Supreme Court Upholds Death Penalty in Child Rape and Murder Case: Manoharan vs. State (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 7th November 2019
Citation: Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 446-447 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1174-1175 of 2019
Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman J., Surya Kant J., Sanjiv Khanna J. (Majority opinion by Surya Kant J., concurring opinion by Sanjiv Khanna J.)

Can a death penalty be upheld when a review petition claims errors in the original judgment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Manoharan v. State, where the accused sought a review of his death sentence for the rape and murder of two young children. The court scrutinized the claims of a coerced confession, inadequate legal representation, and errors in the appreciation of evidence. This judgment delves into the critical aspects of criminal procedure and the application of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine in death penalty cases.

Case Background

The case revolves around the tragic deaths of two siblings, a ten-year-old girl named ‘X’ and her seven-year-old brother ‘Y’, in Coimbatore. On October 29, 2010, the children left for school around 7:45 a.m. but were not found at their usual pick-up spot. After a frantic search, a police complaint was lodged at 11 a.m. The investigation led to the discovery of the children’s school bags in a canal and eventually to the arrest of Mohanakrishnan and Manoharan. Mohanakrishnan confessed to kidnapping, raping, and murdering the children along with Manoharan. The children’s bodies were recovered from the canal the next day. Post-mortem reports revealed injuries indicating sexual assault and drowning.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 376(2)(f) and (g) of the IPC: These sections deal with the punishment for rape, specifically aggravated forms of rape, including gang rape and rape of a minor.
• Section 201 of the IPC: This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section outlines the procedure for recording confessions and statements. It mandates that a Magistrate must ensure the confession is voluntary and that the accused is aware of the consequences of making such a statement.
• Section 163 of the CrPC: This section prohibits any inducement, threat, or promise to obtain a confession.
• Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA): This section states that a confession made by an accused is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, or promise.
• Section 27 of the IEA: This section deals with the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact.
• Section 106 of the IEA: This section places the burden of proof on the accused to explain facts that are especially within their knowledge.
• Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India: This article protects an individual from being compelled to be a witness against themselves.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair trial and legal representation.

The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that confessions are voluntary and not obtained through coercion, in compliance with the statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• Confession was Coerced: The petitioner argued that his confession was not voluntary, citing physical assault by the police, psychological stress due to the co-accused’s death, and the suspicious circumstances of the confession being recorded while he was in judicial custody. He claimed the Magistrate did not inform him that he would not be sent back to police custody after the confession.
• Inadequate Legal Representation: The petitioner contended that he did not receive adequate legal assistance because several lawyers refused to represent him. He argued that the legal aid counsel was insufficient and that his right to a fair trial was violated.
• Errors in Evidence: The petitioner disputed the date of his arrest, claiming it was earlier than recorded. He also challenged the recovery of the victim’s underwear and the presence of his pubic hair on it, suggesting it was planted by the police.
• Incorrect Conviction under Section 376 IPC: The petitioner argued that his confession indicated anal intercourse, which falls under Section 377 of the IPC, not Section 376 (rape).
• Erroneous Reliance on POCSO Act: The petitioner argued that the court erroneously relied on a recent amendment to the POCSO Act to justify the death penalty, as the law was not in existence at the time of the crime.
• Death Penalty Not Warranted: The petitioner argued that the death penalty was not justified, especially given the 2:1 split decision, his young age, lack of criminal history, and socio-economic background. He also argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the court did not give due weightage to mitigating circumstances.

State’s Arguments:

