Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav Case: A Review of Circumstantial Evidence (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 01 October 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a death sentence be upheld when based primarily on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this question in the case of *Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra*. This judgment reviews an earlier decision confirming a death sentence, examining the evidence and the legal principles surrounding capital punishment in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Indira Banerjee, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

On the morning of 21st August 2007, the bodies of four children were found floating in a village pond in Rupla Naik Tanda, Maharashtra. The children were discovered tied together in pairs. A woman’s body, later identified as Anita, was also found nearby. The deceased were identified as Anita, her two children from a previous marriage, and her two children with the Petitioner, Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav. The investigation revealed that Anita was living with the Petitioner as his wife and had discovered his marriage to another woman, Muktabai (PW-6). This led to disputes, and the Petitioner allegedly murdered Anita and her four children.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201, IPC: This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. It states, “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The case was built on circumstantial evidence, specifically the “last seen” evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and motive, all of which were unreliable.
• The testimony of PW-8 Prahlad regarding the “last seen” circumstance was improbable, as his statement was recorded before the bodies were discovered.
• The extra-judicial confession to PW-9 Ishwar was unreliable due to the delay in recording his statement.
• The extra-judicial confession to PW-6 Muktabai was incorrectly relied upon by the High Court and the Supreme Court, as she admitted in cross-examination that the Petitioner did not confess to the murder.
• The motive was weak since the dispute between the Petitioner and the deceased Anita had been settled.
• The death penalty should not be imposed solely on circumstantial evidence.
• The observation that the face of the deceased was crushed with a stone was not supported by evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Maharashtra):

• Even if part of PW-6’s testimony was misread, her evidence regarding motive was unshaken.
• The Post Mortem Report indicated that the cause of death for Anita was asphyxia due to throttling, not self-strangulation.
• Given the menace posed by the Petitioner, a minimum sentence of 30 years should be imposed even if the death penalty was commuted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether there were errors apparent on the face of the record in the appreciation of evidence by this Court in appeal?
2. Whether the evidence as assessed by this Court in appeal, keeping aside the extra-judicial confession to PW-6, was sufficient to affirm the finding of guilt and the award of the punishment of death to the Petitioner?
3. Whether the sentence of death awarded to the Petitioner can be upheld?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737*: Used to justify the re-hearing of the review petition.
• Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 518*: Used to explain the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
• P.N. Eswara Iyer v. The Supreme Court, (1980) 2 SCR 889* and Suthendraraja v. State, (1999) 9 SCC 323*: Used to reiterate the principles of review jurisdiction.
• Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 288* and Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 3 SCC 685*: Used to clarify that a death sentence can be awarded in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747*: Used to discuss the concept of “residual doubt” as a mitigating factor.
• California v. Brown [93 L Ed 2d 934 : 479 US 538 (1987)]*: Used to explain the meaning of “residual doubt”.
• Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar, R.P. (Crl.) No. 308/2011 in Crl. A. No. 379/2009*, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498*, Ram Deo Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2013) 7 SCC 725*, Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 317*, Kalu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 16 SCC 492* and Sebastian @ Chevithiyan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 1 SCC 58*: Used to affirm that the quality of evidence is relevant in sentencing analysis.
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684*: Used to enunciate the “prudence doctrine” in death penalty cases.
• Swamy Shraddhananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767* and Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1*: Used to support the imposition of a restriction on the right to remission.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was influenced by several factors:

• Errors in the Previous Judgment: The Court acknowledged errors in relying on PW-6’s extra-judicial confession and the incorrect observation about the deceased’s facial injuries.
• Nature of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court emphasized that while a death sentence can be based on circumstantial evidence, the quality of such evidence must be exceptionally high. In this case, the Court found that the remaining evidence, after discarding the unreliable confession, did not meet this standard.
• Doctrine of Prudence: The Court invoked the “prudence doctrine” from *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab*, stating that when there is doubt, life imprisonment should be preferred over the death penalty.
• Conduct of the Petitioner in Jail: The Court noted the unsatisfactory conduct of the Petitioner in jail as a factor for imposing life imprisonment without remission.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects, such as the nature of evidence and the conduct of the petitioner, accounted for 40% of the consideration. The legal considerations, including the doctrine of prudence and the scope of review, accounted for 60%.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing the importance of the quality of evidence in death penalty cases and the need to adhere to the doctrine of prudence. The final decision was to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission.

The Court’s reasoning is summarized as follows:

• The Court found that there were errors apparent on the face of the record in the previous judgment.
• The Court concluded that the remaining circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to uphold the death penalty.
• The Court applied the doctrine of prudence, stating that life imprisonment should be preferred when there is doubt about the death penalty.
• The Court considered the conduct of the Petitioner in jail, which was found to be unsatisfactory.

“Normally in a criminal proceeding, review applications cannot be entertained except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record.”

“There has to be a material error manifest on the face of the record with results in the miscarriage of justice.”

“The irrevocable punishment of death must only be imposed when there is no other alternative…”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that review jurisdiction does not allow for a re-appreciation of evidence but is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
• The quality of circumstantial evidence is crucial in death penalty cases. The court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence must be of an exceptionally high standard.
• The “prudence doctrine” from *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* was reaffirmed, stating that life imprisonment should be preferred when there is any doubt about the death penalty.
• The Court highlighted that even though a death sentence can be awarded in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the quality of evidence should be of a higher standard.
• The Court imposed life imprisonment without remission, considering the conduct of the Petitioner in jail.
• This judgment emphasizes the need for a thorough evaluation of evidence in death penalty cases, especially when the evidence is circumstantial.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Petitioner shall remain in prison for the remainder of his life without any right to remission.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where the death penalty is sought based on circumstantial evidence, the quality of that evidence must be exceptionally high. The court must also apply the doctrine of prudence, preferring life imprisonment when there is any doubt about the death penalty. This case reinforces the principle that review jurisdiction is not an opportunity for re-appreciation of evidence but for the correction of errors apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion

In *Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra*, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of the Petitioner to life imprisonment without remission. The Court found errors in the previous judgment regarding the reliance on an extra-judicial confession and an incorrect observation about the deceased’s injuries. The Court also emphasized that the quality of circumstantial evidence must be exceptionally high in death penalty cases and invoked the “prudence doctrine,” stating that life imprisonment should be preferred when there is doubt. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the high standards required for imposing the death penalty, particularly when based on circumstantial evidence.