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years.”

There was no minority opinion in this case; the judgment was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of considering mitigating factors in cases involving heinous crimes, even when the victim is a minor.
• The judgment highlights that the death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases and that the possibility of reformation should be a significant consideration.
• The decision underscores the need for courts to provide a separate hearing on sentencing as per Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and to consider all relevant factors before imposing the death penalty.
• The judgment also reinforces the principle that recovery of a body based on the disclosure statement of the accused is a strong incriminating circumstance.
• This case serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with the direction that the appellant shall not be entitled to premature release or remission for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, until he has undergone actual imprisonment for at least 30 years. The sentences for other offenses were directed to run concurrently, not consecutively.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even in cases of heinous crimes, including the rape and murder of a minor, the death penalty should not be imposed if there are sufficient mitigating factors and the possibility of reformation. The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that the death penalty should only be used in the rarest of rare cases and that the focus should be on the possibility of rehabilitation and the individual circumstances of the accused. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but clarifies the application of existing principles in cases involving the death penalty.

Conclusion

In the case of Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of the appellant for the rape and murder of a minor but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The court emphasized the importance of considering mitigating factors, such as the appellant’s young age, lack of criminal history, and potential for reformation. The judgment reinforces the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases and that the possibility of rehabilitation should be a key consideration. The court also clarified the procedural requirements for sentencing, ensuring that the accused is given a fair hearing. This judgment serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.