Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape and Murder Case: Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 407

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

Can the circumstantial evidence alone be sufficient to convict an accused in a heinous crime like rape and murder of a child? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. This judgment examines the validity of a death sentence imposed on the accused, focusing on the chain of circumstantial evidence and the principles of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi delivered the judgment. Justice Bela M. Trivedi authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

On April 17, 2013, Rakesh Choudhary, along with Mohd. Firoz (the appellant), visited the home of Ramkumari, seeking accommodation for Firoz. Ramkumari’s mother refused. Firoz stayed in the courtyard where Ramkumari’s four-year-old daughter, Pooja, was playing. Shortly after, Pooja and Firoz went missing. Ramkishan, Pooja’s brother, was later found with bananas, stating that “Bhaijaan” (Firoz) had taken Pooja. The next day, Pooja was found unconscious in a field with severe injuries. She was taken to multiple hospitals but died on April 29, 2013. The post-mortem revealed that she had been raped and her death was caused by smothering.

The prosecution alleged that Firoz had deceitfully taken Pooja, raped her, and caused her death. The police investigation led to the arrest of both Firoz and Rakesh Choudhary. Firoz was charged under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 5(i), 5(m), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Rakesh Choudhary was charged under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 and Section 109 of the IPC, and under Sections 16/17 of the POCSO Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court at Seoni convicted both Firoz and Rakesh Choudhary. Firoz was sentenced to death for the offense under Section 302 of the IPC, along with other sentences for offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) of the IPC and under Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act. Rakesh Choudhary was also convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. The Sessions Court referred the death sentence of Firoz to the High Court for confirmation.

The High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, allowed the appeal of Rakesh Choudhary, acquitting him of all charges. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal of Mohd. Firoz and confirmed his death sentence. Firoz then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC: These sections deal with kidnapping and abduction. Section 363 specifies the punishment for kidnapping, while Section 366 addresses abduction with the intent to compel marriage, etc.
• Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of the IPC: These sections pertain to rape. Section 376(2)(i) deals with rape by a person in a position of authority or a public servant, while Section 376(2)(m) addresses rape of a child below 12 years of age.
• Section 376A of the IPC: This section deals with punishment for causing death or resulting in a persistent vegetative state of the victim during the commission of rape.
• Sections 5(i), 5(m), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): These sections address aggravated sexual assault on children. Section 5(i) deals with penetrative sexual assault, Section 5(m) deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and Section 6 specifies the punishment for these offenses.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Mohd. Firoz):

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s case relied solely on circumstantial evidence, which was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• They contended that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime.
• The “last seen theory” was not adequately proven to connect the accused with the crime.
• The appellant’s admission of being present at the victim’s house did not imply that he committed the crime.
• The provisions of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) were not properly observed, as the accused was not clearly informed about the incriminating evidence.
• There was media pressure on the investigating agency, leading to a hurried charge sheet and unfair trial.
• The trial court appointed a common advocate for both the accused, which resulted in an unfair trial.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The respondent argued that the crime was heinous and despicable.
• The trial court and the High Court had correctly relied on the evidence to convict the appellant.
• The appellant’s admission of being present at the victim’s house and his arrest, as per the prosecution’s case, reduced the burden on the prosecution.
• Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should not lead to the rejection of the prosecution’s evidence.
• The victim was last seen with the accused, and it was within the special knowledge of the accused as to what happened to the victim after he took her from the fruit vendor’s shop.
• The time gap between the victim being last seen with the accused and when she was found injured was very short, which pointed to the accused committing the crime.
• The issue of an unfair trial was not raised earlier and should not be entertained at this stage.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the accused to escape from the clutches of law.
2. Whether the trial was conducted in a fair manner.
3. Whether the death penalty was the appropriate sentence in the present case.

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

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Mohd. Firoz, stating that the prosecution had successfully proven the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the following key points:

• Admission of Presence: The appellant admitted to visiting the victim’s house on the evening of the incident.
• “Last Seen Together” Theory: The evidence established that the victim was last seen with the appellant.
• Lack of Explanation: The appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for how he parted company with the victim.
• Absconding: The appellant absconded to his native place in Bihar after the incident.
• Proximity of Time: The time gap between the victim being last seen with the appellant and when she was found injured was very short.
• DNA Evidence: The DNA profile from the hair found at the scene matched the appellant’s DNA.

The Court also addressed the issue of fair trial, stating that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was deprived of legal assistance or that the trial was unfair. The Court noted that a lawyer was provided to the appellant at the expense of the state, and that the appellant had responded to the incriminating circumstances brought to his notice.

