Admissibility of Deceased's Prior Statements Regarding Sexual Assault and Torture as Res Gestae under Section 32(1)

The deceased, a girl under 16 years of age, was induced by Accused No. 3 (Santosh) to leave her home in Wadala and was kept in a flat in Nalasopara occupied by Accused No. 1 (Rahul) from April 2014.

The victim was repeatedly raped by Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

In the early hours of May 7, 2014, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 murdered her by strangulation, placed her body in a red trolley bag, and transported it from Nalasopara to Dadar, and subsequently to Pune via a hired taxi.

The bag was abandoned at Talegaon Railway Station.

A SIM card concealed by the victim in her underwear led police to a witness (PW-25) and eventually to the accused.

Physical evidence, including matching nylon ropes, CCTV footage, and Call Detail Records (CDR), linked the appellants to the crime.

The trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 376-D, 363, 366-A, and 201 r/w 120-B of the IPC and the POCSO Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life.

The court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 376-D (Gang Rape), and Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC, alongside Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

It invoked Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, which clothes statements made by a deceased person regarding the "circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death" with relevancy, regardless of whether the person expected death at the time.

Regarding sentencing, the court relied on *Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab* and *Ravinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi*, which establish 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 do so upon considering the gravity of the case.

The High Court found the chain of circumstances unbroken.

It held that the testimony of PW-25 was crucial, as the deceased's oral revelations of rape and confinement constituted "circumstances of the transaction" leading to her death, making them admissible under Section 32(1).

The court corroborated this with: (a) Forensic evidence matching the nylon rope found in Accused No. 1’s flat with the rope used to tie the victim.

(b) CDR and Tower Location data placing Accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the route from Nalasopara to Pune at the time the body was dumped.

(c) Test Identification Parades where taxi drivers identified the accused.

The court rejected the defense's challenge to the CCTV evidence for lack of Section 65-B certification, noting that other substantive evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The court highlighted the "extreme depravity" and pre-planning involved in the gang rape and murder of a minor.

It held that the prosecution proved the case of gang rape and cold-blooded murder through a seamless chain of circumstances.

Regarding the sentence, the Court modified the Trial Court's order technically: while acknowledging a Sessions Judge cannot restrict a Section 302 life sentence to "natural life," the High Court, exercising its own powers, confirmed the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the appellants' natural lives due to the brutal nature of the crime.

All appeals were dismissed.