Admissibility of a deceased victim’s statements regarding sexual torture and life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.

The victim (aged 15-16) was induced by Accused No. 3 (Santosh) to leave her home in Wadala and was kept in a flat in Nalasopara rented by Accused No. 1 (Rahul)

Evidence from a friend (PW-25) indicated the victim was repeatedly raped by Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3

In the night of May 6-7, 2014, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 murdered the victim by strangulation and transported her body in a red trolley bag to Talegaon Railway Station

The police traced the accused via a SIM card the victim had concealed in her underwear

Upon arrest, nylon rope matching the ligatures on the body and a purchase receipt for the trolley bag were recovered from Accused No. 1’s flat

The Trial Court convicted all three under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D, 302, and 201 r/w 120-B of the IPC, and the POCSO Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment for the "remainder of natural life"

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory and recovery of incriminating articles, to prove the guilt of the appellants

2. Whether the statements made by the deceased to PW-25 regarding sexual assault and threats to her life are admissible as dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act

3. Whether a Trial Court has the jurisdiction to impose a sentence of life imprisonment specifically for the "remainder of natural life" under Section 302 IPC

The Court applied Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, which renders relevant statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of death or обстоятельства (circumstances) of the transaction resulting in death

Regarding the charge of gang rape, the Court applied Section 376-D of the IPC, noting that if one or more persons in a group act in furtherance of common intention, each is deemed to have committed the offense

On sentencing, the Court relied on *Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab* and *Ravinder Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi*, which clarify that while a Trial Court cannot restrict life imprisonment to the "remainder of natural life" under Section 302, the High Court possesses the power to impose such a specialized sentence

The Court found the chain of circumstances to be unbroken.

It relied on the testimony of PW-12 (grocery owner) and PW-23 (co-tenant) to establish that Accused No. 1 occupied the flat where the victim was held

The forensic link was established through the matching nylon ropes found at the crime scene and Accused No. 1’s residence

The Court held the victim’s disclosures to PW-25 were admissible under Section 32(1) because they related to the "circumstances of the transaction" (the ongoing abuse and confinement) that culminated in her murder

The Call Detail Records (CDR) and tower locations corroborated the travel of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the body-disposal site back to Mumbai

Although the Trial Court technically overstepped in specifying the "natural life" duration under Section 302, the High Court determined the extreme depravity and brutality toward a minor warranted the confirmation of that specific sentence under its own powers

It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants conspired to kidnap, gang-rape, and murder the minor victim

While noting the Trial Court’s lack of authority to mandate "remainder of natural life" under Section 302 IPC, the High Court exercised its own discretion to confirm that sentence for the Section 302 conviction, and affirmed the same sentence as validly imposed by the Trial Court under Section 376-D IPC

All sentences are to run concurrently