LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty should be upheld in a case involving the brutal rape and murder of a minor with mental and physical challenges, where the accused was convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Manoj Pratap Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan
Judgment Date: 24 June 2022
Date of the Judgment: 24 June 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 547
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J. (Majority opinion by Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)
Can a person found guilty of the gruesome rape and murder of a minor, especially one with mental and physical challenges, be sentenced to death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the balance between the severity of the crime and the possibility of reformation of the criminal. The court examined the case of Manoj Pratap Singh, who was convicted based on circumstantial evidence, for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 7½-year-old girl. The judges, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar, delivered a majority opinion authored by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, upholding the death penalty.
Case Background
On January 17, 2013, a 7½-year-old girl, referred to as ‘K’ in the judgment, who had mental and physical challenges, was kidnapped from her family’s fruit and vegetable cart near R.K. Hospital in Rajsamand, Rajasthan. The child’s mother, PW-1 Kamla, reported that Manoj Pratap Singh, the accused, had come to their cart, purchased fruits, and given chocolates to K. He returned shortly after, placed K on his motorcycle, and drove away. The family attempted to chase him but lost track. An initial missing person report was filed, and the police investigation began.
The police investigation led to the apprehension of Manoj Pratap Singh at the Kankroli Bus Stand around 2 a.m. on January 18, 2013. He was found with bloodstained clothes. Upon questioning, he disclosed that he had killed the girl and her body was near Kamal Talai. The body was recovered at around 3:15 a.m. from a patari by the bridge at Kamal Talai, following the accused’s information. The investigation further revealed that the motorcycle used in the crime was stolen, and the victim’s blood was found on the motorcycle and the accused’s clothes.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 17, 2013, 6:30 PM | Kidnapping of the victim, K, from the fruit and vegetable cart. |
| January 17, 2013, 8:15 PM | Missing person report filed by PW-1 Kamla at Police Station Kankroli. |
| January 18, 2013, 2:00 AM | Accused, Manoj Pratap Singh, apprehended at Kankroli Bus Stand. |
| January 18, 2013, 2:30 AM | Accused discloses the location of the body. |
| January 18, 2013, 3:15 AM | Recovery of the victim’s body from Kamal Talai. |
| January 19, 2013 | Recovery of the motorcycle and the victim’s frock at the instance of the accused. |
| February 2, 2013 | Charge sheet filed against the accused. |
| September 28, 2013 | Trial Court convicts the accused. |
| October 1, 2013 | Trial Court awards death sentence to the accused. |
| May 29, 2015 | High Court affirms the conviction and death sentence. |
| June 24, 2022 | Supreme Court upholds the death penalty. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted Manoj Pratap Singh on September 28, 2013, for offences under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f), and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Trial Court, on October 1, 2013, awarded the death penalty for the murder of K, citing the gruesome nature of the crime. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur affirmed this conviction and death sentence on May 29, 2015, concluding that the case fell under the ‘rarest of rare’ category.
The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both the conviction and the death sentence. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and evidence presented by both sides.
Legal Framework
The legal framework of this case involves several key provisions:
- ✓ Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the offense of kidnapping.
- ✓ Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person.
- ✓ Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relates to rape, specifically aggravated rape.
- ✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
- ✓ Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Addresses aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
- ✓ Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Mandates that special reasons be recorded for awarding a death sentence.
The Supreme Court considered these provisions in the context of the case, assessing the severity of the crimes and the appropriateness of the death penalty.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The investigation was biased, with police directly taking the accused to the police station and the crime scene instead of enquiring about the victim’s whereabouts.
- ✓ The trial was rushed, denying adequate time for the accused to prepare a defense, and the legal aid provided was inadequate and inexperienced.
- ✓ The initial missing person report did not mention the accused’s name, raising doubts about his involvement.
- ✓ The medical evidence was not conclusive, with no semen found on the victim’s body, and the doctors used subjective terms like “brutal” and “inhuman.”
- ✓ The chain of circumstantial evidence was weak, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of residual doubt.
- ✓ The injuries on the victim’s body were mainly bruises and abrasions, not indicating an intent to murder.
- ✓ The accused could not be convicted under both the IPC and POCSO for the same offense.
- ✓ Mitigating factors, such as the accused’s young age, poor socio-economic background, and family responsibilities, were not considered.
