Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Heinous Rape and Murder Case: Bhagwani vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 48
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment even in cases of heinous crimes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. The Court examined the circumstances of the crime and the accused, ultimately commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. This decision highlights the importance of considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of convicts, even in the most severe cases. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On April 14, 2017, Brijlal Yadav (PW-2), along with his family, attended a naming ceremony at Anil Maravi’s house. While returning home around 11:00 PM, they discovered that their daughter was missing. After searching, they found her unconscious near a hand-pump at approximately 5:00 AM the next day. The police were alerted, and an investigation was initiated. The District Scientific Officer’s report detailed the victim’s body position and injuries, including multiple contusions, scratches, and blood in the genitalia. A post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia and neurogenic shock due to neck pressing, severe injuries, and bleeding from rape. The appellant, Bhagwani, and Satish were arrested on suspicion on April 16, 2017. The investigation led to the seizure of clothes belonging to both the accused. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced both to death. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Satish died during the pendency of the appeal, leading to the abatement of his appeal.

Timeline

Date	Event
April 14, 2017, 9:00 PM	Brijlal Yadav and his family attend a function at Anil Maravi’s house.
April 14, 2017, 11:00 PM	Brijlal Yadav’s daughter goes missing.
April 15, 2017, 5:00 AM	The victim is found unconscious near a hand-pump.
April 15, 2017, 4:00 PM	Post-mortem examination is conducted.
April 16, 2017	Bhagwani and Satish are arrested.
April 17, 2017	Dr. Vijay Pegwar (PW-11) examines the injuries on Bhagwani’s body.
June 27, 2017	Final report is filed after investigation.
July 4, 2017	Mr. K.G. Sahu, Advocate appointed through Legal Aid, appears for the Appellant.
July 25, 2017	Mr. M.K. Kannaujiya, Advocate files his appearance memo. Charges are framed.
August 2, 2017	Mr. Satyendra Yadav, Advocate is appointed to represent the accused after Mr. Kannaujiya withdraws. PWs 1, 2 and 3 are examined.
August 3, 2017	PWs 4 and 5 are examined.
October 26, 2017	Final arguments are heard.
November 3, 2017	Trial Court dictates judgment and sentences the Appellant and Satish to death.
January 18, 2022	Supreme Court commutes the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Dindori, convicted Bhagwani and Satish for offences under Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 5(g)(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), sentencing them to death. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the conviction and sentence. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India. During the pendency of the appeals, Satish died, and his appeal was abated.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act):

Section 363 of the IPC: Deals with the offense of kidnapping.
Section 366A of the IPC: Addresses the offense of abduction or kidnapping a minor for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
Section 364 of the IPC: Relates to kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
Section 346 of the IPC: Deals with wrongful confinement.
Section 376D of the IPC: Pertains to gang rape.
Section 376A of the IPC: Addresses the offense of causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of the victim during the commission of rape.
Section 302 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
Section 201 of the IPC: Deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offender.
Section 5(g)(m) of the POCSO Act: Deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Section 6 of the POCSO Act: Specifies the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The Supreme Court also considered Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which mandates special reasons for imposing a death sentence. Additionally, the Court referred to Section 235(2) of the CrPC, which requires the accused to be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

Lack of Direct Evidence: The case relies solely on circumstantial evidence, and none of the recoveries directly implicate the Appellant.
Disclosure Statements: The disclosure statements of Satish and the Appellant were recorded in close succession by the same officer (PW-10), raising doubts about their reliability.
Recovered Articles: The recovered articles, such as the Kurkure packet and the black button, do not connect the Appellant to the crime. The black button was from Satish’s shirt.
Serological Testing: No serological testing was done to confirm that the blood found on the seized clothes was human blood.
Injuries on Appellant: The Appellant’s injuries are minor and could be due to his work as a laborer.
Last Seen Together: The evidence of the Appellant being last seen with the victim was not properly appreciated. The Appellant was apprehended from his house, while Satish was absconding.
Section 313 CrPC Statement: The admissions made by the Appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
Incomplete Chain of Circumstances: The chain of circumstances is incomplete and does not exclusively point to the Appellant’s guilt.
Unfair Trial: The Appellant did not receive effective legal assistance. The amicus curiae was not given sufficient time to cross-examine witnesses, and the Appellant was not given an opportunity to present mitigating circumstances before sentencing.
Incorrect Conviction under Section 376A IPC: The Appellant could not have been convicted under Section 376A of the IPC, as gang rape was removed from the ambit of Section 376(1) and (2) after the 2013 amendment. No evidence of common intention for gang rape under Section 376D was produced. The sentence for gang rape is life imprisonment, not death.

