Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nand Kishore, was convicted by the trial court for the rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl, and sentenced to death. The High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal. The facts revealed that the deceased had gone to a Mela with her younger brother (PW-4) on 03.02.2013. The appellant, aged about 50, took her away, raped and murdered her. The body was found headless with severe injuries. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of PW-4 who identified the appellant in a Test Identification Parade and stated that the appellant took the deceased from the Mela. PW-7 also saw the appellant with a girl in yellow frock at 9 p.m. that day. Forensic and medical evidence supported the prosecution. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, and imposed death sentence, holding it a 'rarest of rare' case. The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient and the 'last seen' theory applicable. However, on the issue of sentence, the Court noted that the trial court and High Court failed to consider mitigating circumstances such as the appellant's socio-economic background, lack of criminal antecedents, and possibility of reform. The Court held that the reasons recorded did not constitute 'special reasons' under Section 354(3) CrPC. Relying on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Swamy Shradhananda v. State of Karnataka, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a direction that the appellant shall not be released from prison for the rest of his natural life.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Death Penalty - Rarest of Rare Doctrine - Sections 302, 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC, Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Sections 235(2), 354(3) CrPC - The court held that while the conviction was confirmed, the death sentence was not justified as the trial court and High Court failed to consider mitigating circumstances such as the appellant's socio-economic background, lack of criminal antecedents, and possibility of reform. The sentence was commuted to life imprisonment with a direction that the appellant shall not be released for the rest of his natural life. (Paras 12-18) B) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Sections 302, 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC - The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of PW-4 (brother of deceased) who last saw the appellant with the deceased, PW-7 who saw the appellant with a girl in yellow frock, and forensic/medical evidence. The chain of circumstances was complete and consistent with the guilt of the appellant. (Paras 10-11) C) Criminal Procedure - Sentencing - Special Reasons - Section 354(3) CrPC - The court observed that the reasons recorded by the trial court and High Court for imposing death sentence did not constitute 'special reasons' as required under Section 354(3) CrPC. The focus was solely on the crime, ignoring the circumstances of the criminal. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death sentence imposed on the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act is sustainable in law, and whether the case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a direction that the appellant shall not be released from prison for the rest of his natural life.
Law Points
- Death sentence is exception
- life imprisonment is rule
- special reasons required under Section 354(3) CrPC
- mitigating circumstances must be considered
- Bachan Singh principles
- rarest of rare doctrine
- last seen theory
- circumstantial evidence
