LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a death sentence should be upheld in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and what factors should be considered in determining if a convict can be reformed and rehabilitated. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra. Judgment Date: 12 December 2018
Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2018
Citation:
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J, S. Abdul Nazeer, J, Deepak Gupta, J. This was a unanimous decision by a three-judge bench.
Can a death sentence be justified when the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question while examining the case of a man convicted for the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl. The court delved into the complexities of capital punishment, emphasizing the importance of considering the possibility of a convict’s reform and rehabilitation, alongside the gravity of the crime.
Case Background
The case revolves around the conviction of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik for the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl. The crime occurred on the night of March 2-3, 2007. The Sessions Judge, Amravati, found Wasnik guilty under Sections 376(2)(f), 377, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on circumstantial evidence. The trial court sentenced him to death on September 10, 2008.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 2-3, 2007 | The rape and murder of a three-year-old girl occurred. |
| September 6, 2008 | Sessions Judge, Amravati, convicted Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik. |
| September 8, 2008 | Trial Judge heard submissions on sentencing. |
| September 10, 2008 | Trial Judge awarded the death sentence. |
| March 26, 2009 | Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence. |
| February 29, 2012 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the conviction and death sentence. |
| March 7, 2013 | Supreme Court dismissed the review petition. |
| March 24, 2015 | Supreme Court restored the review petition. |
| December 12, 2018 | Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. |
| April 18, 2016 | Sessions Judge, Amravati, sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment in another case (S.T. No. 162 of 2007). |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Court, after convicting Wasnik, considered the gravity of the offense and some personal factors of the accused, such as his child and dependent parents. The court also noted two other pending cases against Wasnik under similar provisions. The Sessions Judge concluded that no other punishment was appropriate except capital punishment.
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence on March 26, 2009. The High Court also considered the fact that the case was based on circumstantial evidence but concluded that the crime was heinous enough to warrant the death penalty. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the appeals against the High Court’s decision on February 29, 2012. A review petition was also dismissed on March 7, 2013. However, a Constitution Bench decision in another case, Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, led to the restoration of the review petition and a fresh hearing.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to several key legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC: This section deals with the punishment for rape.
- Section 377 of the IPC: This section deals with unnatural offences.
- Section 53A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C): This section allows for the medical examination of a person accused of rape, including DNA profiling. The law states: “When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence…to make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.”
- Section 164A of the Cr.P.C: This section provides for the medical examination of a victim of rape, including DNA profiling. The law states: “Where, during the stage when an offence of committing rape or attempt to commit rape is under investigation, it is proposed to get the person of the woman with whom rape is alleged or attempted to have been committed or attempted, examined by a medical expert…such examination shall be conducted by a registered medical practitioner…with the consent of such woman…and such woman shall be sent to such registered medical practitioner within twenty-four hours from the time of receiving the information relating to the commission of such offence.”
- Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C: This section mandates that special reasons be recorded for awarding the death penalty.
- Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section prohibits the use of previous bad character evidence except when the convict himself chooses to lead evidence of his good character.
- Section 75 of the IPC: This section provides for enhanced punishment for certain offences under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of the IPC after previous convictions.
- Section 376E of the IPC: This section deals with punishment for repeat offenders in rape cases.
- Section 16(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: This section provides for additional penalties for repeat offences.
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel raised four key arguments:
- Circumstantial Evidence: The death sentence should not be awarded in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
- Rehabilitation: The possibility of the appellant’s reform and rehabilitation was not considered.
- DNA Evidence: Vital DNA evidence was not placed before the Trial Court.
- Past History: The reference to the appellant’s past history was unwarranted.
The arguments were supported by several case laws which were discussed in the judgment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Death sentence should not be awarded in cases based on circumstantial evidence. |
|
| The probability of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant was not considered. |
|
| Vital DNA evidence was not placed before the Trial Court. |
|
| The reference to the past history of the appellant was not warranted. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:
- Whether the death sentence should be upheld in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the probability of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant was considered by the lower courts.