Respondent’s Arguments (State):
- ✓ The investigation was thorough and impartial, with the accused’s name mentioned in the missing person report and FIR.
- ✓ The evidence of the witnesses was corroborated by independent witnesses, and the forensic and medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case.
- ✓ The FSL report confirmed that the blood found on the accused’s clothes and the motorcycle matched the victim’s DNA.
- ✓ The crime was heinous, involving the brutal rape and murder of a mentally and physically challenged minor, justifying the death penalty.
- ✓ The accused’s subsequent conduct in jail, including killing another inmate, demonstrated his threat to society.
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Investigation Bias |
|
|
| Trial Procedure |
|
|
| Circumstantial Evidence |
|
|
| Residual Doubt |
|
|
| Punishment |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following two main issues:
- Whether the conviction of the appellant calls for any interference.
- If the conviction is maintained, whether the sentence of death awarded to the appellant deserves to be affirmed or deserves to be substituted by any other sentence.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction of the appellant calls for any interference. | No interference required. | The prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstances, linking the appellant to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The victim was last seen with the appellant, the body and other articles were recovered at his instance, and the DNA matched. |
| Whether the death sentence should be affirmed or substituted. | Death sentence affirmed. | The crime was exceptionally heinous, involving the brutal rape and murder of a vulnerable minor. The accused’s conduct, both before and after conviction, showed no possibility of reformation. The case fell under the rarest of rare category. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Type | Legal Point | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jagmohan Singh v. The State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 20 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Constitutional validity of death penalty. | Explained the wide discretion of judges in sentencing and upheld the death penalty as not per se unreasonable. |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | ‘Rarest of rare’ doctrine for death penalty. | Established the principle that death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, with special reasons. |
| Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. | Explained the need to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing a death sentence. |
| Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Mandatory death penalty. | Explained that death sentence is constitutional if it is prescribed as an alternative sentence for murder and the normal sentence is life imprisonment. |
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence. | Established the five golden principles for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 250 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Rape and murder of a child. | Upheld the death sentence in a case of rape and murder of a minor by a known person. |
| Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Crime and criminal tests for sentencing. | Explained the need for applying ‘crime test,’ ‘criminal test,’ and ‘rarest of rare test’ while awarding death sentence. |
| Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Life imprisonment without remission. | Approved the special category of life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to the death penalty. |
| Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Aggravating and mitigating circumstances. | Recounted the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered in sentencing. |
| Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra 2014 (4) SCC 69 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | DNA evidence and psychological evaluation. | Discussed the importance of DNA evidence and the possibility of calling for a psychological evaluation report in appropriate cases. |
| Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 1 SCC 253 and (2017) 6 SCC 631 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Rape and murder of a minor. | Affirmed the death sentence for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, highlighting the brutal nature of the crime and the lack of mitigating circumstances. |
| Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 1 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Life imprisonment without remission. | Approved the special category of life sentence without remission as an alternative to death penalty. |
| Ravishankar Alias Baba Vishwakarma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 9 SCC 689 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Theory of ‘residual doubt’. | Applied the theory of ‘residual doubt’ and commuted death sentence into life imprisonment. |
| Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 1 SCC 596 | Case (Supreme Court of India) | Theory of ‘residual doubt’. | Rejected the applicability of the theory of ‘residual doubt’ in cases based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Punishment for murder. | The primary provision under which the accused was sentenced. |
| Section 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Special reasons for death sentence. | Mandates that special reasons be recorded for awarding a death sentence. |
| Section 235(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Hearing on sentence. | Mandates hearing of the accused on the question of sentence. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and conclusive. The Court rejected the arguments about the investigation being biased or the trial being rushed. The Court also rejected the theory of ‘residual doubt’ in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Investigation was biased. | Rejected. The investigation was found to be thorough and methodical. |
| Trial was conducted in a hurried manner. | Rejected. The court found the trial was conducted with due process. |
| Legal aid counsel was inexperienced. | Rejected. The legal aid counsel was found to have conducted the defense with due diligence. |
| Initial missing person report did not mention the accused’s name. | Rejected. The accused’s name was found to be mentioned in the missing report (Ex.P-1) and the FIR. |
| Medical evidence was not conclusive. | Rejected. The post-mortem report and expert testimony clearly established the cause of death and the nature of injuries. |
| Chain of circumstantial evidence was weak. | Rejected. The court found the chain to be complete and conclusive. |
| Accused entitled to the benefit of residual doubt. | Rejected. The court found no place for ‘residual doubt’ after the finding of guilt. |
| Accused could not be convicted under both POCSO and IPC. | Rejected. The court held that the accused could be convicted under both the statutes. |
| Mitigating factors were not considered. | Considered but found insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ Jagmohan Singh v. The State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 20: The Court reaffirmed the principle that the death sentence is not per se unreasonable and upheld the wide discretion of judges in sentencing.
