Supreme Court of India
Bhagwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2022Author: L. Nageswara Rao



Criminal Appeal Nos. 101-102 of 2022
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos.4821-4822 of 2018)

Bhagwani …. Appellant

The State of Madhya Pradesh …. Respondent



Leave granted.

1. These Appeals are preferred against the judgment of the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the conviction and

sentence of the appellant by the Trial Court under Sections

363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 5(g)(m) read with Section 6 of

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for

short “the POCSO Act”) were upheld.

2. At 9.00 p.m. on 14.04.2017, Brijlal Yadav (PW-2) along

with his wife Kalawati (PW-1), two sons and his daughter went

to the house of Anil Maravi to attend a function of Chowk

Barhon (naming ceremony). While they were returning back
1 | Page
at around 11.00 p.m., they realized that their daughter was

missing. They started searching and at about 5:00 AM on the

next day, PW-1 found her daughter lying near a hand-pump.

Her daughter was in an unconscious condition. PW-1 started

howling at which PW-2 and others reached the place and

called the police. The District Scientific Officer, Scene of

Crime Unit, Dindori, Madhya Pradesh conducted inspection of

the place of incident. According to the inspection report, the

body of the deceased was lying in a supine position and on

the back side of the head of the deceased, there were

multiple small pieces of dry grass and Gokhru (Caltrop) in the

hair. There was a dry bark of drumstick tree also in the hair.

Both eyes were closed. Froth from the nose was observed,

small internal injuries were visible and on the left side and

right side of the chin, there were small marks of injury. Small

injury marks were found in front and left side to the neck.

Blood was present in the genitalia. On the sole of the right

leg, there was blood. Blood was also present above the ankle

of the right leg. There were scratch marks on the left side of

the chest and another scratch type of mark below the chest.

Blood spots were found on both thighs up to genitalia. Blood

was found on the back of the thigh and near anus. Small

injury marks were present on the entire back and waist.

2 | Page
Directions were given to the investigating officer to send the

body for post-mortem and to collect, preserve and pack the

visible objects found at the place of occurrence. Further

direction was given to seize the clothes worn by the

prosecutrix and get them examined. Post-mortem was

conducted at 4.00 p.m. on 15.04.2017 by PW-6 Dr. Sajjan

Kumar Uikey who found the following injuries: –

” Rigor mortis present in both lower limb and partially
passed in both upper limb. Eye-closed, mouth-closed, fiest-
half open, cornea congested, pupil dilated, face- cyanosed,
lip-cyanosed, finger and· hand- cyanosed. Blood mixed froth
present over the both nostril. Blood mixed saliva both angle
on mouth up to lower margin of mandible. Four contusion
mark over left side of neck, medial aspect of neck. Three
contusion mark on left side of neck middle third size of
contusion between 1 ½ cmx 1 cm. 1 cm x 1 cm. contusion
over both cheek, 1 cm x 1 ‘ cm. infraorbital left side. 11/2
cm contusion on the left side of xiphisternum. One
intrascapular contusion 1 Y, cm two 1/2 cm x v, cm
contusion over the left buttock. Clotted blood found over the
pink colour aspect dry clotted blood present over the
perinea! area lower middle third of both thigh all around
anal area. Blood present in the vaginal opening three 3 cm.
anterior to posterior and full thickness of muscle and skin.
Dry clotted blood present over the anal opening and inner
aspect of anus. Opening is dilated 2 fingers easily admitted.
All injuries are antemortem in nature.”

3 | Page
The cause of the death was given as asphyxia,

neurogenic shock due to neck pressing, severe injuries and

bleeding in vagina and anal opening by committing rape


3. On suspicion, the Appellant and Satish s/o Jehar Singh

Dhoomketi were arrested on 16.04.2017. The statement of

Satish was recorded pursuant to which the blanket and shawl

of the deceased and clothes worn by him were seized.