- Whether the non-production of DNA evidence had any effect on the case.
- Whether the reference to the appellant’s past history was warranted.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the death sentence should be upheld in a case based on circumstantial evidence. | The Court held that while there is no absolute bar, death penalty is not advisable in cases of circumstantial evidence. It should only be awarded in exceptional cases. |
| Whether the probability of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant was considered by the lower courts. | The Court found that the lower courts did not adequately consider the probability of reform and rehabilitation, which is a crucial factor in sentencing. |
| Whether the non-production of DNA evidence had any effect on the case. | The Court noted that the non-production of DNA evidence, without any explanation, was a significant lapse and an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. |
| Whether the reference to the appellant’s past history was warranted. | The Court held that the reference to pending cases against the appellant was not warranted and violated the presumption of innocence. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions while arriving at its decision:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684] | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case, which mandated consideration of the probability of reform or rehabilitation of the criminal. |
| Shivaji alias Dadya Shankar Alhat vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 15 SCC 269] | Supreme Court of India | The court discussed the observations in this case regarding circumstantial evidence, but noted that it was not the only factor to consider. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Shankar Krisanrao Khade [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2143] | Bombay High Court | The court noted that the view of the Bombay High Court in this case was not accepted by the Supreme Court. |
| Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 5 SCC 546] | Supreme Court of India | The court mentioned that this case overruled the view of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shankar Krisanrao Khade. |
| Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa [(1994) 3 SCC 381] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that this case did not discuss the issue of death penalty in circumstantial evidence cases. |
| Dhanan joy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of W.B. [(1994) 2 SCC 220] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that this case did not discuss the issue of death penalty in circumstantial evidence cases. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar [(2002) 1 SCC 622] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that this case did not discuss the issue of death penalty in circumstantial evidence cases. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that this case did not discuss the issue of death penalty in circumstantial evidence cases. |
| Adu Ram v. Mukna [(2005) 10 SCC 597] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that this case did not discuss the issue of death penalty in circumstantial evidence cases. |
| Molai and An other v. State of M.P. [AIR 2000 SC 177 = (1999) 9 SCC 581] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that this case did not discuss the issue of death penalty in circumstantial evidence cases. |
| Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam [(2007) 11 SCC 467] | Supreme Court of India | The court accepted the proposition that death penalty should not be awarded in cases of circumstantial evidence, coupled with other factors advantageous to the convict. |
| Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal [(2007) 12 SCC 230] | Supreme Court of India | The court accepted the principle that death penalty should not be awarded in cases of circumstantial evidence unless there is a “special reason”. |
| Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 12 SCC 288] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted the caution that convictions based on circumstantial evidence should not be presumed to be foolproof. |
| Swamy Shradddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [(2008) 13 SCC 767] | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to highlight the gap between life imprisonment and death, and the need to expand sentencing options. |
| Santosh Kumar Satish bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 6 SCC 498] | Supreme Court of India | The court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must lead to an exceptional case for imposing the death penalty. |
| Sebastian v. State of Kerala [(2010) 1 SCC 58] | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on Swamy Shraddananda (2) to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment in a case of circumstantial evidence. |
| Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan [(2011) 3 SCC 685] | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to Bariyar and reiterated that cases dependent on circumstantial evidence are a relevant consideration. |
| Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2014) 4 SCC 317] | Supreme Court of India | The court considered the peculiar facts and did not award the death penalty since the only evidence was circumstantial. |
| Kalu Khan v. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 16 SCC 492] | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to Swamy Shraddananda and commuted the death sentence due to uncertainty in culpability. |
| Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 2 SCC 35] | Supreme Court of India | The court considered the probability of reform and rehabilitation of the convict. |
| Lehna v. State of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 76] | Supreme Court of India | The court held that special reasons for death sentence must compel the court to conclude that it is not possible to reform the offender. |
