2022 (4) TMI 1573 - SC - Indian Laws

Rape - entire chain was required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence which the prosecution had failed to prove - last seen theory was proved or not - HELD THAT - It is true that the entire case of the prosecution rested on the circumstantial evidence inasmuch as though certain facts were admitted by the Appellant-Accused in his further statement Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure like his visit to the house of the victim on the previous evening of the alleged incident and he having been arrested and brought back from Bhagalpur Bihar as per the transit remand granted by the concerned court there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. The law with regard to the appreciation of evidence when the case of the prosecution hinges on the circumstantial evidence is very well settled. There cannot be gainsaying that no conviction could be based on the statement of the Accused recorded Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the Accused by leading independent and cogent evidence nonetheless it is equally settled proposition of law that when the Accused makes inculpatory and exculpatory statements the inculpatory part of the statement can be taken aid of to lend credence to the case of prosecution - In the instant case also though the conviction of the Appellant-Accused could not be made merely on his admission of the circumstance of his visit to the house of the informant on the previous day evening of the fateful day such admission could certainly be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. Once the theory of last seen together was established the Accused was expected to offer some explanation as to under which circumstances he had parted the company of the victim. It hardly needs to be reiterated that in the criminal jurisprudence the entire burden of proving the guilt of the Accused rests on the prosecution nonetheless if the Accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act such failure on the part of the Accused may also provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. Of course Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of the prosecution on the Accused nor requires the Accused to furnish an explanation with regard to the facts which are especially within his knowledge nonetheless furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the Accused would be a very crucial fact when the theory of last seen together as propounded by the prosecution is proved against him to know as to how and when the Accused parted the company of the victim. The prosecution had proved the close proximity of time when the victim was last seen with the Appellant and when the victim was found unconscious and in injured condition which ultimately resulted into her death. The DNA profile obtained from the hair found from the place of incident and the DNA profile obtained from the source of blood sample of the Appellant was identical and confirmed that the hair strands were of the Appellant only as per the opinion at Exhibit P-47 given by P.W.-25 Dr. Pankaj Srivastava Scientific Officer FSL Sagar. The court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt all the circumstances individually and also proved the circumstances forming a chain so conclusive as to Rule out the possibility of any other hypothesis except the guilt of the Appellant-Accused. It was duly proved that while committing the barbaric acts of rape and sexual assault on the young child-victim aged about 04 years the Appellant-Accused had inflicted bodily injuries as mentioned in the post-mortem report which had caused her death. The court therefore holds that the trial court had rightly convicted the Appellant-Accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 302 376(2)(i) 376(2)(m) 363 366 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(i) read with Section 6 and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The said order of conviction was affirmed by the High Court; and is being further affirmed by this Court. Sentence to be imposed on the Appellant - HELD THAT - The High Court in the impugned order though made observation in this regard did not consider it on the ground that the charge Under Section 376A of Indian Penal Code was not framed by the Sessions Court against the Accused. However it may be noted that in view of Section 215 an omission to state the offence or its particulars in the charge could not be regarded as material unless the Accused was in fact misled by such error or omission and it had occasioned a failure of justice. In the instant case the Accused was already charged for the offence Under Section 302 which is punishable with death or life imprisonment and was also charged for the offences Under Section 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) as covered in Section 376A Indian Penal Code which is also punishable upto death sentence amongst other lesser punishments. Hence non-mentioning of Section 376A in the charge could not be said to have misled the Accused nor any failure of justice could be said to have occasioned. While affirming the view taken by the courts below with regard to the conviction of the Appellant for the offences charged against him it is deemed proper to commute and accordingly commute the sentence of death for the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence punishable Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code - The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below for the other offences under Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act are affirmed. It is needless to say that all the punishments imposed shall run concurrently. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the High Court's judgment and order.
2. Evidence and proof of guilt.
3. Fair trial and legal representation.
4. Appropriateness of the death penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the High Court's Judgment and Order:
The appeal was initially filed by the mother of the accused challenging the High Court's judgment which confirmed the death sentence for the accused. Upon her death, the accused was substituted as the appellant. The High Court had acquitted one co-accused but upheld the death sentence for the accused. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and circumstances to determine the correctness of the High Court's judgment.

2. Evidence and Proof of Guilt:
The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including:
- Last Seen Theory: The victim was last seen with the accused, as testified by multiple witnesses including the victim's relatives and a fruit vendor.
- Medical Evidence: Doctors confirmed that the victim was raped and had sustained injuries leading to her death. The post-mortem report indicated bronchopneumonia and cerebral hypoxia caused by smothering.
- DNA Evidence: Hair found at the crime scene matched the DNA of the accused.
- Witness Testimonies: Multiple witnesses, including family members and a fruit vendor, corroborated the sequence of events leading to the victim being last seen with the accused.
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had proved the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion of the accused's guilt.

3. Fair Trial and Legal Representation:
The accused argued that the trial was not fair due to media pressure and inadequate legal representation. However, the Supreme Court found that:
- The trial court had provided legal assistance to the accused by appointing a lawyer at the expense of the State.
- The accused had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present his defense.
- No substantial evidence was presented to prove that the trial was unfair or that the accused was deprived of legal aid.
Thus, the Court concluded that the trial was conducted fairly and in accordance with due process.

4. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty:
The Supreme Court examined whether the death penalty was warranted in this case. While acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime, the Court considered:
- Mitigating Factors: The accused's background, conduct in prison, and potential for reform.
- Legal Precedents: Similar cases where the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.
- Restorative Justice: The principle of giving offenders an opportunity to reform and reintegrate into society.
The Court ultimately decided to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, specifying a term of twenty years for the offense under Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code, instead of imprisonment for the remainder of the accused's natural life.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for the offenses charged but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for a period of twenty years. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing retributive and restorative justice, allowing for the possibility of the accused's rehabilitation. The appeal was allowed to the extent of modifying the sentence.