Supreme Court Convicts Accused in Child Murder Case, Reduces Death Sentence to 25 Years Imprisonment Without Remission

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17th December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 987
Judges: B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Can circumstantial evidence alone lead to a conviction in a heinous crime like the murder and sexual assault of a child? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a case where a four-year-old was brutally killed. The court meticulously examined the evidence, upholding the conviction but modifying the sentence. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan, with the judgment authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

On April 13, 2016, in Piludara village, Gujarat, a four-year-old child, Rohit, was found murdered. The child’s parents, Pravingiri Gosai (PW-9) and Artiben (PW-13.2), left their two children, Rohit and Rajeshwari, with PW-9’s mother in the morning. Upon their return, Rohit was missing. Jyotsnaben (PW-10), the child’s aunt, informed them that the appellant, Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar, had taken Rohit, stating he would buy him ice cream. When Rohit did not return, a search was initiated. PW-9 encountered the appellant near a lake, where the appellant claimed to have sent Rohit home after giving him ice cream. Later, the child’s body was discovered naked near the lake. The postmortem revealed that the child died due to asphyxia from throttling and had been subjected to sexual assault.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant for kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder, sentencing him to death. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad confirmed the conviction and death sentence on April 3, 2019, in R/Criminal Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2018 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1207 of 2018. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section pertains to kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses unnatural offences.
• Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Defines penetrative sexual assault. “A person is said to commit “penetrative sexual assault” if – (a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person”
• Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault. “(i) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or injury to the sexual organs of the child; or (m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years”
• Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Specifies the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. “Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person, and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.”
• Section 29 of the POCSO Act: Establishes a presumption that the accused has committed the offence when prosecuted under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Act, unless proven otherwise. “Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.”
• Section 30 of the POCSO Act: Deals with the presumption of a culpable mental state in offences under the Act. “(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.”
• Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act: Relates to the relevancy of conduct.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act: Deals with the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant, represented by Ms. Uttara Babbar, argued that the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, which is not conclusive enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The defense disputed the admissibility of the discovery panchnama (Exh.18) and the recovery panchnama (Exh.21), arguing that the place of occurrence was already known to the prosecution.
• The defense contended that the prosecution failed to conduct a DNA test, which could have provided conclusive evidence.
• The defense argued that the injury marks on the appellant’s genitals could be due to self-inflicted scratching.
• The defense also pointed out discrepancies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding the timing of events.
• The defense relied on the judgment in Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka (2014 ) 12 SCC 133, to argue that the blood sample was decomposed, and its original grouping could not be determined.

State’s Submissions:

• The State, represented by Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, contended that the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
• The prosecution argued that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, and the time gap between the last seen stage and the discovery of the body was very short.
• The State highlighted the appellant’s lack of explanation regarding how he parted company with the child.
• The prosecution emphasized the injuries on the appellant’s genitals, which corroborated the sexual assault on the child.
• The State argued that the conduct of the appellant in leading the investigation team to the place where the victim’s clothes were hidden is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The prosecution also relied on the matching of the blood group of the accused with the blood found on the victim’s clothes and swabs.
• The State countered the defense’s argument regarding the lack of DNA testing by citing Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 668, stating that the absence of a DNA test is not fatal to the prosecution if other evidence is cogent.
• The State also contended that sample mark ‘H’ in Exh.47 is a Khaki cover and not an item recovered from the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the conduct of the accused in leading the investigation team to the place where the victim’s clothes were hidden is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act?
3. Whether the injuries on the genitals of the accused corroborate the sexual assault on the child?
4. Whether the matching of the blood group of the accused with the blood found on the victim’s clothes and swabs is a significant piece of evidence?
5. Whether the absence of a DNA test is fatal to the prosecution’s case?
6. Whether the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act can be invoked based on the evidence presented?
7. Whether the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court should be upheld?
8. What is the appropriate sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case?

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 Supreme Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116* to outline the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence.
• The Court used Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]* to emphasize the distinction between “may be” and “must be” in establishing guilt.
• The Court cited State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashiram (2006) 12 SCC 254* and Pappu Vs. State of UP (2022) 10 SCC 321* to highlight the burden of proof on the accused when facts are within their knowledge and the importance of a reasonable explanation by the accused.
• The Court referred to A.N. Venkatesh and another v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714* and Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 3 SCC 90* to justify the admissibility of the accused’s conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
• The Court distinguished Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka (2014 ) 12 SCC 133* stating that the facts of the case were different.
• The Court relied on Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 668* to state that the omission to carry out DNA profiling is not fatal to the prosecution if other evidence is cogent.
• The Court applied Swami Shraddananda Vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767* in deciding the appropriate sentence.
• The Court used Nawas Alias Mulanavas Vs. State of Kerala (2024) SCC OnLine SC 315* to guide its decision on a just and proportionate sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, primarily focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and the strength of the circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized the vulnerability of the victim, the brutality of the act, and the clear chain of events linking the appellant to the crime. While considering mitigating factors such as the appellant’s age and socio-economic background, the court ultimately prioritized the need for justice and public confidence in the legal system. The court also considered the medical and forensic evidence, the conduct of the accused and the lack of a plausible explanation by the appellant.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of the appellant not being the perpetrator or the injuries being self-inflicted, but found them to be implausible given the totality of the evidence. The court’s final decision was based on the principle that the evidence must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and not explainable by any other hypothesis.

The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence, coupled with the appellant’s conduct and the medical findings, established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the appellant was last seen with the child, and the time gap between the last seen stage and the discovery of the body was very short. The court also noted the appellant’s lack of explanation regarding how he parted company with the child. The court also took into account the injuries on the appellant’s genitals, which corroborated the sexual assault on the child. The matching of the blood group also added to the chain of evidence.

The Court stated, “It is well settled that if the accused is last seen with the deceased and particularly in a case of this nature when the time gap between the last seen stage and occurrence of death is so short, the accused must offer a plausible explanation as to how he parted company with the deceased and the explanation offered must be satisfactory.”

The Court also observed, “The appellant offered no explanation as to what happened after the time he spent with the child and has no case that he handed over the child to any other person or that he dropped the child home. Unlike in the case of grownups, where an explanation about the manner of parting company could in a given case be acceptable in the case of a small child who has been picked up from neighborhood of his house, it would be normal to expect that the small child would be dropped back home or an explanation about entrusting of the child to another person to be safely taken home is given. The appellant’s lack of explanation is to say the least baffling.”

Regarding the sentence, the court stated, “Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out. The option of life imprisonment is also not foreclosed. The case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare case.”

The court concluded that while the crime was heinous, the possibility of reformation was not completely ruled out, and therefore, the death penalty was not warranted. The court modified the sentence to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial Evidence: The judgment underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, particularly when direct evidence is lacking. A complete chain of circumstances can lead to a conviction.
• Last Seen Theory: The “last seen” theory is a critical aspect of circumstantial evidence. The accused must provide a plausible explanation of how they parted company with the deceased, especially in cases of vulnerable victims.
• Conduct of the Accused: Actions of the accused, such as leading the police to the location of hidden evidence, are admissible and can strengthen the prosecution’s case.
• Medical and Forensic Evidence: Medical and forensic evidence, such as matching blood groups and injuries consistent with assault, play a crucial role in establishing guilt.
• Presumptions under POCSO Act: The court emphasized the importance of the presumptions under the POCSO Act, which place the burden on the accused to prove their innocence in cases of sexual assault against children.
• Sentencing: The judgment highlights the court’s approach to sentencing, where the possibility of reformation is considered before imposing the death penalty. The court also emphasized the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the crime.