Similarly, the clothes worn by the Appellant which were

concealed in his cowshed were seized pursuant to the

statement made by him. On completion of investigation, the

final report was filed on 27.06.2017. Charges were framed

against Satish and the Appellant under Sections 363, 366-A,

364, 346, 376D, 376A or in the alternative under Sections

302, 201 IPC and Section 5(g)(m) read with Section 6 of the

POCSO Act. 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

The Sessions Judge, Dindori convicted the Appellant and

Satish for the offences charged and sentenced them to death.

The High Court answered the reference against the Appellant

and Satish by upholding the conviction and sentence imposed

by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant and

Satish approached this Court. During the pendency of the

Appeals, Satish died and therefore, his Appeal has abated.

4 | Page
4. As there is no direct evidence regarding the kidnapping,

rape and murder of a girl aged 11 years, the case hinges on

circumstantial evidence. Keeping in mind the well settled

principles settled by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, the Trial Court scrutinized

the evidence on record. Reference was made to the

testimony of PW-1 who stated that the Appellant and Satish

were present at the Chowk Barhon function at Anil Maravi’s

house and made themselves scarce after the recovery of the

dead body. Reference was also made to the oral testimony of

PW-4, Chain Singh who runs a small hotel in the village. He

deposed that the victim girl had come to his shop at 9.00 pm

on 14.04.2017 to purchase Kurkure and she had a blanket and

shawl with her. Fifteen minutes thereafter, the Appellant also

visited the shop for purchasing namkeen. The Trial Court

considered the disclosure statements made by the accused

and the recoveries of shawl and blanket of the victim girl and

the clothes of Satish and the Appellant. The seizure of a

blanket and button from the place of incident was proved to

be from the shirt of Satish. The evidence of Dr. Vijay Paigwar

(PW-11) who examined the injuries of Satish and the Appellant

was considered by the trial Court. The Appellant had a

1 (1984) 4 SCC 116

5 | Page
scratch mark of size 1 inch on the upper portion of the left

shoulder, scratch mark of size 0.5 inch on left side below

shoulder, scratch mark of size 0.5 inch on the lower portion of

the back of the body, scratch marks of 2 inches on the right

arm and abrasion mark of 1 cm sized on the cheek and 4

inches sized abrasion on the ribs. The answers given by the

Appellant and Satish during their examination under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the CrPC”)

were also examined by the Trial Court. The admission of the

Appellant that he had alcohol with Satish on the evening of

the day of incident and that both of them visited Jaipal Singh

(PW-9) and requested for alcohol on the next day morning was

taken note of by the trial Court. The version of the Appellant

that he was taken home by his mother on the night of

14.04.2017 and as she was abusing him, the Appellant went

to the house of his neighbour, Deepa was not accepted by the

Trial Court as neither his mother nor Deepa were examined.

Having been convinced that the circumstances were

consistent with the hypothesis of the Appellant, the Trial Court

convicted them for the offences charged. After hearing the

Appellant and Satish, the Trial Court sentenced them to death

as they were found guilty of committing heinous crimes of

rape and murder. While considering the reference, the High

6 | Page
Court re-appreciated the evidence on record and upheld the

conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

5. Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant submitted that none of the discoveries and the

recoveries implicate the Appellant. He argued that the

disclosure statement of Satish was recorded at 1340 hrs. on

16.04.2017 and the disclosure statement of the Appellant was

recorded one and half hours later. Both the statements were

recorded by PW-10. He submitted that the Courts below have

committed an error in relying upon the disclosure statement

of the Appellant. He further stated that none of the articles

that have been recovered from the alleged place of offence

have any connection with the Appellant. According to him,

the packet of Kurkure which was purchased was not identified

in Court by PW-4 from whose shop it was purchased. The

black button seized from the spot of offence is from the shirt

of Satish with which the Appellant had no connection.

Commenting on the seizure of the shirt, red sando baniyan

and jeans pant, Mr. Shri Singh submitted that serological

testing was not done to prove that the blood found on the

clothes was human blood. He argued that the injuries of the

Appellant cannot be taken as a circumstance as he is a

labourer doing physical work. He pointed out that the column

7 | Page
of “injury marks” in the arrest memo was found to be blank.

