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: 18 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 52

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a death sentence be upheld when the trial process appears rushed and does not adequately consider the possibility of the accused’s reformation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving the brutal rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. The Court examined whether the lower courts had properly considered all aspects of the case, including the accused’s right to a fair trial and the potential for rehabilitation, before imposing the death penalty. This judgment emphasizes the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, considering both the severity of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and B.V. Nagarathna. The judgment was authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

On April 14, 2017, Brijlal Yadav (PW-2), along with his wife Kalawati (PW-1), their two sons, and their daughter, attended a naming ceremony at Anil Maravi’s house. While returning home around 11:00 PM, they discovered their daughter was missing. A search began, and at approximately 5:00 AM the next day, PW-1 found her daughter unconscious near a hand pump. The police were called to the scene.

The District Scientific Officer’s report indicated the deceased’s body was lying in a supine position with multiple injuries, including marks on the head, neck, and genitalia. Blood was present in the genitalia, on the sole of the right leg, and near the anus. A post-mortem examination conducted by PW-6, Dr. Sajjan Kumar Uikey, revealed injuries consistent with rape and murder, with the cause of death being asphyxia and neurogenic shock due to neck pressing, severe injuries, and bleeding.

On April 16, 2017, the Appellant, Bhagwani, and Satish s/o Jehar Singh Dhoomketi were arrested on suspicion. Satish’s statement led to the seizure of the deceased’s blanket and shawl, as well as his own clothes. Similarly, the Appellant’s clothes were seized from his cowshed following his statement. A final report was filed on June 27, 2017, and charges were framed against both the Appellant and Satish. The Trial Court convicted both and sentenced them to death, which was upheld by the High Court. Satish died during the pendency of the appeals, and his appeal was abated.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections deal with offenses such as kidnapping, abduction, wrongful confinement, gang rape, rape, murder, and causing disappearance of evidence.
• Section 5(g)(m) read with Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): These sections pertain to aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child and prescribe punishment for the same.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant’s counsel argued that the discoveries and recoveries did not implicate the Appellant.
• The disclosure statement of Satish was recorded at 1340 hrs. on 16.04.2017, and the Appellant’s statement was recorded one and a half hours later. The counsel argued that the courts below erred in relying on the Appellant’s disclosure statement.
• None of the articles recovered from the alleged place of offense had any connection with the Appellant. The packet of Kurkure purchased was not identified in court by PW-4.
• The black button seized from the spot was from Satish’s shirt, with which the Appellant had no connection.
• Serological testing was not done to prove that the blood found on the clothes was human blood.
• The injuries on the Appellant could not be taken as a circumstance as he was a laborer doing physical work. The arrest memo had a blank column for “injury marks.”
• The evidence of the accused last seen together with the victim was not properly appreciated. The Appellant was apprehended from his house, and only Satish was absconding.
• The statements made by the Appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) were not properly appreciated and cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
• The chain of circumstances was incomplete and not consistent with only one hypothesis proving the guilt of the Appellant.
• On the sentence of death, the Appellant’s counsel argued a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, as effective legal assistance was not afforded. Sufficient time was not given to the amicus curiae to cross-examine witnesses, and no opportunity was given to submit relevant material before sentencing. Mitigating circumstances were not considered, and the probability of reformation was not taken into account.
• The Appellant could not have been convicted under Section 376A of the IPC. After the 2013 amendment, gang rape was taken out of the ambit of Section 376 (1) and (2) of the IPC. The prosecution did not produce evidence to establish common intention between the Appellant and Satish to commit an offense under Section 376D of the IPC. The sentence for gang rape is life imprisonment, so the death sentence was unsustainable.

