Sentencing Power of Trial Courts Restricted Regarding Natural Life Imprisonment Under Section 302 IPC

The victim, a 16-year-old girl, 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).

Between April 24 and May 6, 2014, she was repeatedly raped by all three accused.

In the night of May 6-7, 2014, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 murdered her by strangulation, packed her body in a trolley bag, and abandoned it at Talegaon Railway Station, Pune.

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

Forensic reports matched nylon rope found in Accused No. 1’s flat with the rope used to tie the victim’s body.

The Trial Court convicted all three under Sections 302, 376-D, 363, 366-A, 201 r/w 120-B of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of 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 to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the statements made by the deceased to witness PW-25 regarding sexual assault and threats are admissible as dying declarations?

3. Whether a Sessions Judge has the jurisdiction to impose a sentence of life imprisonment "for the remainder of natural life" under Section 302 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 applied Section 376-D of the IPC regarding gang rape, noting the deeming provision where each member of a group is liable if any one commits rape in furtherance of common intention, relying on *State of Rajasthan v. Hemraj* [(2009) 12 SCC 403].

Regarding sentencing, it followed *Ravinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi* [(2024) 2 SCC 323] and *Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab* [(2021) 3 SCC 380], which clarify that only High Courts and the Supreme Court—not Trial Courts—can formalize a life sentence to mean "remainder of natural life" under Section 302 IPC.

The Court found the chain of circumstances complete: PW-3 saw Accused No. 3 take the victim; PW-23 and PW-12 proved Accused No. 1 occupied the Nalasopara flat; and PW-6/PW-11/PW-16 (drivers) identified the accused transporting the trolley bag.

The Court held the victim's statements to PW-25 (admitting rape and fear of the accused) were admissible under Section 32(1) as "circumstances of the transaction".

Critical forensic evidence linked the nylon rope in Rahul’s flat to the crime scene.

CDR data and IMEI analysis placed the accused at the locations of the body’s disposal.

While acknowledging that the Trial Judge exceeded jurisdiction by imposing "remainder of natural life" for murder, the High Court exercised its own power to maintain that sentence, citing the "extreme depravity" and "brutal manner" of the sexual assault and murder of a minor.

It held that while a Sessions Judge cannot specify "remainder of natural life" under Section 302 IPC, the High Court possesses the authority to do so.

Given the cold-blooded nature of the crime against a minor, the Court confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life for the offences under Sections 302 and 376-D IPC.

The appeals were dismissed.