The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the

evidence of the accused last seen together with the victim has

not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. He

referred to the evidence of Bhagat Singh (PW-5) and

submitted that the Appellant was apprehended from his

house, and it was only Satish who was absconding. He argued

that the statements made by the Appellant in his examination

under Section 313 CrPC were not appreciated properly. The

learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the

admissions made by him in the statement under Section 313

CrPC cannot be treated as substantive evidence. According to

learned counsel for the Appellant, the chain of circumstances

is incomplete and is not consistent with only one hypothesis,

proving the guilt of the Appellant. On the sentence of death,

the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is

violation of the right to fair trial which is guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India as effective legal

assistance was not afforded in the instant case. Sufficient

time was not given to the amicus curiae appointed by the

Court to cross-examine witnesses and no opportunity was

given to the Appellant to submit relevant material before

sentencing. Mitigating circumstances have not been taken

8 | Page
into consideration. The probability of reformation of the

Appellant and the sentence of life imprisonment being

unquestionably foreclosed were not taken into account by the

Courts below. The learned counsel for the Appellant further

argued that the Appellant could not have been convicted

under Section 376A IPC. After the amendment in 2013, gang

rape was taken out of the ambit of Section 376 (1) and (2) IPC.

The prosecution did not produce any evidence to establish any

common intention between the Appellant and Satish to

commit an offence under Section 376D IPC. Sentence for

commission of gang rape is imprisonment for life. Therefore,

the imposition of death sentence is unsustainable.

6. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General

for the State of Madhya Pradesh defended the judgments of

the Trial Court and the High Court by submitting that there is

no break in the chain of events/ circumstances. According to

her, the prosecution proved that there was a function of

Chowk Barhon at the house of Anil Maravi, the victim was

seen at the shop of Chain Singh (PW-4) and after a short

while, the Appellant visited the shop and PW-5 witnessed the

deceased going to the house of Satish which was corroborated

by Satish in his statement under Section 313 CrPC in which he

admitted that the deceased came to his house to keep her

9 | Page
black shawl. The deceased disappeared thereafter, and her

body was found the next day morning. The medical evidence

disclosed brutal rape and murder of the deceased. Scientific

evidence clearly showed that Satish committed the offence of

rape. Satish and the Appellant were seen together on the

evening of 14.04.2017 and they had also visited PW-9 on the

next day morning. They were disheveled and requested PW-9

for liquor. Satish went missing thereafter and was

apprehended in the afternoon. Pursuant to the disclosure

statement, the clothes of the Appellant were seized from the

cowshed in the house of the Appellant. The learned counsel

for the State referred to the injuries on the body of the

Appellant which were not explained by him. She also relied

upon the DNA report prepared by Forensic Science Laboratory

(FSL), Sagar. Specific reference was made to Article D which

was a full pant belonging to the Appellant on which there was

a blood stain near the zip area. Ms. Chaudhary argued that

multiple peaks were observed while examining Article D which

denotes that there is more than one DNA trait on Article D.

The learned counsel for the State further submitted that the

Appellant could not prove his plea of alibi. The Appellant failed

to examine his mother and Deepa in whose house he had

slept on the night of 14.04.2017. Referring to the answers

10 | P a g e
given to questions posed to the Appellant during his

examination under Section 313 CrPC, the learned counsel for

the State relied upon the law laid down by this Court and

submitted that mere denial would provide additional link if the

circumstances are proved. It was argued by the learned

counsel for the State that though the statement under Section

313 CrPC cannot be made the basis for conviction, it can be

used as evidence against the accused to the extent it

supports the case of the prosecution. A helpless girl at a

tender age was mauled to death after being raped and the

Appellant deserves no lenience. The contention of the State is

that there is no error committed by the Trial Court in imposing

the sentence of death on the Appellant for the heinous

offences committed by him.

