Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder Case: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 5 March 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 257

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indira Banerjee, J., and M. R. Shah, J.

Can a death sentence be upheld when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the accused was under emotional distress? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh. This judgment examines the balance between the severity of a crime and the circumstances of the accused, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating factors.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of three minor children: Vijay (8 years), Ajay (6 years), and Kumari Sakshi (4 years). On February 11, 2011, the children left their home in Darripara to attend school in Karaihapara. After school ended at 11:30 AM, they began walking home. When they did not return, their father, Shivlal (P.W.18), searched for them. Upon learning from the school teachers that the children had left for home, Shivlal filed a missing person report at the Raipur police station.

During the search, Ashok Patel (P.W.8) stated that he had seen the children with the appellant, Manoj Suryavanshi, near the school. Additionally, Rameshwar (P.W.11) contacted Manoj on his cell phone, during which Manoj allegedly asked Shivlal how he felt with his children missing. It was alleged that Manoj, who had worked as a laborer for Shivlal, sought revenge because his wife had eloped with Shivlal’s younger brother. The police initially registered a case against Manoj under Sections 363 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Manoj was later located near Village Lakhram. He was interrogated, and a memorandum statement (Ex.P.2) was recorded. Based on this statement, the bodies of the three children were recovered from a barren land in Karaihapara. The post-mortem confirmed the cause of death as strangulation, and the deaths were ruled homicidal. The police also seized Manoj’s mobile phone and call details. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Manoj under Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court examined 24 witnesses and 41 documentary evidences. The prosecution presented evidence including seizure memos, the memorandum of the accused, inquest reports, site maps, the missing person complaint, and call detail records. The accused pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court found Manoj guilty under Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC and awarded the death sentence.

Manoj appealed to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which also heard a reference case regarding the death sentence. The High Court dismissed Manoj’s appeal and confirmed the death sentence. Subsequently, Manoj appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with kidnapping or abduction in order to murder.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:
“Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

The appellant, Manoj Suryavanshi, argued that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence without a complete chain of events. He contended that the prosecution’s case relied on three main points: last seen evidence, recovery of bodies based on a disclosure memo, and alleged phone calls. He argued that the last seen evidence was unreliable due to contradictions in the statements of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.8. He also claimed that the alleged extra-judicial confession was inadmissible, and the recovery of bodies was from an open area, not exclusively known to him.

The State of Chhattisgarh argued that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of events, proving Manoj’s guilt. They highlighted the motive for revenge, the last seen evidence, the recovery of bodies at Manoj’s instance, and the call details as key evidence. The State contended that the contradictions in witness statements were minor and did not undermine the prosecution’s case. They also argued that the death sentence was justified given the brutality of the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution had successfully established the complete chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Whether the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the cases cited by the appellant on last seen evidence, such as Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 4 SCC 522, Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam (2017) 14 SCC 359, and Ganpat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 16 SCC 353, stating that the facts of those cases were different from the present one.
• The Court considered the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 regarding the death penalty, emphasizing the need to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• The Court considered Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 12 SCC 438, but clarified that a hearing on sentence on the same day as conviction does not automatically vitiate the trial.
• The Court distinguished Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190, Rajesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 706, and Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 43, noting that in those cases, proper opportunities for the accused to be heard on sentencing were not given.
• The Court considered Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 16 SCC 492, Sudam v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 388, and Baba Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. (2019) 9 SCC 689, which discussed the doctrine of “residual doubt” and the imposition of life sentences in circumstantial evidence cases.
• The Court considered the cases cited by the appellant regarding commutation of death sentence, including Shaikh Ayub v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 9 SCC 521, Dharmedrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 679, Nemu Ram Bora v. State of Assam & Nagaland (1975) 1 SC 318, and Brajendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 289. However, Allaudin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5 was distinguished.
• The Court relied on Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra Review Petition (Criminal) No. 301 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2007 to clarify that a sentencing hearing on the same day as the conviction is permissible if sufficient opportunity is given to the accused.
• The Court considered Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT) of Delhi (2014) 4 SCC 317 for the factors to consider while deciding on the sentence.
• The Court considered Absar Alam v. State of Bihar (2012) 2 SCC 728 to highlight that the mental condition of the accused is a relevant factor for consideration of sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was influenced by a combination of factors, leading to the commutation of the death sentence. While the Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime and the brutal killing of three minor children, it also took into account the mitigating circumstances surrounding the accused. The court noted that the accused was under extreme emotional distress due to his wife’s elopement with the uncle of the deceased children and the impact on his own children. The court also considered the lack of criminal antecedents, the accused’s age, his poor economic background, and his good conduct in prison. These factors, combined with the circumstantial nature of the evidence, led the Court to conclude that the death penalty was not warranted.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was a step-by-step process, considering both the aggravating factors of the crime and the mitigating factors related to the accused. The Court emphasized that while the crime was brutal, the accused’s mental state at the time of the offense, combined with his background, made a life sentence more appropriate.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, particularly regarding the reliability of the last seen evidence and the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession. However, it concluded that the overall evidence pointed towards the guilt of the accused. The final decision was based on a careful balance of the crime’s severity and the accused’s circumstances.

The majority opinion did not find any new doctrines or legal principles introduced, but reaffirmed the established principles on the death penalty, particularly the need to consider mitigating circumstances and the principle of “rarest of rare” cases.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“There cannot be any doubt that at the stage of hearing on sentence, generally, the accused argues based on the mitigating circumstances in his favour for imposition of lesser sentence.”

“On the other hand, the State/the complainant would argue based on the aggravating circumstances against the accused to support the contention relating to imposition of higher sentence.”

“The object of Section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C is to provide an opportunity for the accused to adduce mitigating circumstances.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of considering mitigating circumstances in capital punishment cases.
• The judgment reaffirms that cases based on circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of events pointing towards the accused’s guilt.
• The Court highlighted that emotional and mental distress of the accused at the time of the offence is a relevant mitigating factor.
• The judgment underscores that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases, where the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating ones.
• The Supreme Court has clarified that the hearing on sentence on the same day of conviction is not fatal to the case if the accused is given sufficient opportunity to present his case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the life imprisonment awarded to the accused would mean imprisonment till the end of his natural life, with no remission until he completes 25 years of imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while circumstantial evidence can be the basis for conviction, the death penalty should not be imposed if there are significant mitigating factors, such as the accused’s mental state at the time of the crime, lack of criminal history, age, and socio-economic background. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case highlights the importance of considering mitigating factors in capital punishment cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction of Manoj Suryavanshi under Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC, but converting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court emphasized the need to balance the severity of the crime with the circumstances of the accused, particularly when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering mitigating factors in capital punishment cases and ensures that the death penalty is reserved for the rarest of rare cases.