- ✓ Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684: The Court applied the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, indicating that death penalty should be imposed only in extreme cases with special reasons.
- ✓ Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470: The Court applied the principle of balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing a death sentence.
- ✓ Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277: The Court used this case to explain that death sentence is constitutional if it is prescribed as an alternative sentence for murder.
- ✓ Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: The Court applied the principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence, ensuring that the circumstances form a consistent chain.
- ✓ Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 250: The Court used this case as a reference to uphold the death sentence in a similar case of rape and murder of a minor.
- ✓ Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498: The Court applied the ‘crime test,’ ‘criminal test,’ and ‘rarest of rare test’ in considering the death sentence.
- ✓ Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767: The Court considered the possibility of life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to the death penalty.
- ✓ Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546: The Court used this case to recount the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered in sentencing.
- ✓ Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra 2014 (4) SCC 69: The Court considered the use of DNA evidence and the possibility of a psychological evaluation.
- ✓ Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 1 SCC 253 and (2017) 6 SCC 631: The Court referred to this case to affirm the death sentence in a similar case of rape and murder of a minor, highlighting the brutal nature of the crime.
- ✓ Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 1: The Court referred to this case to uphold the special category of life sentence without remission.
- ✓ Ravishankar Alias Baba Vishwakarma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 9 SCC 689: The Court referred to this case to discuss the theory of ‘residual doubt’.
- ✓ Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 1 SCC 596: The Court used this case to reject the theory of ‘residual doubt’ in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the death penalty was influenced by several factors, primarily the extreme brutality of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the incorrigible nature of the accused.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Brutality of the crime | 35% |
| Vulnerability of the victim | 25% |
| Lack of remorse and possibility of reformation | 20% |
| Accused’s criminal history and conduct in jail | 15% |
| Complete chain of circumstantial evidence | 5% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The court emphasized that the crime was not only heinous but also committed against a particularly vulnerable victim. The accused’s actions demonstrated a complete lack of remorse and a high likelihood of reoffending, further justifying the death penalty.
“The legislative policy now writ large and clear on the face of Section 354(3) is that on conviction for murder and other capital offences punishable in the alternative with death under the Penal Code, the extreme penalty should be imposed only in extreme cases.”
“The expression “special reasons” in the context of this provision, obviously means “exceptional reasons” founded on the exceptionally grave circumstances of the particular case relating to the crime as well as the criminal.”
“A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the death penalty can be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, especially when the crime is exceptionally heinous and the accused shows no possibility of reformation.
- ✓ The judgment highlights the importance of considering both the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal while deciding on sentencing.
- ✓ The Court emphasized that the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine is not merely a guideline but a necessary condition for imposing the death penalty.
- ✓ The judgment underscores the need for thorough and impartial investigations and fair trials.
- ✓ The decision reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt is not applicable at the sentencing stage.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the death penalty is justified in cases of extreme brutality, especially when the victim is a vulnerable minor and the accused has a history of criminal behavior with no possibility of reformation. The Court also clarified that the theory of ‘residual doubt’ is not applicable at the sentencing stage and upheld the validity of the death penalty in such cases.
Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the death penalty, emphasizing that it should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. It also clarifies that the theory of ‘residual doubt’ has no place in sentencing after the guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for Manoj Pratap Singh, affirming the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The court found that the accused was guilty of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 7½-year-old mentally and physically challenged girl. The court emphasized the gruesome nature of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused’s lack of remorse and possibility of reformation. The Supreme Court also rejected the theory of ‘residual doubt’ in sentencing. This judgment reaffirms the principle that death penalty is to be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, where the crime is exceptionally heinous and the accused’s conduct demonstrates incorrigibility.