7. This Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab2

summarized the principles governing interference in a criminal

appeal by special leave as follows: –

“(1) that this Court would not interfere with the
concurrent finding of fact based on pure appreciation of
evidence even if it were to take a different view on the
(2) that the Court will not normally enter into a
reappraisement or review of the evidence, unless the
assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of law

2 (1976) 4 SCC 158

11 | P a g e
or procedure or is based on error of record, misreading of
evidence or is inconsistent with the evidence, for
instance, where the ocular evidence is totally inconsistent
with the medical evidence and so on;
(3) that the Court would not enter into credibility of the
evidence with a view to substitute its own opinion for that
of the High Court;
(4) that the Court would interfere where the High Court
has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of a judicial
process, principles of natural justice or a fair hearing or
has acted in violation of a mandatory provision of law or
procedure resulting in serious prejudice or injustice to the
(5) this Court might also interfere where on the proved
facts wrong inferences of law have been drawn or where
the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse
and based on no evidence.”

This Court exhorted the counsel for the parties to confine

their arguments within the four corners of the above principles

to save time, energy and expertise.

8. The undisputed facts are that PW-2 along with his family

members attended the Chowk Barhon ceremony at the house

of Anil Maravi on the evening of 14.04.2017. His 11 years old

daughter went missing and was found dead on the next day

morning. The Appellant and Satish were arrested on the next

day and on the basis of the statements made by them,

recoveries of their clothes were made. The medical evidence

12 | P a g e
shows that she was raped and killed. A green shirt of check

pattern whose two front black buttons were broken, which is

torn near the shoulder and has blood spot was seized from the

flowerpot on the roof of the cowshed of the Appellant. A red

colour sando baniyan with black stripe which is torn near

shoulder with dark blood spot was also seized along with one

jeans pant of sky blue colour with lining of 28 no. and HARW

was mentioned on the right side back. There was a dark

blood spot in front of the sky-blue jeans pant. The report of

the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Civil Lines, Sagar

showed that all the alleles observed in the male DNA profile of

Satish were found to be the same as the DNA profile observed

from the prosecutrix’s vaginal and rectal slides. Same female

autosomal STR DNA profile was detected on the source of the

deceased prosecutrix, dhoti and underwear of Satish. Insofar

as Article D which is a full pant of the Appellant is concerned,

according to DNA report multiple peaks were observed.

9. The Appellant and Satish were present in the function at

the house of Anil Maravi as deposed by PWs-1, 3 and 5. PW-4

deposed that he runs a small hotel in the village and the

deceased visited his shop to purchase Kurkure at 9.00 p.m.

15 minutes thereafter, the Appellant visited the shop to

purchase namkeen. Jaipal (PW-9) stated that the Appellant

13 | P a g e
and Satish visited his house on 15.04.2017. Their eyes were

red, hair was scattered and they were scared. They informed

him that they have committed a big scandal. At that time,

Munni Bai- the mother of the Appellant came, and Satish and

the Appellant went away. Half an hour later, there was an

uproar in the village when the body of the deceased was


10. During the course of examination of Satish under Section

313 CrPC, he admitted that he was present at the house of

Anil Maravi on 14.04.2017 and that he visited PW-9 on the

morning of 15.04.2017. The Appellant also admitted his

presence at Anil Maravi’s house on 14.04.2017 and at the

house of PW-9 on 15.04.2017 in the morning. He further

stated in his examination under Section 313 CrPC that his

eyes were red, hair was scattered and he and Satish

demanded liquor from PW-9. It is relevant to note that the

Appellant also stated that he had gone to Sudgaon along with

Satish for work at 9.00 a.m. on 14.04.2017. While returning,

he had liquor along with Satish. He visited Anil Maravi’s house

along with Satish at 7.00 p.m. They were asked to leave as

they were in a drunken condition. The Appellant, thereafter,

went to the shop of Chain Singh from where his mother took

him home. He slept in the house of his neighbour, Deepa.

14 | P a g e
11. The Appellant was examined by Dr. Vijay Pegwar (PW-11)

on 17.04.2017 and the following injuries were found on his


i) Scratch mark of 1 inch on the upper side of the
ii) 0.5 inch scratch mark on the lower left shoulder,
iii) 0.5 inch scratch mark on the lower portion on the back
of the body,
iv) 2 inches scratch marks on the right arm,
v) Abrasion mark of 1 cm on cheek, and
vi) 4 inches sized abrasion injury on the right lower
lateral rib. Scratch marks that were found on the body
of Satish were also examined by Dr. Vijay Pegwar.