| Sandesh v. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 2 SCC 479] | Supreme Court of India | The court acknowledged that it is for the prosecution to show that there is no possibility of the convict being reformed. |
| Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 3 SCC 294] | Supreme Court of India | The court held that life imprisonment is futile only when reformation is unachievable. |
| Birju v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2014) 3 SCC 421] | Supreme Court of India | The court explained the necessity of considering the probability of reform and rehabilitation. |
| Anil v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 4 SCC 69] | Supreme Court of India | The court implemented the reform and rehabilitation theory and directed criminal courts to call for reports to determine if a convict can be reformed. |
| Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 4 SCC 292] | Supreme Court of India | The court considered the conduct of the convicts and concluded that they were capable of living a changed life if rehabilitated. |
| Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1482-1483 of 2018] | Supreme Court of India | The court emphasized the necessity of deciding whether there is any probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict. |
| Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC] | Supreme Court of India | The court observed that after the enactment of Section 53A, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA tests in rape cases. |
| State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai [(2014) 5 SCC 108] | Supreme Court of India | The court lamented the failure of the investigating agency to take advantage of scientific investigations like DNA profiling. |
| Mukesh and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2017) 6 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | The court acknowledged that DNA evidence is increasingly being relied upon by courts and referred to Sections 53A and 164A of the Cr.P.C. |
| Selvi v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 7 SCC 263] | Supreme Court of India | The court stated that the matching of DNA samples is emerging as a vital tool for linking suspects to specific criminal acts. |
| Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 14 SCC 641] | Supreme Court of India | The court emphasized the presumption of innocence as a human right and that a conviction is necessary to determine guilt. |
| Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana [(2009) 15 SCC 635] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that the number of pending cases against the accused is one of the relevant factors for consideration before awarding an appropriate sentence. However, the present judgment disagrees with this view. |
| Bantu v. State of M.P. [(2001) 9 SCC 615] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted the absence of any criminal record as a factor against imposing the death penalty. |
| Amit v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 8 SCC 93] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that there was no record of any previous heinous crime and no evidence that the accused would be a danger to society. |
| Rahul v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 10 SCC 322] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted the absence of any adverse report and previous criminal record as a factor against imposing the death penalty. |
| Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 127] | Supreme Court of India | The court considered the absence of any involvement in any previous criminal case as a factor against imposing the death penalty. |
| Her Majesty The Queen v. Norman Skolnick [[1982] 2 SCR 47] | Supreme Court of Canada | The court modified Coke’s Institutes to state that a person cannot be sentenced for a third offence before being convicted of the second. |
| Scott Nathan Schluter v. Robin Laurence Trenerry [(1997) 6 NTLR 194] | Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia | The court took the view that escalating the period of actual imprisonment could be justified if there is a second finding of guilt. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed each submission made by the parties and the authorities cited.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Death sentence should not be awarded in cases based on circumstantial evidence. | The Court agreed that while not a bar, death penalty is not advisable in cases of circumstantial evidence and should be awarded only in exceptional cases. |
| The probability of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant was not considered. | The Court agreed that the lower courts did not adequately consider the probability of reform and rehabilitation, which is a crucial factor in sentencing. |
| Vital DNA evidence was not placed before the Trial Court. | The Court noted that the non-production of DNA evidence, without any explanation, was a significant lapse and an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. |
| The reference to the past history of the appellant was not warranted. | The Court held that the reference to pending cases against the appellant was not warranted and violated the presumption of innocence. |
The Court also analyzed how each authority was viewed:
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab: The court heavily relied on this case, emphasizing the need to consider the probability of reform and rehabilitation.
- Other Cases on Circumstantial Evidence: The court noted that while these cases highlighted the caution needed in cases of circumstantial evidence, they did not establish a bar on awarding the death penalty in such cases.
- Cases on Reform and Rehabilitation: The court reiterated that the state must prove that the convict is beyond reform and rehabilitation.
- Cases on DNA Evidence: The court emphasized the importance of using advancements in forensic science, particularly DNA evidence, and noted that not producing it would lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.
