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

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 504

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J. (authored by C.T. Ravikumar, J.)

Can a death sentence be upheld when the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, especially in cases involving heinous crimes against children? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Veerendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The case involved the rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl, where the accused, the victim’s maternal uncle, was initially sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. This judgment examines the circumstances of the crime and the legal principles governing the imposition of capital punishment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the tragic death of an 8-year-old girl in Dabra, Madhya Pradesh. On September 19, 2014, the victim, while on her way to a shop, was seen by the appellant, who was her maternal uncle. The appellant followed her, and she was subsequently found missing. After a search, her parents lodged a complaint at 00:05 hrs on September 20, 2014. The appellant was arrested on the same day, and during interrogation, he disclosed the location of the victim’s body. The body was found concealed under gunny bags in a dilapidated building. Post-mortem and forensic reports confirmed rape and death by throttling.

The parents of the deceased were Laxmibai Batham (PW-1) and Shri Ganesh. The maternal grandparents were Brij Lal (PW-2) and Janki (PW-3). The appellant was the cousin brother of PW-1, making him the maternal uncle of the deceased. The incident occurred between 8:30 PM and 9:30 PM on September 19, 2014.

The appellant was charged under Sections 364A, 376A, 376(2)(i), 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The trial court convicted him under Sections 302, 376A, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, awarding the death penalty for the first two counts.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376A, 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to death for the first two counts and life imprisonment for the remaining offenses. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 376A IPC on technical grounds but confirmed the conviction and death sentence under Section 302 IPC and other offenses. The High Court also disagreed with the trial court’s findings on the admissibility of certain evidence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for murder.

  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

• Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC: Addresses punishment for rape in specific circumstances.

  (Punishment for rape)

• Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Specifies punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

  “Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. —Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

• Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Pertains to the examination of a person accused of rape by a medical practitioner.

  “[53A. Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner.- (1) 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, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of sixteen kilometers from the place where the offence has been committed by any other registered medical practitioner acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.]”

Arguments

The appellant confined his appeal to the aspect of sentencing, challenging the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

• Appellant’s Submissions:
  • ✓ The conviction under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable due to lack of conclusive medical evidence linking the death to injuries sustained on the private parts.
  • ✓ There is no intention to murder can be attributed as the death occurred during the commission of the alleged rape.
  • ✓ The chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete, and the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant.
  • ✓ The FSL report is inconclusive and does not connect the appellant to the blood and semen found on the deceased’s clothes.
  • ✓ The pants seized from the appellant’s house were not proven to be the same he was wearing on the day of the incident.
  • ✓ The MLC of the appellant was conducted in violation of Section 53A of the Cr.P.C.
  • ✓ The evidence regarding nail scratches on the appellant is unreliable as the nail samples of the deceased were not sent for analysis.
  • ✓ The date of birth of the victim was not proved by producing school records.
  • ✓ The conclusion that the deceased was last seen with the appellant was arrived at relying on the oral testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4 without proper appreciation of various relevant aspects.
  • ✓ Non-examination of Rakesh and Sri Ganesh is fatal to the prosecution.
  • ✓ The testimony of PW-12 should not be considered as his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was taken belatedly and he is a chance witness.
  • ✓ No independent witness was examined to prove the recovery of the body and clothes of the deceased.
  • ✓ The clothes of the appellant were not sealed and no DNA test was conducted to connect the appellant to the samples found on the body of the deceased.
• State’s Submissions:
  • ✓ The concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court are based on proper analysis of evidence.
  • ✓ The contention based on failure to comply with Section 53A Cr.P.C. is without merit.
  • ✓ The testimonies of PWs 2, 4, and 12 are credible and rightly accepted.
  • ✓ The ‘last seen theory’ was rightly applied.
  • ✓ PW-12 is a chance witness, and his version was rightly accepted.
  • ✓ Recovery of the body and clothes of the deceased was rightly proved through PW-2, supported by other witnesses.
  • ✓ All circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the appellant’s guilt.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is sustainable given the medical evidence suggesting the deceased died due to injuries sustained on her private parts?
2. Whether an intention to murder can be attributed when the death occurred during the commission of an alleged rape?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various legal precedents and provisions in its judgment:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and evidence, making the following determinations:

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, confirming that the act of throttling the minor victim constituted murder under the law. However, the Court also considered the mitigating circumstances and the principles governing capital punishment. The Court observed that the accused was 22 years of age at the time of the incident and that he had no prior criminal history.

The Court, while confirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, specifying that the appellant shall not be released from prison before completing 30 years of imprisonment without any remission. This decision was based on the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the ‘rarest of rare’ cases and that there were mitigating circumstances in this case. The Court emphasized that the nature of the crime was heinous, but the circumstances did not warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process

Key Takeaways and Implications

This judgment highlights several key points:

• Circumstantial Evidence: The case demonstrates how a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence when the chain of evidence is complete and points to the guilt of the accused.
• Medical Evidence: The court emphasized that while medical evidence is important, it is not the final word and must be tested against other evidence.
• Last Seen Theory: The ‘last seen theory’ can be a crucial piece of evidence, and the burden shifts to the accused to explain their whereabouts when they were last seen with the deceased.
• Res Gestae: Statements made contemporaneously with the act are admissible as part of res gestae, as seen with the testimony of PW-12.
• Mitigating Circumstances: The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence underscores the importance of considering mitigating circumstances, even in heinous crimes, and the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. The age of the accused and lack of prior criminal history influenced the decision to commute the death sentence.
• Life Imprisonment Without Remission: The judgment highlights the increasing use of life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to the death penalty, ensuring that the accused remains incarcerated for a specified period.
• DNA Evidence: The absence of DNA evidence does not invalidate the case if other evidence is strong and corroborative.

This case serves as a significant precedent in the jurisprudence of capital punishment and the application of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, especially those involving heinous crimes against children. It underscores the importance of a balanced approach, where the gravity of the crime is weighed against the principles of justice and the need for a fair trial.