VIJAY RAIKWAR vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015 1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1112 OF 2015

   J U D G M E N T M.R.SHAH, J. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the High Court of   Madhya   Pradesh   at   Jabalpur   passed   in   Criminal   Appeal No.198 of 2014 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 Signature Not Verified passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date: 2019.02.13 16:45:20 IST Reason: Sagar, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2013 and has Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015 2 confirmed the conviction of the original accused for the offences punishable   under   Section   376   (2)   (f)   and   Section   201   of   the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and has confirmed the death penalty   imposed,   original   accused   has   preferred   the   present appeal. 2.  That the appellant/original accused was tried by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with   Section   6   of   the   POCSO   Act   for   having   committed   the 1/2 murder of the minor girl aged 7   years after raping her. On considering the incriminating material against the accused and on appreciation the evidences and having considered that the accused was last seen together with the deceased and that the frock of the victim was found lying on the cot along with blood stains on bed mattress and bedsheet in the house of the accused, which was not explained by the accused, and also considering the medical evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015 3 the offences under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO   Act.   The   Trial   Court   sentenced   the   accused   to   life imprisonment and other terms of the imprisonment with fine. All the   sentences   were   directed   to   run   concurrently.   Learned Additional Sessions Judge also sentenced the accused to death penalty. Having sentenced the accused with death penalty, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made the reference to the High Court. Being aggrieved with the conviction and the sentence, the accused also preferred Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2014 before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has decided the reference against the accused and has also dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the accused, whereby,   the   High   Court   has   confirmed   the   conviction   and sentence   imposed   by   the   Trial   Court.   Feeling   aggrieved   and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the conviction and sentence of death penalty, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015 4 3.  We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused at length. 4.   Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused   has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the courts below have materially erred in holding the accused   guilty   for   the   offences   under   Section   376   (2)   (f)   and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He has vehemently submitted that in the present case, there is no eye­witness of the incident and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that unless and until the chain of evidence proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in committing the crime, both the courts have materially erred in convicting the accused. 5.  Alternatively, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused   has   prayed   to   commute   the   death   sentence   to   life imprisonment.   Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the accused has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab  (1980) 2 SCC 684 as well as the Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015 5 recent decision of this Court in  Shyam Singh alias Bhima v. State of Madhya Pradesh  (2017) 11 SCC 265. 6.  Heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the respective parties at length. Considering the submissions made by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respective parties   and   the   findings   recorded   by   the   Trial   Court   on appreciation of evidence which were confirmed by the High court, we are of the firm view that the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act does not call for any interference as the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of evidence. 6.1  In   the   present   case,   prosecution   has   been   successful   in proving that the accused was last seen together with the victim; that he gave one rupee coin to the victim; he told one of the witness   viz   Bharati,   who   was   with   the   victim   to   go   away; thereafter the dead body of the victim was found near the house of the accused and that the frock of the victim was lying on the Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015 6 cot and the bed mattress and bedsheet were blood stained and the same was matched with the blood group of the victim and that   the   accused   failed   to   explain   the   incriminating material/evidence   found   against   him   in   the   statement   under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused which has rightly been confirmed by the High Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has failed to satisfy this Court how the findings recorded by the Trial Court, confirmed   by   the   High   Court,   holding   the   accused   guilty   for having   committed   the   murder   after   raping   a   minor   girl   are perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. Under the above circumstances, we confirm the judgment and order of the conviction   passed   by   the   Trial   Court,   confirmed   by   the   High Court. 7.  Now, so far as the request and the prayer made on behalf of the accused to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment is concerned,   having  heard   the  learned  counsel  appearing  on behalf of the accused  on the question of death sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court, confirmed by the High Court and Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015 7 considering the totality and circumstances of the case and the decisions of this Court in the cases of  (supra) and Bachan Singh  Shyam Singh  (supra), we are of the opinion that the present case does not fall within the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ warranting death penalty. We have considered each of the circumstance and the crime as well as the facts leading to the commission of the crime by the accused. Though, we acknowledge the gravity of the offence, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this case would fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ warranting the death sentence. The offence committed, undoubtedly, can be said to be brutal, but does not warrant death sentence. It is required to be noted   that   the   accused   was   not   a   previous   convict   or   a professional killer. At the time of commission of offence, he was 19   years   of   age.   His   jail   conduct   also   reported   to   be   good. Considering   the   aforesaid   mitigating   circumstances   and considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we think that it will be in the interest of justice to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.   Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015 8 8.  In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above, present appeal challenging the conviction is hereby dismissed. His   conviction   for   the   offences   under   Section   376   (2)   (f)   and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act is hereby confirmed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated   above,   we   commute   the   death   sentence   to   life imprisonment. 9.  Present appeal stands disposed of accordingly, in terms of the above.  ……………..............................J. (A. K. SIKRI)   ……………….............................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER ) ……………….............................J.                            (M. R. SHAH ) New Delhi, February 05, 2019.