12. Clothes worn by the Appellant were seized from a

flowerpot on the roof of the cowshed belonging to him

pursuant to the disclosure statement. FSL report pertaining to

Article B which is a full pant of Appellant on which there was a

blood stain near the zip showed multiple peaks. The Appellant

and Satish had alcohol and were together at the house of Anil

Maravi. As they were creating nuisance, they were chased

away. The next day morning, they went to PW-9 and told him

that a big blunder took place. DNA profiling of the articles Q,

R and S which are the vaginal slide, rectal slide and dried

blood on the hair of the deceased showed Y (male) STR.

Blood sample of Satish matched with the articles found on Q,

R and S. The Appellant miserably failed to prove an alibi.

Importantly, there is lack of any explanation for the scratch
15 | P a g e
injuries found on the body of the Appellant. We are in

agreement with the concurrent findings that the Appellant is

guilty of committing the offences as charged and we find no

fault with the conviction of the appellant.

13. It is travesty of justice as the Appellant was not given a

fair opportunity to defend himself. This is a classic case

indicating the disturbing tendency of Trial Courts adjudicating

criminal cases involving rape and murder in haste. It is trite

law that an accused is entitled for a fair trial which is

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In

respect of the order of conviction and sentence being passed

on the same day, the object and purpose of Section 235 (2)

CrPC is that the accused must be given an opportunity to

make a representation against the sentence to be imposed on

him. A bifurcated hearing for convicting and sentencing is

necessary to provide an effective opportunity to the accused 3.

Adequate opportunity to produce relevant material on the

question of death sentence shall be provided to the accused

by the Trial Court4.

14. Mr. K.G. Sahu, Advocate appointed through Legal Aid

appeared for the Appellant before the Sessions Court on

3 Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498
4 Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460

16 | P a g e
04.07.2017 when the matter was adjourned to 25.07.2017 for

framing of charges. On 25.07.2017, Mr. M.K. Kannaujiya,

Advocate filed his appearance memo. On the same date, the

Trial Court recorded that arguments were heard on the

charges. Charges were framed and the schedule for trial was

given. On 02.08.2017, 9 witnesses were scheduled to be

examined and on 03.08.2017, the remaining witnesses would

be examined. On 02.08.2017, Mr. Kannaujiya, Advocate

represented to the Court that he was not willing to defend the

accused. Mr. Satyendra Yadav, Advocate was appointed to

represent the accused. On the same day, PWs-1,2 and 3 were

examined and on the next day, PWs-4 and 5 were also

examined. Final arguments were heard on 26.10.2017 and

the judgment was dictated on 03.11.2017. On the same day,

the Trial Court passed an order, sentencing the Appellant and

Satish to death penalty.

15. After considering the judgements of this Court in

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab5, Machhi Singh v. State

of Punjab6, this Court in Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan

v. State of Bihar7 observed as follows: –

5 (1980) 2 SCC 684
6 (1983) 3 SCC 470
7 (2019) 16 SCC 584

17 | P a g e
“The proposition of law which emerges from the
judgments referred to above is that death sentence
cannot be imposed except in the rarest of rare cases, for
which special reasons have to be recorded, as mandated
in Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In
deciding whether a case falls within the category of the
rarest of rare, the brutality, and/or the gruesome and/or
heinous nature of the crime is not the sole criterion. It is
not just the crime which the Court is to take into
consideration, but also the criminal, the state of his
mind, his socio-economic background, etc. Awarding
death sentence is an exception, and life imprisonment is
the rule.”

