Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for confirmation of the death sentence and an appeal against conviction by the accused. The prosecution case was that on 7.1.2016, a four-year-old girl, Siddhi, was lured by two neighbours, accused Bhagwat and Rahul, with chocolates, and taken away. Subsequently, she was found dead in a bag in the house of accused No. 1's father, with injuries indicating gang rape, unnatural intercourse, and murder by gagging with raw cotton. The trial court convicted both accused for offences including kidnapping, rape, unnatural offence, murder, and destruction of evidence, sentencing them to death for murder. The accused appealed, challenging the evidence and raising the issue of juvenility for accused No. 1. The State sought confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court heard arguments and considered the reliability of last seen evidence, possession of the house where the body was found, medical evidence of sexual assault, and the determination of age. The court also examined the applicability of the rarest of rare doctrine for imposing capital punishment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Together - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Reliability of witnesses placing the accused with the victim shortly before the crime was challenged - The court examined the credibility of PW6, PW8, and PW13 and their opportunity to witness the events (Paras 10,11). B) Criminal Law - Custodial Death - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 - When the dead body is found in a house occupied by relatives of the accused, the burden shifts to them to explain - The prosecution case rested on the discovery of the victim's body in the house of accused No. 1's father; the court considered documentary and oral evidence to establish possession (Paras 10,11). C) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence of Sexual Assault - Absence of Smegma and Penile Injury - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 375, 377 - The presence of oedema on the penis and absence of smegma was relied on as evidence of recent intercourse; the court considered alternative explanations such as forceful masturbation (Paras 10,11). D) Criminal Law - Determination of Juvenility - Section 7A, 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Benefit of Doubt as to Age - The appellant argued that accused No. 1 was a juvenile based on a medical report showing age 18 years with +/- 1 year; the court considered the determination of age in light of the evidence (Paras 7,10,11). E) Criminal Law - Confirmation of Death Sentence - Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Rarest of Rare Doctrine - The court examined whether the case fell within the rarest of rare category warranting capital punishment for the brutal rape and murder of a minor (Paras 1,2,8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence of capital punishment awarded to the accused for the offences of kidnapping, rape, unnatural offence, murder, and destruction of evidence of a four-year-old girl is sustainable; Whether the accused No. 1 was a juvenile at the time of the incident.
Law Points
- Determination of juvenility under Juvenile Justice Act
- appreciation of circumstantial evidence
- absence of smegma as evidence of recent sexual intercourse
- sentencing in gang rape and murder of minor
- confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 CrPC
