Case Note & Summary
The matter before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur involved a death reference and a connected criminal appeal arising from the judgment of the Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 42/2022. The trial court had convicted the accused-appellant, Ramesh Kumar S/o Nanuram Dhakad, for multiple offences including abduction, murder, rape, and causing disappearance of evidence, and had imposed severe sentences including the death penalty under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution case originated from a written report filed on April 22, 2022, by complainant Jamnalal at Police Station Bassi, District Chittorgarh, alleging that his three-year-old daughter, referred to as 'H' for anonymity, went missing on April 21, 2022, during a wedding function at village Laxmipura. The complainant alleged that witnesses saw the child walking toward a river with the accused, and upon confrontation the accused confessed to throwing the child into a well. The dead body was recovered on April 22, 2022. The report also alleged a prior act of the accused involving biting the private part of a two-year-old boy, 'U'. FIR No. 68/2022 was registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the POCSO Act, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. After investigation and trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced on March 29, 2023. The trial court awarded death penalty for murder, life imprisonment for POCSO offences, and rigorous imprisonment for other offences. The death reference was submitted under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of death sentence, and the accused filed a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging the conviction and sentence. Before the High Court, the appellant advanced arguments challenging the reliability of circumstantial evidence, contending that the chain of circumstances was broken, the FIR was belated, the accused was a stranger from 77 kilometers away, no independent eyewitness supported the prosecution, and recoveries under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act lacked trustworthiness. The appellant also pointed to contradictions in the statements of last seen witnesses. The High Court noted the mandatory requirement of protecting the identity of victims of sexual offences as per Supreme Court decisions in Nipun Saxena and Birbal Kumar Nishad, and accordingly anonymized the victims as 'H' and 'U'. The provided text does not contain the High Court's final analysis or operative order, hence the final decision, ratio decidendi, and reasoning of the High Court are not available in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Death Reference - Sections 366 and 374(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Confirmation of death sentence and appeal against conviction - Trial court convicted accused under Sections 363, 302, 201 IPC; Sections 5(m)/6 and 3(d)/4 POCSO Act; Section 84 JJ Act; Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and imposed death penalty; death reference submitted for confirmation and accused filed appeal - High Court was seized of common questions of fact and law; final holding not available in provided text (Paras 1-2, 10-11). B) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Last seen and recovery evidence - Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence including last seen witnesses PW-6 Ratan and PW-11 Rajulal and recoveries of clothes, underwear and identity documents; appellant argued chain of circumstances was broken and recoveries lacked trustworthiness - Court's reasoning on these contentions not available in provided text (Paras 12-17). C) Criminal Law - Offences Against Children - POCSO Act and JJ Act - Sections 3(d)/4, 5(m)/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 84 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Allegations of rape, murder and causing disappearance of evidence of minor girl after abduction from wedding - Accused convicted by trial court; appeal disputed reliability of prosecution narrative including delayed FIR and improbability of abduction from crowded venue - High Court's final determination not available in provided text (Paras 4-5, 7, 13-17). D) Constitutional Law - Victim Anonymity - Directions in Nipun Saxena and Birbal Kumar Nishad - Protection of identity of victims of sexual offences - High Court directed that real names of deceased girl and boy victims be withheld and referred to as H and U in line with Supreme Court mandates - Held that identity protection is mandatory (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's conviction and death sentence for offences under IPC, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act, and Juvenile Justice Act were sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and whether the death reference should be confirmed.
Law Points
- Protection of child victim identity mandatory
- circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain
- recoveries under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act require trustworthiness
- death sentence confirmation under Section 366 CrPC
- appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC
- burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
