Madhya Pradesh High Court commutes death sentence to life without remission citing mental illness, directs police to photograph crime scenes and injuries in every case

The accused was prosecuted for abducting a girl aged approximately seven years, confining her in his house, and repeatedly assaulting her with a knife, resulting in her death.

The prosecution case was supported by eyewitness testimony, CCTV footage, seizure of the knife and blood-stained clothes, and medical and DNA evidence.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 363, 364, 342 and 302 of the IPC and Section 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act, imposing, inter alia, the death penalty for murder.

A death reference was made under Section 366 of the CrPC, and the accused filed an appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.

The accused relied upon medical records showing mild mental retardation, intellectual impairment, substantial disability, behavioural problems and a history of psychiatric treatment.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused abducted, confined and fatally assaulted the minor victim, thereby committing offences under Sections 363, 364, 342 and 302 of the IPC and Section 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act

Whether the accused was entitled to the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the IPC

Whether the case satisfied the “rarest of rare” standard warranting confirmation of the death penalty, or whether the sentence should be commuted in view of the accused’s mental condition and the possibility of reformation

Whether directions were necessary concerning the scientific documentation and photographic recording of crime scenes and injuries in criminal investigations

The Court applied Sections 363, 364, 342 and 302 of the IPC and Section 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act to the proved acts of abduction, confinement, aggravated sexual assault and murder.

Section 84 of the IPC exempts a person who, at the time of committing the act, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law; the relevant inquiry concerns the accused’s mental condition at the time of the offence.

Relying on Rattan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that unsoundness of mind must be established with reference to circumstances preceding, attending and following the crime, although the accused’s evidentiary burden is no higher than the civil standard.

For sentencing, the Court applied the “rarest of rare” and two-stage tests: aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be balanced, and life imprisonment must be found unquestionably inadequate because reformation and rehabilitation are unavailable.

The Court also relied on Gudda, Manoj and Sundar @ Sundarrajan for the principle that brutality alone cannot justify capital punishment and that the State must place material before the Court to demonstrate that the accused cannot be reformed.

The Court found the prosecution evidence reliable and mutually corroborative.

The eyewitnesses described the accused taking the child into his house and emerging with a blood-stained knife and clothes; the CCTV footage corroborated the abduction and the accused’s presence at the scene; and the medical evidence established the 29 stab and incised injuries.

The DNA evidence also connected the accused’s clothes and the seized knife with the victim’s biological material.

Although the accused had a documented history of psychiatric treatment, intellectual impairment, behavioural oddities and a tendency to harm children and tease girls, the record did not establish that he was legally insane immediately before, during or soon after the incident.

Section 84 IPC was therefore held inapplicable, and the convictions were sustained.

However, while considering sentence, the Court treated the accused’s mental disability, psychiatric history, satisfactory jail conduct, absence of criminal antecedents and medical records as significant mitigating circumstances.

Applying the principles in Jai Prakash and related cases, it held that the crime’s extreme brutality, by itself, did not establish that the case was the rarest of rare or that reformation was impossible.

Nevertheless, given the documented dangerous behavioural tendency, the Court considered the accused’s release into ordinary society unsafe and imposed life imprisonment extending to his natural life without remission.

The death reference was not confirmed.

The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without remission, extending to the natural life of the accused, with a fine of ₹1,000 and 40 days’ imprisonment in default.

The appeal was partly allowed and the reference answered accordingly.

The Court further directed that, in every case involving injuries or death, police must photograph and place on record the crime scene, bloodstains and the injuries of injured persons or deceased victims, with the treating doctors and investigating officers ensuring proper photographic documentation.