- Cases on Past History: The court clarified that pending cases cannot be considered for sentencing, and only prior convictions can be considered under specific statutory provisions.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by a combination of legal principles and factual considerations. The court emphasized the importance of a humanitarian approach to sentencing, as highlighted in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, which mandates considering the probability of reform and rehabilitation of the convict. The court also noted the lack of evidence presented by the prosecution to show that the convict was beyond reform. The non-production of DNA evidence was a major factor that weighed against the prosecution, as it is a crucial tool for linking suspects to crimes. Further, the court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is a human right, and that pending cases should not be considered in sentencing.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on Reform and Rehabilitation | 30% |
| Importance of DNA Evidence | 25% |
| Presumption of Innocence and Past History | 20% |
| Circumstantial Evidence | 15% |
| Humanitarian Approach to Sentencing | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The court’s reasoning was structured around the following points:
The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the above reasoning. The final decision was to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
The court’s reasoning included:
- The court emphasized that while the crime was heinous, the criminal is also important in the sentencing process.
- The court reiterated that the death penalty should only be awarded in the rarest of rare cases, and only if an alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
- The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the convict could not be reformed or rehabilitated.
- The court highlighted the importance of DNA evidence and stated that its non-production without justification led to an adverse presumption against the prosecution.
- The court emphasized that the pendency of other cases should not be considered for sentencing, as it violates the presumption of innocence.
The court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “The law laid down by various decisions of this Court clearly and unequivocally mandates that the probability (not possibility or improbability or impossibility) that a convict can be reformed and rehabilitated in society must be seriously and earnestly considered by the courts before awarding the death sentence.”
- “For the prosecution to decline to produce DNA evidence would be a little unfortunate particularly when the facility of DNA profiling is available in the country. The prosecution would be well advised to take advantage of this, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 53 -A and Section 164 -A of the Cr.P.C.”
- “It is therefore quite clear from the various decisions placed before us that the mere pendency of one or more criminal cases against a convict cannot be a factor for consideration while awarding a sentence. Not only is it statutorily impermissible (except in some cases) but even otherwise it violates the fundamental presumption of innocence – a human right – that everyone is entitled to.”
There was no minority opinion. The decision was unanimous.
The implications of this judgment are that courts must give equal importance to the crime and the criminal while sentencing. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a humanitarian approach to sentencing, wherein the possibility of reform and rehabilitation is seriously considered. The judgment also highlights the importance of DNA evidence in criminal cases and that its non-production can lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution. Further, the judgment clarifies that pending cases should not be considered in sentencing.
The judgment did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed existing principles.
Key Takeaways
- Death penalty should not be awarded in cases based on circumstantial evidence, unless it is an exceptional case.
- Courts must seriously consider the probability of reform and rehabilitation of the convict.
- The prosecution must provide evidence to show that the convict cannot be reformed.
- DNA evidence is crucial, and its non-production can lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.
- Pending cases cannot be considered for sentencing, as they violate the presumption of innocence.
- The court must consider both the crime and the criminal in the sentencing process.
The judgment could have a significant impact on future cases, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to sentencing that considers both the gravity of the crime and the possibility of the convict’s rehabilitation.
Directions
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to the appellant but directed that he should not be released from custody for the rest of his natural life.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the death penalty should be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases, after considering the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the convict. The judgment also clarified that pending cases should not be considered in sentencing. This decision reaffirms the position of law established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and other cases, while also emphasizing the importance of DNA evidence. This judgment also overrules the view taken in Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana that pending cases can be a factor for consideration while awarding sentence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need to consider the possibility of reform and rehabilitation, the importance of DNA evidence, and the presumption of innocence. The court highlighted that while the crime was heinous, the criminal’s potential for reform must also be considered, and that pending cases should not be a factor in sentencing. The court also noted the failure of the prosecution to produce DNAevidence. This judgment reinforces the principles of fair and just sentencing, particularly in cases involving capital punishment.