Case Note & Summary
The case originates from a kidnapping and murder of a two-and-half-year-old boy, Golu, who went missing on 14 May 2010 from Surendragarh, Nagpur. The boy's father, Ganesh Chaudhari, lodged a missing report at Gittikhadan Police Station, stating that Golu was last seen playing in the courtyard around noon. On the same evening, the father and neighbours suspected the accused, Chandrashekhar Shriram Atram, because he was giving evasive answers about the boy's whereabouts. Around 1:30 AM on 15 May 2010, they brought the accused to the police station. The police officer on duty, PSI Subhash Unhale, interrogated the accused, who disclosed that he had kept the boy beneath a bridge on Kalmeshwar Road. Acting on this information, the police party along with the accused and the complainant proceeded to the location, where after searching several bridges, the accused led them to a plastic gunny bag under a bridge. The bag contained the dead body of the boy, with a cloth pad stuffed in his mouth and limbs tied with a jute string. Blood was oozing from the mouth. A panchanama was prepared, and the body was sent for post-mortem. The complainant alleged that the murder was committed because he had not paid Rs. 5,000 demanded by the accused earlier. Medical examination revealed death due to asphyxia caused by gagging, and injuries to the anus indicating unnatural sexual assault. The accused was charged under Sections 364, 377 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to death for murder, life imprisonment for kidnapping and unnatural offence, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for kidnapping to subject to grievous hurt. The death sentence led to a confirmation case before the High Court, and the accused filed a criminal appeal. The prosecution argued that the circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence by the mother and landlord, discovery of the body at the instance of the accused, and the short time gap, proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence contended that the missing report contradicted the time of disappearance, making the last seen theory doubtful, and that the accused's conduct of cooperating in the search was inconsistent with guilt. The court heard extensive arguments on admissibility of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and on the rarest of rare doctrine for death penalty. The judgment was reserved on 25 January 2013 and pronounced on 25 February 2013.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - Prosecution relied on testimony of PW1 and PW4 to establish that accused was last seen taking the two-and-half-year-old boy away around 9 AM; the body was discovered within 24 hours at the instance of the accused; held that the short time gap between last seen and discovery completes the chain of circumstances, proving guilt (Paras 9-11). B) Criminal Law - Discovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act - Custody and Disclosure - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - Accused was not formally arrested but was in police custody when interrogated by PSI; his statement recorded in station diary led to discovery of the dead body beneath a bridge; held that such discovery is admissible even without formal arrest as accused was in police custody (Paras 9-11). C) Criminal Law - Offences - Kidnapping, Unnatural Offence and Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 364, 367, 377, 302 - Accused kidnapped minor boy from lawful custody of parents; medical evidence showed asphyxia due to gagging and injuries to anus indicating unnatural sexual assault; conviction under Sections 364, 367, 377 and 302 upheld as charges proved beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 7, 9). D) Sentencing - Death Penalty - Rarest of Rare Doctrine - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Trial court imposed death penalty; prosecution argued that murder of a minor child coupled with unnatural offence falls within the rarest of rare category, citing Supreme Court precedents; court to determine if death sentence is justified (Paras 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has established the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the death penalty is justified in the facts of the case.
Law Points
- circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- discovery under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
- custody without formal arrest
- admissibility of disclosure statement leading to discovery
- rarest of rare doctrine for death penalty