• Voluntary Confession: The State argued that the Magistrate followed all necessary procedures to ensure the confession was voluntary. The State noted that the petitioner was in judicial custody before making the confession and that he had denied being coerced.
• Adequate Legal Representation: The State contended that the petitioner was provided with legal aid counsel who effectively represented him during the trial. The State also noted that the High Court and Supreme Court provided additional legal representation.
• Evidence Properly Appreciated: The State argued that the evidence was properly appreciated and that the recovery of the victim’s underwear and the DNA evidence were valid. The State also pointed out that the petitioner’s father had signed the arrest document.
• Correct Conviction under Section 376 IPC: The State argued that the medical evidence and the petitioner’s own statement indicated vaginal penetration, justifying the conviction under Section 376.
• Death Penalty Justified: The State argued that the crime was heinous and fell within the ‘rarest of rare’ category, justifying the death penalty. The State also pointed out that the petitioner showed no remorse and that the crime was planned and executed meticulously.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the confessional statement of the accused was voluntary and admissible in evidence.
2. Whether the accused was provided with adequate legal representation during the trial.
3. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 376 of the IPC was justified.
5. Whether the death penalty awarded to the accused was appropriate 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 submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Shivappa v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]*: The Court distinguished this case, finding that the Magistrate in the present case had complied with the mandatory safeguards.
• Bharat v. State of U.P. [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that a voluntary and true confession is a strong piece of evidence.
• Abdul Razak Murlaza Dafadar v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]*: The Court used this case to infer that the petitioner was not under the influence of the investigating agency.
• State of Assam v. Rabindra Nath Guha [CITATION]*: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the Magistrate in the present case made no false assurances to the petitioner.
• Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that retractions must be made as soon as possible.
• Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras [CITATION]*: The Court referred to this case to state that a retracted confession can form the basis of conviction if corroborated.
• Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to state that a retracted confession can form the basis of conviction if corroborated.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar [CITATION]*: The Court acknowledged the fundamental right to effective legal assistance.
• State v. Navjot Sandhu [CITATION]*: The Court noted that judicial scrutiny of a counsel’s performance must be careful and deferential.
• Strickland v. Washington [CITATION]*: The Court referred to this case to state the standards for inadequate legal representation.
• Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to state that societal opinion should be considered in sentencing.
• Suthenraraja v. State [CITATION]*: The Court clarified that the minority opinion in this case was not supported by the majority.
• Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi [CITATION]*: The Court cited this case to state that it refused to review the death sentence which had earlier been upheld in appeal by two out of three judges of this Court.
• Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar [CITATION]*: The Court cited this case to state that it refused to review the death sentence which had earlier been upheld in appeal by two out of three judges of this Court.
• Ravishankar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]*: The Court held that the facts of the present case did not warrant the application of the theory of “residual doubt”.
• Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to state that the exculpatory parts of the retraction letter ought to be excluded.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, which can be analyzed through sentiment analysis. The court emphasized the heinous nature of the crime, the meticulous planning involved, and the lack of remorse shown by the petitioner. The court also focused on the corroborating evidence, including the forensic and medical reports, which supported the confessional statement.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was based more on the factual aspects of the case, including the gruesome nature of the crime and the evidence presented, than on purely legal considerations. However, the legal framework was crucial in ensuring a fair trial and upholding the conviction.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s logical reasoning for each issue is explained below:

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition and upheld the death penalty awarded to Manoharan. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims of a coerced confession, inadequate legal representation, or errors in the appreciation of evidence. The Court reaffirmed its earlier judgment, concluding that the crime fell within the ‘rarest of rare’ category, thereby justifying the death penalty.

Dissenting Opinion

While the majority upheld the death penalty, there was a dissenting opinion in the original judgment. The dissenting judge had argued against the death penalty, citing the petitioner’s young age, lack of criminal history, and socio-economic background. However, the majority opinion prevailed, and the review petition was dismissed.

Implications

The Manoharan case has several implications for criminal jurisprudence in India:

• Application of the ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine: The case reinforces the strict application of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine in death penalty cases. The court’s emphasis on the heinous nature of the crime and the lack of remorse by the accused indicates that such factors are critical in determining whether the death penalty is warranted.
• Voluntariness of Confessions: The case highlights the importance of ensuring that confessions are voluntary and not obtained through coercion. The court’s scrutiny of the Magistrate’s procedure underscores the need for strict adherence to legal safeguards.
• Adequacy of Legal Representation: The case emphasizes the fundamental right to effective legal assistance. The court’s review of the legal aid counsel’s performance and the provision of additional representation by the High Court and Supreme Court indicate that the courts are vigilant in protecting the rights of the accused.
• Evidentiary Standards: The case demonstrates the importance of corroborating evidence in criminal cases. The court’s reliance on forensic and medical reports, along with the confessional statement, highlights the need for strong and reliable evidence to secure a conviction.
• Sentencing Considerations: The case underscores that while mitigating circumstances are important, they can be outweighed by the aggravating circumstances of the crime. The court’s decision to uphold the death penalty despite the petitioner’s young age and lack of criminal history indicates that the heinous nature of the crime can be a decisive factor.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Manoharan v. State reaffirms the court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice in cases involving heinous crimes. The case highlights the importance of voluntary confessions, adequate legal representation, and strong evidentiary standards in criminal proceedings. While the death penalty remains a contentious issue, the court’s decision underscores its continued application in cases that fall within the ‘rarest of rare’ category. The case serves as a reminder of the critical role of the judiciary in protecting the rights of both the accused and the victims of crime.