Supreme Court Reduces Death Penalty in Child Murder Case: Prahlad vs. State of Rajasthan (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 14 November 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 982

Judges: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Mukeskumar Rasikbhai Shah, JJ.

Can a person be convicted for both murder and penetrative sexual assault based on circumstantial evidence alone? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving the death of a minor. The court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and determined whether the accused was guilty of the alleged crimes and whether the death penalty imposed by the lower courts was justified. The bench consisted of Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Mukeskumar Rasikbhai Shah, with the judgment being authored by the bench.

Case Background

The case revolves around the tragic death of an 8-year-old girl (referred to as ‘X’) who was the daughter of the informant, Prabhu Lal. On July 5, 2013, at approximately 4:00 PM, the accused, Prahlad, took X away from her home under the pretext of buying her chocolates. X did not return home, and her body was discovered the next morning near the house of Nagji, son of Gautam Meena. The father of X, Prabhu Lal, filed a first information report (FIR) on July 6, 2013, alleging rape and murder against the accused.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), sentencing him to capital punishment. The Trial Court then referred the case to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The accused also appealed the conviction. The High Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the death sentence. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): These sections define and penalize penetrative sexual assault. Section 3 defines penetrative sexual assault, and Section 4 prescribes the punishment for the same.
• Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the procedure for submitting a death sentence for confirmation by the High Court.

Arguments

Arguments by the Accused:

• The accused argued that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was not justified.
• The case was based on circumstantial evidence, which was not fully proven.
• The chain of circumstances was incomplete, entitling the accused to acquittal.
• There was no evidence on record to prove the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
• The imposition of capital punishment was illegal and the case did not qualify as a “rarest of the rare” case.

Arguments by the State:

• The State supported the judgments of the lower courts, arguing that the conviction and sentence were justified.

Innovativeness of the argument: The accused innovatively argued that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges, especially the charges under the POCSO Act, and that the case did not meet the threshold for a death penalty.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for offences under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the imposition of capital punishment was warranted in the given circumstances.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684: The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to emphasize that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception. The court also reiterated the importance of considering mitigating factors when deciding on the death penalty.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684: The Supreme Court followed this authority to reiterate that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. The court emphasized the need for a liberal and expansive construction of mitigating factors in death penalty cases.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence for penetrative sexual assault, noting that the medical examination did not support such claims. The court also considered that the accused was young, had no prior criminal record, and the murder was not committed with extreme brutality. The court also highlighted the importance of considering mitigating factors in sentencing, as per the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the evidence and the circumstances of the case to determine if the death penalty was justified. The court noted that the medical evidence did not support the charge of penetrative sexual assault. The court also considered the accused’s age, lack of criminal history, and the nature of the crime. The court also considered the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.

The court stated, “We find that there is ample material against the accused to convict him for the offence under Section 302 IPC.” However, regarding the POCSO Act charges, the court noted, “However, we are unable to find reliable material against the accused for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.” The court further added, “Since the accused is to be acquitted for offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case to impose the death penalty on him.”

The court concluded that while the murder charge was proven beyond reasonable doubt, the charges under the POCSO Act were not. Therefore, the death penalty was not justified, and the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment.

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for a murder conviction if the chain of circumstances is complete and proven.
• Conviction under the POCSO Act requires reliable evidence, particularly for penetrative sexual assault.
• The death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of the rare” cases, and mitigating factors must be considered.
• The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when reliable evidence is lacking.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused be sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The death penalty imposed by the lower courts was set aside.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove murder, reliable evidence is necessary to prove penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. Additionally, the case reaffirms that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of the rare” cases, and mitigating factors must be given due consideration. This case does not introduce a new position of law but rather reinforces the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, upholding the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC but setting aside the conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The court reduced the death penalty to life imprisonment, emphasizing the lack of reliable evidence for sexual assault and the presence of mitigating factors.