Admissibility of Deceased's Prior Statements and Confirmation of Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life

The victim, a 16-year-old girl, was allegedly lured from her home in Wadala by Accused No. 3 (Santosh) and kept in a flat in Nalasopara rented by Accused No. 1 (Rahul).

Between April 22, 2014, and May 7, 2014, she was repeatedly raped by all three appellants.

In the early hours of May 7, 2014, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Jishan) murdered the victim by strangulation.

They transported her body in a red trolley bag from Nalasopara to Dadar, where Accused No. 3 arranged a taxi to Pune.

The body was abandoned at Talegaon Railway Station.

Discovery was made through a TATA Docomo SIM card the victim had concealed in her underwear, which led police to a witness (PW-25) who detailed her confinement and abuse.

The trial court convicted all three for conspiracy, kidnapping, gang rape, murder, and destruction of evidence, sentencing them to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life.

Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants for murder and conspiracy.

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

Whether a Sessions Judge has the jurisdiction to impose a life sentence "for the remainder of natural life" under Section 302 of the IPC.

The court applied Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, which makes a deceased person’s statement relevant if it relates to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death.

It used Section 376-D of the IPC regarding gang rape, noting that acting in furtherance of common intention deems each person liable for the rape.

Regarding sentencing, the court relied on Ravinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab, which establish that while a trial court cannot impose a life sentence for the "remainder of natural life" under Section 302 IPC, the High Court possesses such power.

The court found the chain of circumstances complete based on several factors: the evidence of PW-3, who saw the victim leave with Accused No. 3; PW-23 and PW-12, who confirmed Accused No. 1’s occupancy of the Nalasopara flat; and the medical evidence confirming violent sexual assault and strangulation.

The court held the victim's disclosures to PW-25 admissible under Section 32(1) as "circumstances of the transaction" leading to death.

Scientific evidence significantly bolstered the case: nylon rope recovered from Accused No. 1’s flat matched the rope used to tie the victim, and Call Detail Records (CDR) linked to seized IMEI numbers placed the accused at the crime scene and travel route.

The court rejected the defense's challenge to the lack of Section 65-B certificates for CCTV by relying on the independent substantive evidence of the taxi drivers (PW-6 and PW-16) who identified the accused.

The court modified the sentencing order to correct a jurisdictional error: while a Sessions Judge cannot restrict the life sentence to the "remainder of natural life" under Section 302, the High Court affirmed this specific punishment given the extreme depravity and brutality of the crime.

All appeals were dismissed.