16. In Mofil Khan and Another v. The State of

Jharkhand8, this Court observed as follows: –

“8. One of the mitigating circumstances is the
probability of the accused being reformed and
rehabilitated. The State is under a duty to procure
evidence to establish that there is no possibility of
reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. Death
sentence ought not to be imposed, save in the rarest of
the rare cases when the alternative option of a lesser
punishment is unquestionably foreclosed (See: Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab 9 ). To satisfy that the
sentencing aim of reformation is unachievable, rendering
life imprisonment completely futile, the Court will have
to highlight clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit
for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.
This analysis can only be done with rigour when the
Court focuses on the circumstances relating to the
8 RP (Crl.) No.641 of 2015 in Crl. A. 1795 of 2009

18 | P a g e
criminal, along with other circumstances (See: Santosh
Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
10). In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of
Maharashtra 11, 9 (1980) 2 SCC 684 10 (2009) 6 SCC
498 11 (2019) 12 SCC 460 11 | P a g e this Court dealt
with the review of a judgment of this Court confirming
death sentence and observed as under:
45. The law laid down by various decisions of this
Court clearly and unequivocally mandates that the
probability (not possibility or improbability or
impossibility) that a convict can be reformed and
rehabilitated in society must be seriously and
earnestly considered by the Courts before awarding
the death sentence. This is one of the mandates of
the “special reasons” requirement of Section 354(3)
CrPC and ought not to be taken lightly since it
involves snuffing out the life of a person. To
effectuate this mandate, it is the obligation on the
prosecution to prove to the Court, through evidence,
that the probability is that the convict cannot be
reformed or rehabilitated. This can be achieved by
bringing on record, inter alia, material about his
conduct in jail, his conduct outside jail if he has been
on bail for some time, medical evidence about his
mental make-up, contact with his family and so on.
Similarly, the convict can produce evidence on these
issues as well.”

17. A perusal of the judgments of the Trial Court and the

High Court would disclose that the gravity of the crime was

taken into consideration while imposing death sentence. The

mitigating circumstances and the probability of reformation

19 | P a g e
and rehabilitation of the accused have not been considered. It

is relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court

in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra9:

“47. Consideration of the reformation, rehabilitation and
reintegration of the convict into society cannot be
overemphasised. Until Bachan Singh [Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC
(Cri) 580] , the emphasis given by the Courts was
primarily on the nature of the crime, its brutality and
severity. Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] placed the
sentencing process into perspective and introduced the
necessity of considering the reformation or rehabilitation
of the convict. Despite the view expressed by the
Constitution Bench, there have been several instances,
some of which have been pointed out in Bariyar [Santosh
Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra,
(2009) 6 SCC 498 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] and
in Sangeet v. State of Haryana [Sangeet v. State of
Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611]
where there is a tendency to give primacy to the crime
and consider the criminal in a somewhat secondary
manner. As observed in Sangeet [Sangeet v. State of
Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] “In
the sentencing process, both the crime and the criminal
are equally important.” Therefore, we should not forget
that the criminal, however ruthless he might be, is
nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of
dignity notwithstanding his crime. Therefore, it is for the
prosecution and the Courts to determine whether such a

9 (2019) 12 SCC 460

20 | P a g e
person, notwithstanding his crime, can be reformed and
rehabilitated. To obtain and analyse this information is
certainly not an easy task but must nevertheless be
undertaken. The process of rehabilitation is also not a
simple one since it involves social reintegration of the
convict into society. Of course, notwithstanding any
information made available and its analysis by experts
coupled with the evidence on record, there could be
instances where the social reintegration of the convict
may not be possible. If that should happen, the option of
a long duration of imprisonment is permissible.”

18. The Appellant was aged 25 years on the date of

commission of the offence and belongs to a Scheduled Tribes

community, eking his livelihood by doing manual labour. No

evidence has been placed by the prosecution on record to

show that there is no probability of rehabilitation and

reformation of the Appellant and the question of an

alternative option to death sentence is foreclosed. The

Appellant had no criminal antecedents before the commission

of crime for which he has been convicted. There is nothing

adverse that has been reported against his conduct in jail.

Therefore, the death sentence requires to be commuted to life

imprisonment. However, taking into account the barbaric and

savage manner in which the offences of rape and murder

were committed by the Appellant on a hapless 11 year old

girl, the Appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment for a

21 | P a g e
period of 30 years during which he shall not be granted


19. The Appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the

Appellant under Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A,

302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 5(g)

(m) read with Section 6 of The Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is upheld and the sentence is

converted from death to that of imprisonment for life for a

period of 30 years without remission.




New Delhi,
January 18, 2022.

22 | P a g e


Leave a Reply

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.