State’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that there was no break in the chain of events/circumstances.
• The prosecution proved that there was a function at Anil Maravi’s house, the victim was seen at PW-4’s shop, and shortly after, the Appellant visited the shop. PW-5 witnessed the deceased going to Satish’s house, which was corroborated by Satish in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• The medical evidence disclosed brutal rape and murder of the deceased.
• Scientific evidence showed that Satish committed the offense of rape.
• Satish and the Appellant were seen together on the evening of 14.04.2017 and visited PW-9 the next morning.
• Pursuant to the disclosure statement, the Appellant’s clothes were seized from the cowshed.
• The injuries on the Appellant’s body were not explained by him.
• The DNA report prepared by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Sagar, showed multiple peaks on the Appellant’s pant (Article D), indicating more than one DNA trait.
• The Appellant failed to prove his plea of alibi and did not examine his mother or Deepa.
• The statements made by the Appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC can be used as evidence against him to the extent it supports the prosecution’s case.
• The State argued that the Appellant deserved no lenience given the heinous nature of the crime.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court was justified in the given circumstances.
• Whether the accused was given a fair opportunity to defend himself, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Whether the mitigating circumstances and the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused were adequately considered before imposing the death sentence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

On Principles of Circumstantial Evidence:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for the principles governing the evaluation of circumstantial evidence.

On Fair Trial and Sentencing:

• Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding the necessity of a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing to provide an effective opportunity to the accused.
• Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460 – Supreme Court of India: This case was referenced for the need to provide adequate opportunity to the accused to produce relevant material on the question of death sentence.

On Death Penalty:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for the principle that the death sentence should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited in relation to the principles for determining the rarest of rare cases.
• Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2019) 16 SCC 584 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for the principle that the death sentence is an exception and life imprisonment is the rule.
• 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: This case was cited regarding the probability of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated as a mitigating circumstance.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Mandates special reasons for imposing the death sentence.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to a fair trial.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]*: The Court used the principles laid down in this case to scrutinize the circumstantial evidence and determine if it conclusively pointed to the guilt of the Appellant.
• Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 6 SCC 498]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight the need for a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing to provide an effective opportunity to the accused.
• Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 12 SCC 460]*: The Court emphasized the importance of providing adequate opportunity to the accused to present material on the question of death sentence and the need to consider reformation and rehabilitation, as discussed in this case.
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684]*: The Court reiterated the principle from this case that the death sentence should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470]*: The Court used the guidelines from this case to evaluate whether the present case qualified as the rarest of rare cases.
• Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar [(2019) 16 SCC 584]*: The Court cited this case to reinforce that the death sentence is an exception, and life imprisonment is the rule.
• Mofil Khan and Another v. The State of Jharkhand [RP (Crl.) No.641 of 2015 in Crl. A. 1795 of 2009]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused is a crucial mitigating circumstance that must be considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Fair Trial Concerns: The Court was deeply concerned about the rushed trial process and the lack of adequate legal representation for the Appellant. The Court emphasized that a fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Mitigating Circumstances: The Court noted that the lower courts had failed to adequately consider mitigating circumstances, such as the Appellant’s age, socio-economic background, and lack of prior criminal record.
• Possibility of Reformation: The Court stressed the importance of considering the possibility of the Appellant’s reformation and rehabilitation. The Court held that the prosecution did not provide evidence to establish that the Appellant could not be reformed.
• Rarest of Rare Doctrine: The Court reiterated that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases and that life imprisonment is the norm.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was a balance between factual findings and legal principles. While the facts of the crime were considered, the legal principles relating to fair trial, sentencing, and the rarest of rare doctrine were given more weight.

Logical Reasoning

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The conviction of the Appellant under Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 302, and 201 of the IPC and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was upheld. However, the death sentence awarded to the Appellant was commuted to life imprisonment. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the consideration of mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation in sentencing.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the following:

• Importance of Fair Trial: The judgment underscores the necessity of a fair trial, ensuring that the accused is provided adequate legal assistance and sufficient time to present their case.
• Mitigating Circumstances: It reiterates that lower courts must give due consideration to mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused before imposing the death penalty.
• Rarest of Rare Doctrine: The judgment reaffirms that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases and that life imprisonment is the norm.
• Balancing Act: The judgment highlights the need to balance the severity of the crime with the circumstances of the criminal.

This case serves as a reminder that the judiciary must ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The judgment may influence future cases involving the death penalty, emphasizing the need for a thorough and balanced approach in sentencing.