Regarding the death penalty, the Court considered the principles laid down in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 684 and other similar matters. While acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime, the Court also took into account the mitigating circumstances and the applicability of Section 376A of the IPC. The Court observed that Section 376A of the IPC provides a wider spectrum for considering the punishment. The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced the appellant to 20 years of imprisonment for the offense under Section 376A of the IPC.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Masalti vs. State of U. P [AIR 1965 SC 202]: The Court acknowledged the need for caution while appreciating the evidence of partisan witnesses but found that the testimonies in this case were reliable.
• Ajay Singh vs. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 341]: The Court agreed with the principle of clearly informing the accused about the incriminating evidence but found that the accused was given sufficient opportunity to respond.
• K. Anbazhagan vs. The superintendent of Police & Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 767] and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 374]: The Court emphasized the importance of a fair trial but found that the trial in this case was fair.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Mahashtra [1984 (4) SCC 116]: The Court applied the five golden principles for appreciating circumstantial evidence.
• Mohan Singh vs. Prem Singh & Anr. [(2002) 10 SCC 236]: The Court used the inculpatory part of the accused’s statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to lend credence to the prosecution’s case.
• Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 10 SCC 623], Satpal vs. State of Haryana [(2018) 6 SCC 610], and Surajdeo Mahto vs. The State of Bihar [(2021) 9 Scale]: The Court applied the doctrine of “last seen together” and emphasized the need for the accused to provide an explanation.
• Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI [(1978) 1 SCC 248]: The Court reiterated the need for a fair procedure in criminal trials.
• Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684] and Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470]: The Court considered the principles for imposing the death penalty and the “rarest of rare cases” doctrine.
• Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 1 SCC 596]: The Court considered the wide spectrum for punishment under Section 376A of the IPC.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction.”

“The last seen theory should rather be applied taking into account the case of the prosecution in its entirety. Hence, the Courts have to not only consider the factum of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances that preceded and followed from the point of the deceased being so last seen in the presence of the Accused.”

“The Court, therefore, holds that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant -accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366 of IPC and section 5(i) read with section 6 and section 5(m) read with section 6 of the POCSO Act.”

The Court also stated:

“The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Circumstantial Evidence: The strong chain of circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen together” theory, the appellant’s absconding, and the DNA evidence, played a crucial role in establishing the appellant’s guilt.
• Heinous Nature of the Crime: The barbaric nature of the crime, involving the rape and murder of a young child, weighed heavily on the Court’s mind.
• Lack of Explanation: The appellant’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation for his actions and the events surrounding the victim’s death was a significant factor.
• Fair Trial: The Court was satisfied that the trial was conducted fairly, and the appellant was given adequate opportunity to defend himself.
• Mitigating Circumstances: While the crime was heinous, the Court considered mitigating circumstances and the applicability of Section 376A of the IPC while commuting the death sentence.

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial Evidence: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is fully established and leaves no reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt.
• “Last Seen Together” Theory: The “last seen together” theory is a significant piece of circumstantial evidence, and the accused must offer a reasonable explanation for how they parted company with the victim.
• Fair Trial: The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial, but also noted that the rights of the victim and the interest of society at large should also be considered.
• Section 376A of IPC: The Court highlighted that Section 376A of the IPC provides a wider spectrum for considering punishment in cases of rape resulting in death or persistent vegetative state.
• Mitigating Factors: While the crime was heinous, the Court considered mitigating factors and the need for restorative justice while commuting the death sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, and further reduced itto 20 years of imprisonment for the offense under Section 376A of the IPC. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the other offenses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh is a significant ruling that underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, particularly in heinous crimes like child rape and murder. The Court’s analysis of the “last seen together” theory and its emphasis on the accused’s responsibility to provide a reasonable explanation are crucial takeaways. While upholding the conviction, the Court’s decision to commute the death sentence reflects a balanced approach, considering both the severity of the crime and the need for a just and proportionate punishment. The judgment also highlights the wide spectrum available for considering punishment under Section 376A of the IPC, which provides for a range of punishments, including life imprisonment, for rape resulting in death or persistent vegetative state.

This case serves as a reminder of the need for a thorough and fair trial process, and the importance of ensuring that the rights of both the accused and the victim are protected. It also underscores the need for courts to carefully consider all aspects of a case, including the evidence, the legal provisions, and the societal implications of their decisions.