State’s Arguments

Chain of Events: The prosecution has established an unbroken chain of events. The victim was seen at Chain Singh’s shop (PW-4), followed by the Appellant, and then she disappeared. Her body was found the next morning, revealing a brutal rape and murder.
Medical Evidence: The medical evidence confirms the brutal nature of the rape and murder.
Scientific Evidence: Scientific evidence, including DNA reports, implicates Satish in the rape.
Appellant’s Presence: The Appellant and Satish were together on the evening of April 14, 2017, and they visited PW-9 the next morning in a disheveled state, indicating their involvement.
Seizure of Clothes: The Appellant’s clothes were seized from his cowshed based on his disclosure statement.
Injuries on Appellant: The Appellant failed to explain the injuries on his body.
DNA Report: The DNA report on Article D, the Appellant’s full pant, showed multiple peaks, indicating more than one DNA trait.
Plea of Alibi: The Appellant failed to prove his plea of alibi by not examining his mother and Deepa.
Section 313 CrPC Statement: While the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC cannot be the sole basis for conviction, it can be used as evidence against the accused if it supports the prosecution’s case.
Heinous Crime: The Appellant committed a heinous crime against a helpless young girl and deserves no leniency.

Submissions Table

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions (Appellant)	Sub-Submissions (State)
Evidence and Recoveries	No direct evidence implicates the Appellant. Recovered articles do not connect the Appellant to the crime. No serological testing was done to confirm human blood.	Chain of events is unbroken. Medical and scientific evidence confirms the crime. Appellant’s clothes were seized based on his disclosure.
Statements and Testimony	Disclosure statements are unreliable. Section 313 CrPC statements cannot be substantive evidence. Evidence of last seen together is not properly appreciated.	Appellant’s presence at the scene is established. Appellant and Satish were together and disheveled. Statement under Section 313 CrPC can be used as evidence.
Legal and Procedural Issues	Unfair trial due to inadequate legal assistance. Incorrect conviction under Section 376A IPC. Incomplete chain of circumstances.	Appellant failed to prove his plea of alibi. Appellant failed to explain injuries on his body.
Sentencing	Mitigating circumstances were not considered. Probability of reformation was not taken into account.	Heinous crime warrants no leniency.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Whether the conviction of the Appellant is justified based on the evidence on record?
Whether the death sentence imposed on the Appellant should be upheld, considering the principles governing the imposition of the death penalty?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision	Brief Reasons
Whether the conviction of the Appellant is justified based on the evidence on record?	Upheld	The Court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the Appellant’s presence at the scene, his conduct, the recovery of his clothes, and the injuries on his body, established his guilt. The Court concurred with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.
Whether the death sentence imposed on the Appellant should be upheld, considering the principles governing the imposition of the death penalty?	Commuted to Life Imprisonment	The Court found that the Trial Court and the High Court did not adequately consider the mitigating circumstances and the possibility of the Appellant’s reformation and rehabilitation. The Court held that death sentence should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, and the possibility of reformation must be considered. The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases

Case Name	Court	Legal Point	How it was used
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116	Supreme Court of India	Principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence	The Court referred to this case to emphasize the need to scrutinize circumstantial evidence carefully.
Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158	Supreme Court of India	Principles governing interference in criminal appeals by special leave	The Court used this case to outline the principles for appellate review of concurrent findings of fact.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498	Supreme Court of India	Need for bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing	This case was cited to emphasize the necessity of a separate hearing for sentencing to allow the accused to present mitigating factors.
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460	Supreme Court of India	Adequate opportunity to produce relevant material on the question of death sentence	This case was cited to highlight the requirement of providing the accused with adequate opportunity to present material relevant to the death sentence.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684	Supreme Court of India	Rarest of rare doctrine for imposing death penalty	This case was referred to establish the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470	Supreme Court of India	Guidelines for imposing death penalty	This case was cited to reinforce the guidelines for imposing the death penalty.
Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2019) 16 SCC 584	Supreme Court of India	Consideration of both crime and criminal in sentencing	This case was used to emphasize that both the crime and the criminal’s circumstances must be considered during sentencing.
Mofil Khan and Another v. The State of Jharkhand, RP (Crl.) No.641 of 2015 in Crl. A. 1795 of 2009	Supreme Court of India	Probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused	This case was cited to emphasize the need to consider the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused before imposing the death penalty.
Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452	Supreme Court of India	Importance of considering both crime and criminal in sentencing	This case was cited to emphasize that both the crime and the criminal’s circumstances must be considered during sentencing.

Legal Provisions

Legal Provision	Description	How it was used
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)	Deals with the offense of kidnapping.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)	Addresses the offense of abduction or kidnapping a minor for the purpose of sexual exploitation.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)	Relates to kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 346 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)	Deals with wrongful confinement.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)	Pertains to gang rape.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)	Addresses the offense of causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of the victim during the commission of rape.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)	Defines the punishment for murder.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)	Deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offender.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 5(g)(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)	Deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)	Specifies the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.	The Appellant was charged and convicted under this section.
Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)	Mandates special reasons for imposing a death sentence.	The Court referred to this section to emphasize the need for special reasons for imposing the death penalty.
Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)	Requires the accused to be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence.	The Court used this section to highlight the need for a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing.

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Submission	Court’s Treatment
Appellant’s claim of lack of direct evidence	Rejected. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt.
Appellant’s argument regarding the reliability of disclosure statements	Not explicitly addressed but impliedly rejected, as the Court relied on the statements for recoveries.
Appellant’s argument that the recovered articles do not implicate him	Rejected. The Court considered the recoveries along with other evidence to establish guilt.
Appellant’s argument that no serological testing was done	Not explicitly addressed but impliedly rejected, as the Court relied on other evidence.
Appellant’s argument that his injuries were minor	Rejected. The Court found that the Appellant failed to explain the injuries, which were deemed relevant.
Appellant’s argument that the evidence of last seen together was not appreciated	Rejected. The Court found that the evidence was properly appreciated.
Appellant’s argument that Section 313 CrPC statements cannot be substantive evidence	Partially accepted. The Court acknowledged that the statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction but can be used as evidence against the accused.
Appellant’s argument that the chain of circumstances was incomplete	Rejected. The Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent with the Appellant’s guilt.
Appellant’s argument of an unfair trial	Accepted. The Court found that the Appellant did not receive adequate legal assistance and a proper opportunity to present mitigating circumstances.
Appellant’s argument of incorrect conviction under Section 376A IPC	Not explicitly addressed but impliedly rejected, as the Court upheld the conviction.
State’s argument of an unbroken chain of events	Accepted. The Court agreed that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of events.
State’s reliance on medical and scientific evidence	Accepted. The Court relied on the medical and scientific evidence to establish the nature of the crime.
State’s argument of the Appellant’s presence and conduct	Accepted. The Court used the Appellant’s presence at the scene and his conduct as evidence against him.
State’s argument of the seizure of clothes	Accepted. The Court relied on the seizure of the Appellant’s clothes based on his disclosure statement.
State’s argument that the Appellant failed to explain his injuries	Accepted. The Court noted the Appellant’s failure to explain his injuries.
State’s argument on the DNA report	Accepted. The Court considered the DNA report as part of the evidence.
State’s argument that the Appellant failed to prove his plea of alibi	Accepted. The Court noted the Appellant’s failure to prove his plea of alibi.
State’s argument that the Section 313 CrPC statement can be used as evidence	Partially accepted. The Court agreed that the statement could be used as evidence against the accused.
State’s argument that the crime was heinous and deserves no leniency	Partially accepted. The Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but commuted the death sentence.

