Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Rape and Murder of Minor. Conviction Upheld but Death Penalty Not Warranted Due to Lack of Aggravating Circumstances.

  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma, was convicted by the Trial Court for kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 13-year-old girl, and for destroying evidence by throwing her semi-nude body into a dry well. The Trial Court sentenced him to death under Section 376-A IPC, holding the case as 'rarest of rare'. The High Court confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appellant's appeal. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave limited to the question of sentence. The Court noted that the conviction was based on strong circumstantial evidence, including DNA matching, and was not interfered with. However, considering the absence of prior criminal record and the possibility of reformation, the Court held that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Death Penalty - Rarest of Rare Doctrine - Section 376-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court considered whether the case fell within the 'rarest of rare' category for imposition of death sentence. Held that while the crime was heinous, the absence of prior criminal record and possibility of reformation were mitigating factors, commuting death to life imprisonment (Paras 5, 6).

B) Evidence - DNA Profiling - Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution relied on DNA evidence matching appellant's DNA with vaginal slide of deceased, along with other circumstantial evidence. Held that the conviction was based on reliable scientific evidence and was not interfered with (Paras 10, 12).

C) Criminal Procedure - Death Reference - Section 366, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court confirmed the death reference made by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court, while upholding conviction, modified the sentence (Paras 2, 3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant deserves to be imposed with the extreme sentence of death penalty?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission.

Law Points

  • Death penalty
  • Rarest of rare doctrine
  • Aggravating and mitigating circumstances
  • Section 376-A IPC
  • Section 366 CrPC
  • DNA evidence
  • Circumstantial evidence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (10) 19

Criminal Appeal No. 1523-1524 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 9254-9255/2019)

2019-10-03

Surya Kant, J.

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction and death sentence for offences including kidnapping, rape, murder, and destruction of evidence.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the High Court's confirmation of death sentence and dismissal of his appeal.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant to death; High Court confirmed death sentence and dismissed appeal.

Issues

Whether the case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting death penalty?

Submissions/Arguments

State argued for confirmation of death sentence; appellant argued for commutation based on mitigating circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The death penalty is reserved for the 'rarest of rare' cases. In this case, while the crime was heinous, the absence of prior criminal record and possibility of reformation were mitigating factors, making life imprisonment the appropriate sentence.

Judgment Excerpts

Hovering between life and death, the appellant assails the judgment dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby the death reference made by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) has been confirmed and the appellant’s criminal appeal has been dismissed. Thus, the limited issue which survives for our consideration is whether or not the appellant deserves to be imposed with the extreme sentence of death penalty?

Procedural History

Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant to death on 19th July 2016. High Court confirmed death sentence and dismissed appeal on 6th December 2016. Supreme Court granted leave limited to sentence on 10th January 2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(m), 376-A, 302, 201, 228A
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012:
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 366, 164
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown, Quashes Extradition Proceedings, and Awards Permanent Alimony
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Rape and Murder of Minor. Conviction Upheld but Death Penalty Not Warranted Due to Lack of Aggravating Circumstances.