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

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 9 February 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 172

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a death sentence be justified when there’s a possibility of the convict’s reformation? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a deeply disturbing case involving the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl. The court ultimately commuted the death sentence, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating factors alongside the severity of the crime.

Case Background

The case began on May 13, 2015, when a seven-year-old girl, referred to as ‘Am’, was enticed by the appellant, Pappu, under the pretext of picking lychees. According to the victim’s mother, Nisha (PW-1), and aunt, Anita (PW-2), Pappu took Am away from where she was playing with other children. When Am did not return, a search was initiated. The next day, on May 14, 2015, Nisha filed a complaint at the Kasya Police Station, suspecting Pappu of rape, murder, and concealing the body.

The police investigation led to the arrest of Pappu, who, according to the prosecution, disclosed the location of Am’s body near a riverbank. The body was recovered along with the victim’s clothes. A post-mortem examination revealed multiple injuries, and a forensic report confirmed the presence of sperm on the victim’s underwear.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, convicted Pappu of offences under Sections 376, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court sentenced him to death for the murder, along with other punishments. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the Trial Court’s decision, affirming both the conviction and the death sentence.

The High Court reasoned that the case fell under the ‘rarest of rare’ category due to the heinous nature of the crime, involving the brutal rape and murder of a minor. The High Court also relied on the discovery of the body based on the appellant’s information, as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• ✓ Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for rape.
• ✓ Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• ✓ Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO): This section outlines the punishment for aggravated sexual assault on a child.
• ✓ Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of information leading to discovery of facts.
• ✓ Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section mandates stating special reasons for awarding a death sentence.

The Supreme Court’s analysis also touches upon the constitutional aspects of capital punishment and the balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of society.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The FIR was likely ante-timed, as the body was discovered before the FIR was registered.
• ✓ There were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the location where the children were playing and the timing of events.
• ✓ The prosecution failed to prove that the body was recovered at the instance of the appellant, or that he had any knowledge of the location of the dead body.
• ✓ The medical and forensic evidence was insufficient to connect the appellant to the crime.
• ✓ The Courts below failed to consider mitigating circumstances, such as the appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents, poor socio-economic background, and family responsibilities.
• ✓ The sentencing exercise by the Courts below did not conform to the ratio of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Mohd. Mannan Alias Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• ✓ The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court were based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence and did not warrant interference.
• ✓ The victim was last seen with the appellant, and the burden was on him to explain what happened thereafter.
• ✓ The discovery of the body at the instance of the appellant was a crucial piece of evidence.
• ✓ The medical and forensic evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, establishing rape and murder.
• ✓ The heinous nature of the crime justified the death sentence.

The appellant relied on cases like Sudarshan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 12 SCC 312, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, and Anjan Kumar Sarma and Ors. v. State of Assam (2017) 14 SCC 359, to argue that the circumstantial evidence was not conclusive and that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. The respondent, on the other hand, cited Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David (2011) 5 SCC 509, to argue that minor irregularities in the investigation should not undermine the case.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant calls for any interference?
2. If the conviction of the appellant is maintained, whether the sentence of death awarded to the appellant deserves to be maintained or deserves to be substituted by any other sentence?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):* The Court reiterated the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine and the need for special reasons for awarding death penalty.

✓ Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984):* The Court reiterated the five golden principles for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence.

✓ Sudarshan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2014):* The Court distinguished the case from the present one, where there was no evidence of ante-timing of the FIR.

✓ Anjan Kumar Sarma and Ors. v. State of Assam (2017):* The Court clarified that the last seen theory alone cannot form the basis of conviction without other corroborating evidence.

✓ Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David (2011):* The Court held that minor irregularities in investigation cannot invalidate a case with strong circumstantial evidence.

✓ Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008):* The Court approved the special category of sentence of life imprisonment without remission.

✓ Mohd. Mannan Alias Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019):* The Court reiterated that death sentence should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.

✓ Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019):* The Court emphasized the need to consider the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict.

✓ Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343:* The Court referred to the locus classicus of Hanumant case and deduced five golden principles.

✓ State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006):* The Court explained that when a person is last seen with the deceased, the burden is on him to explain what happened thereafter.

✓ V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and Ors. (2016):* The Court approved the special category of life sentence without remission.

✓ Ravishankar Alias Baba Vishwakarma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019):* The Court invoked ‘residual doubt’ as a mitigating factor in commuting the death sentence.

✓ Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra (2021):* The Court held that death penalty is not entirely impermissible in circumstantial evidence cases but the evidence has to be of unimpeachable character.

✓ Kalu Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2015):* The Court considered the absence of criminal antecedents as a mitigating factor.

✓ M. A. Antony v. State of Kerala 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2800:* The Court Underscored that socio-economic factors relating to a convict should also be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding whether to award life sentence or death sentence.

✓ Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013):* The Court Reiterated the ‘crime test’, ‘criminal test’ and ‘rarest of rare test’ for awarding capital punishment.

✓ Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983):* The Court Explained the philosophy pertaining to the death sentence and the pertinent queries for applying the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine.

✓ Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of W.B. (1994):* The Court Observed that imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminals.

✓ Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994):* The Court Analysed the fact situation and said that the victim must have reposed complete confidence in the appellant.

✓ Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1996):* The Court Enormity of crime coupled with the misuse of trust weighed with the Court in confirming the death sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was driven by a careful consideration of several factors. While acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime, the Court emphasized the importance of mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation. The Court noted that the Trial Court and the High Court focused primarily on the brutality of the crime and did not adequately consider the appellant’s socio-economic background, lack of criminal history, and family responsibilities.

The Court also highlighted that the appellant’s unblemished jail conduct indicated a potential for reform. The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that the case did not fall within the ‘rarest of rare’ category, which would justify the death penalty.

Ratio of Fact to Law:

The judgment demonstrates a careful balance between the factual aspects of the case and the legal principles involved. The Court meticulously analyzed the factual evidence, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and the recovery of the body. The legal analysis was primarily focused on the sentencing aspect, with the Court emphasizing the need to consider mitigating factors and the possibility of reformation. The Court’s reliance on the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine and the principles of sentencing in death penalty cases was crucial in its decision to commute the sentence.

Final Order

The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a minimum of 30 years of actual imprisonment without remission.

The Court directed that the appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Flowchart of the Case

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is significant for several reasons. It reinforces the importance of considering mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases and emphasizes the possibility of reformation as a crucial factor in sentencing. The judgment also highlights the need for a balanced approach, acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime while safeguarding the rights of the accused.

This case serves as a reminder that the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine should be applied judiciously, and that the sentencing exercise must take into account all relevant factors, including the possibility of rehabilitation. The judgment underscores the constitutional mandate for a fair and just legal process, even in cases involving the most heinous of crimes.

The decision provides a significant precedent for future cases, particularly those involving circumstantial evidence and the imposition of capital punishment. It signals a commitment by the Supreme Court to ensure that the death penalty is reserved for the most exceptional cases, where there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.