Treatment of Authorities

Authority	Court’s View
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116	Followed. The Court applied the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence as laid down in this case.
Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158	Followed. The Court used the principles for appellate review of concurrent findings of fact as outlined in this case.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498	Followed. The Court emphasized the need for a separate hearing for sentencing as highlighted in this case.
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460	Followed. The Court emphasized the need to provide the accused with adequate opportunity to present material relevant to the death sentence as highlighted in this case.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684	Followed. The Court reiterated the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470	Followed. The Court used the guidelines for imposing the death penalty laid down in this case.
Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2019) 16 SCC 584	Followed. The Court emphasized that both the crime and the criminal’s circumstances must be considered during sentencing.
Mofil Khan and Another v. The State of Jharkhand, RP (Crl.) No.641 of 2015 in Crl. A. 1795 of 2009	Followed. The Court emphasized the need to consider the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused before imposing the death penalty.
Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452	Followed. The Court emphasized that both the crime and the criminal’s circumstances must be considered during sentencing.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

The Court emphasized the need for a fair trial, which was not provided to the Appellant.
The Court highlighted the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.
The Court reiterated that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases.
The Court noted that the Trial Court and the High Court had primarily focused on the gravity of the crime and not on the criminal’s circumstances.
The Court considered the Appellant’s age (25 years), his background as a manual laborer from a Scheduled Tribe community, and the lack of any prior criminal record.
The Court held that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that there was no possibility of the Appellant’s reformation and rehabilitation.

The Court’s reasoning reflects a balanced approach, considering both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the accused.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Reason	Sentiment	Percentage
Need for a fair trial	Positive (Emphasis on Justice)	30%
Importance of considering mitigating circumstances and reformation	Positive (Focus on Rehabilitation)	40%
Death penalty to be reserved for the rarest of rare cases	Neutral (Legal Principle)	15%
Trial Courts focusing on the gravity of the crime	Negative (Criticism of Lower Courts)	10%
Appellant’s background and lack of prior criminal record	Positive (Consideration of Individual Circumstances)	5%

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of this case can be summarized as follows:

While the courts must consider the gravity of the crime, they must also consider the mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused before imposing the death penalty.
The death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases where there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.
The accused must be provided with a fair trial and adequate opportunity to present mitigating circumstances before sentencing.
The courts must not only focus on the crime but also on the criminal, including their age, background, and prior criminal record.
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused before imposing the death penalty.

Ratio Table

Principle	Weight
Consideration of mitigating circumstances	High
Possibility of reformation and rehabilitation	High
Death penalty in rarest of rare cases	High
Fair trial and opportunity to present mitigating circumstances	High
Focus on both crime and criminal	Medium
Prosecution’s burden to prove no possibility of reformation	Medium

Flow Chart of the Case

Trial Court: Conviction and Death Sentence

↓

High Court: Upholds Conviction and Death Sentence

↓

Supreme Court: Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagwani vs. State of Madhya Pradesh underscores the importance of a balanced approach in criminal justice, where the severity of the crime is weighed against the individual circumstances of the accused. The Court’s emphasis on the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, along with the need for a fair trial, reflects a commitment to justice that goes beyond mere retribution. By commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, the Court has set a precedent for considering mitigating factors and ensuring that the death penalty is reserved for the rarest of rare cases, where there is no possibility of reformation. This judgment serves as a reminder that the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is not only to punish but also to reform and rehabilitate.

Source: Bhagwani vs. State of Madhya Pradesh