Supreme Court Upholds Death Penalty in Gruesome Child Sacrifice Case: Ishwari Lal Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 October 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1056

Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., and Surya Kant, J. The judgment was authored by R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a confession made to private individuals be used as evidence in a criminal trial, especially in cases involving heinous crimes like human sacrifice? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while reviewing a case where a couple was accused of murdering a young child for ritualistic purposes. This case highlights the complex interplay between extra-judicial confessions, circumstantial evidence, and the imposition of the death penalty in the Indian legal system.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the convictions of several individuals accused of kidnapping and murdering a two-year-old child, Chirag, and also reviewed a related case involving the murder of a six-year-old girl, Manisha. The primary issue revolved around the admissibility of confessions made by the accused to members of the public and whether these, combined with other evidence, were sufficient to uphold their convictions and death sentences.

Case Background

The case involves two separate incidents of child murder. The first incident occurred on November 23, 2010, when two-year-old Chirag Rajput went missing from his home in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. His parents, Poshan Singh (PW-3) and Savitri Bai (PW-5), along with neighbors, began searching for him. Their search led them to the house of Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai, who were known as tantriks (practitioners of occult rituals).

Suspicious of loud music coming from the house, the neighbors entered and found freshly dug earth and puja (worship) items. Upon questioning, Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai confessed to sacrificing Chirag as a human sacrifice with the help of other co-accused, and they had buried his body in their house. The body was then exhumed, revealing a gruesome scene where the child’s head was severed, and his cheeks were cut.

The second incident came to light during the investigation of Chirag’s murder. It was revealed that Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai, along with other co-accused, had also murdered a six-year-old girl named Manisha earlier in March 2010. Manisha had been reported missing, and her skeletal remains were discovered in the same compound as Chirag’s body. The prosecution argued that Manisha was also a victim of human sacrifice.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Durg, convicted the accused, including Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai, and sentenced them to death for the murder of Chirag. The case was then referred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh for confirmation of the death penalty. The High Court confirmed the conviction but modified the death sentence of Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai to life imprisonment without any entitlement of remission or parole in the case of Manisha’s murder.

In a separate case, the High Court confirmed the death sentence for Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai, while modifying the punishment of other accused to life imprisonment for the murder of Chirag. Both the accused and the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34, IPC: This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 120B, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”
• Section 201, IPC: This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 364, IPC: This section deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Additionally, the Court considered Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person.

Arguments

The appellants argued that their convictions were primarily based on extra-judicial confessions, which are inadmissible under Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They contended that these confessions were not corroborated by other reliable evidence, and there were material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. They also argued that the discovery of the body was not solely due to their actions, as a large crowd had gathered before the body was found.

The appellants further argued that the prosecution failed to prove a common intention or conspiracy among all the accused, particularly those other than Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai. They also contended that the death penalty was not warranted as the case did not qualify as the “rarest of rare cases.”

The State of Chhattisgarh argued that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. They emphasized the gruesome nature of the crime, the recovery of the body from the house of the main accused, and the corroboration of the confessions by independent witnesses. They also argued that the case fell within the ambit of the “rarest of rare cases,” justifying the imposition of the death penalty on the main accused.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the body was not found in their exclusive possession and that the discovery was made by a crowd, which challenges the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the extra-judicial confessions made by the accused to the independent witnesses are admissible in evidence.
2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the death penalty should be upheld in the present case.
4. Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 364/34 read with 120B of the IPC is sustainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar [AIR 1966 SC 119]* was distinguished because the confession in that case was made to a police officer, whereas in this case, the confessions were made to independent witnesses.
• Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 6 SCC 403]* was distinguished because, in this case, the extra-judicial confessions were corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
• Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer [1956 SCR 199]* was distinguished because, in this case, there was cogent evidence that the body was found in the house of the accused, thus attracting Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. v. State of Kerala [(2001) 7 SCC 596]* was discussed for the ingredients of criminal conspiracy, but the court found the evidence insufficient to prove conspiracy in the present case.
• Ronny v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 3 SCC 625]* was distinguished because, in this case, the culpability of the main accused was clear, and thus, the death penalty was justified.
• Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand [(2004) 2 SCC 338]* was relied upon as it involved a similar set of facts, and the death sentence was upheld.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the gruesome nature of the crime, the vulnerability of the victims, and the lack of remorse shown by the main accused. The Court emphasized that the murder of a two-year-old child and a six-year-old girl for human sacrifice was a heinous act that shocked the conscience of the community. The Court also noted that the main accused had a prior conviction for a similar offense, which further aggravated their culpability.

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles. The factual aspects, such as the gruesome nature of the murders and the circumstances of the crime, played a significant role in the court’s decision. The legal considerations, such as the admissibility of confessions and the application of relevant sections of the IPC and the Indian Evidence Act, were also crucial in the court’s decision-making process.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt against the main accused. The Court emphasized that the gruesome nature of the crime and the lack of remorse from the accused justified the imposition of the death penalty.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and for causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the IPC. The death penalty imposed on them was confirmed. However, the Court set aside their conviction under Section 364/34 and Section 120B of the IPC.

The Court also discussed the guidelines for imposing the death penalty, as laid down in the cases of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684] and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470], and concluded that the present case met the criteria for being considered a “rarest of rare case.”

The Court noted that the main accused had a prior conviction for a similar offense, which was considered an aggravating factor. The Court also highlighted the brutal nature of the crime, where the two-year-old child was sacrificed and his body was mutilated.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The gruesome nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victims.
• The confessions made by the accused to independent witnesses were corroborated by other evidence.
• The main accused had a prior conviction for a similar offense.
• The accused showed a complete lack of remorse.
• The case fell under the “rarest of rare cases” category.

The Court also considered the possibility of reformation of the accused but concluded that they lacked the basic humanness and could not be reformed.

The Court did not have any minority opinion in the case. All three judges concurred with the final judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Extra-judicial confessions, while weak evidence, can be used if corroborated by other evidence.
• The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden on the accused to explain facts within their knowledge.
• The death penalty can be imposed in the “rarest of rare cases,” considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• The gruesome nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victims are significant factors in determining the sentence.

The judgment highlights the importance of corroborating evidence in cases involving extra-judicial confessions. It also reinforces the principle that the death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of rare cases,” where the crime is exceptionally brutal and shocks the conscience of the community.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants,Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai, be taken into custody to undergo the sentence of death as awarded by the Sessions Judge, Durg, and confirmed by the High Court, and the sentence of life imprisonment in the case of the murder of Manisha. The court also directed that the other accused be released from custody, as their convictions were set aside.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ishwari Lal Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) is a landmark judgment that underscores the severity with which the Indian legal system views crimes involving human sacrifice, especially when children are the victims. The judgment highlights the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions when corroborated by other evidence, the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the imposition of the death penalty in the “rarest of rare cases.”

The case serves as a grim reminder of the existence of heinous crimes in society and the importance of a robust legal system to deliver justice. It also emphasizes the need for society to be vigilant and protect vulnerable individuals, particularly children, from such barbaric acts.

This case is crucial for understanding the legal framework surrounding extra-judicial confessions, the burden of proof in criminal trials, and the application of the death penalty in India. It also provides insights into how the courts weigh factual evidence and legal principles in arriving at a just decision.