Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vijay Raikwar, was convicted by the Trial Court for the rape and murder of a 7½-year-old girl under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 IPC, and Sections 5(i), 5(m), 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court sentenced him to death, which was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against conviction and sentence. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence: the accused was last seen with the victim, gave her a one-rupee coin, and told a witness to go away; the victim's frock was found on a cot in the accused's house, and blood-stained mattress and bedsheet matched the victim's blood group; the accused failed to explain these incriminating circumstances in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no perversity in the concurrent findings. However, on the question of sentence, the Court considered the mitigating circumstances: the accused was 19 years old at the time of the offence, had no previous criminal record, and his jail conduct was good. Relying on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Shyam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting death penalty. Accordingly, the Court confirmed the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Murder of Minor - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based on last seen together, recovery of victim's frock and blood-stained articles from accused's house, and failure to explain incriminating circumstances - Held that prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 6-6.1).
B) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Rarest of Rare Case - Mitigating circumstances including young age (19 years), no previous criminal record, good jail conduct - Held that case does not fall within rarest of rare category warranting death penalty; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable and whether the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, confirming the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 IPC and Sections 5(i), 5(m), 5(r) read with Section 6 POCSO Act. However, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen together
- failure to explain incriminating circumstances
- rarest of rare doctrine
- mitigating circumstances
- age of accused
- no previous criminal record
- good jail conduct
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2015
A. K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M. R. Shah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and death sentence for rape and murder of a minor girl.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal or commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.
Filing Reason
Appellant aggrieved by High Court judgment confirming conviction and death sentence.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court convicted and sentenced to death; High Court confirmed conviction and death sentence.
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Whether the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that there was no eyewitness and the case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Alternatively, appellant prayed for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment, relying on Bachan Singh and Shyam Singh.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be sustained if the chain of evidence is complete and the accused fails to explain incriminating circumstances. Death sentence is not warranted in every brutal offence; mitigating circumstances such as young age, no previous criminal record, and good jail conduct may justify commutation to life imprisonment.
Judgment Excerpts
We are of the firm view that the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 201 of the IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act does not call for any interference as the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of evidence.
We are of the opinion that the present case does not fall within the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ warranting death penalty.
Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances and considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we think that it will be in the interest of justice to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Procedural History
The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2013, convicted and sentenced to death. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2014 confirmed the conviction and death sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 376(2)(f), 201
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): 5(i), 5(m), 5(r), 6
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 313
