Case Note & Summary
The proceedings arose from a criminal confirmation case and connected criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The State sought confirmation of the death sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Bhokar, in Special POCSO Case No. 06 of 2021, while the accused challenged his conviction and sentence. The incident occurred on 20.01.2021, when a six-year-old girl, daughter of the informant and his wife, accompanied her parents to their agricultural field. The accused was employed by the informant as a servant for herding buffaloes and was known to the family. That afternoon, when the accused went to graze buffaloes, the child ran towards him and was last seen in his company by her parents. When the child and accused were later missing, a search was conducted. In the river bed, the child's footwear and frock were found, and then her naked dead body with multiple injuries and bite marks. The accused was found naked nearby and allegedly confessed to raping and murdering the child. The informant lodged the FIR. Investigation was conducted by PW15, who filed a chargesheet. The trial court framed charges under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act and after trial, held the accused guilty of offences under sections 302, 363, 376(A), 376(2)(j)(m), 376-AB, 377 IPC and sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 POCSO Act. The trial court found the case in the rarest of rare category and sentenced the accused to death. The High Court heard the confirmation case and appeal. The State argued that the evidence, including last seen together, recovery of body and belongings, DNA and forensic evidence, and the accused's naked apprehension, proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State contended there were 47 independent injuries including bite marks, and that the accused, being a trusted servant, committed brutal rape, sodomy and murder. The State also relied on precedents on the admissibility of scientific evidence and the rarest of rare doctrine. The defence argued that there was no fair investigation or trial, that the case was projected as open and shut, and that there was no independent evidence except the parents' testimony. The accused's counsel raised fundamental objections about the quality of investigation. The extracted text ends during the accused's submissions, and the final operative order of the High Court is not included. The judgment was reserved on 11.08.2023 and pronounced on 15.09.2023.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Murder of Minor - Sections 302, 363, 376(A), 376(2)(j)(m), 376-AB, 377 Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Prosecution alleged accused, a servant known to family, lured a six-year-old girl, raped, sodomized and murdered her; body found naked with multiple injuries and bite marks; accused found naked nearby - Trial court convicted accused and awarded death sentence; High Court heard confirmation and appeal (Paras 2-5). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Together and Recovery - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376-AB - Accused was last seen with victim by her parents; dead body, footwear, frock and accused's belongings found at river bed; DNA and forensic evidence linked accused - State argued evidence was overwhelming and of sterling quality, while accused contended no independent evidence except parents (Paras 4, 7-10, 14). C) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Rarest of Rare Doctrine - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 376-AB - Trial court weighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances and held case fell in rarest of rare category, awarding death sentence; High Court heard arguments on sentencing policy and confirmation - Held by trial court that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances (Paras 5, 11-12). D) Evidence - DNA and Forensic Analysis - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376-AB; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4, 6 - Forensic expert testified to DNA analysis procedure and findings; State relied on Omprakash to argue that minor irregularities in procedure do not render forensic evidence inadmissible; accused challenged fairness and quality of investigation (Paras 10, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed kidnapping, rape, sodomy and murder of the six-year-old victim; whether the death sentence awarded by the trial court satisfies the rarest of rare criteria and should be confirmed; whether the investigation and trial were fair and evidence legally sufficient.
Law Points
- rarest of rare doctrine
- death sentence confirmation
- POCSO offences
- last seen together
- circumstantial evidence
- DNA evidence admissibility
- aggravating and mitigating circumstances
- burden of proof
- sexual assault on minor
- fair trial
