The Supreme Court today confirmed the death penalty awarded to a person convicted for rape and murder of two minor children..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant..Justices Nariman and Surya Kant confirmed the conviction and death sentence while Justice Khanna dissented with respect to the sentence. He said that the case does not fall within the rarest of the rare category and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment..Facts.One Mohanakrishnan who had borrowed a vehicle, picked up two children, a girl aged 10 years old and her brother aged 7 years old from outside a Hindu Temple as the children were preparing to go to school..At 9.30 a.m. Mohanakrishnan picked up the Appellant from his house. The children were then taken to a remote area called the Gopalsamy Temple Hills and rape was allegedly committed on the girl..Thereafter, considering that the girl had been brutally raped (her anus having ruptured), the two accused bought cow dung powder, a poisonous substance. This substance together with milk was allegedly administered by both Mohanakrishnan as well as the Appellant to the two children in an attempt to do away with both of them. Both children ingested only a small portion of it and did not die..Mohanakrishnan and the Appellant thereafter to do away with both the children threw them in Parambikulam-Axhiyar Project canal. It was alleged by the prosecution that the girl was tied up and pushed into the canal by the Appellant whereas the boy was pushed into the canal by Mohanakrishnan. The dead bodies of the girl and boy were subsequently recovered from the canal.The appellant was apprehended by the police while Mohanakrishnan was killed in an encounter. That left only the Appellant to be tried as an accused. A confession was recorded before the Magistrate in a statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Appellant which was partially retracted later by a letter, which the Appellant asked the trial court to treat as a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses – 49 in all. The trial court in a detailed judgment ultimately held the Appellant guilty under Section 120-B, Section 364-A, Section 376, Section 302, Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 376 IPC, the Appellant was awarded life sentence, and for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he was given the death sentence..On appeal, the Madras High Court set aside the Appellant’s conviction under Sections 120-B and 364-A, but confirmed the sentences under Sections 376, 302, Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 201. After considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately the death sentence imposed by the trial court was confirmed by the High Court..Supreme Court affirms Conviction.The appellant preferred to assail the verdict before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after careful consideration of the High Court judgment concluded that the High Court had done an exhaustive analysis of all aspects. The Supreme Court held that though this was a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of events had been made out and the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it upheld the conviction of the appellant..Supreme Court on Death Penalty.It then proceeded to address the question of the sentence handed down to the appellant..The Appellant had pleaded that the mitigating circumstances in the present case are that the accused belongs to a rural area and he is only 23 years old and has no other previous conviction, and if let out will not be a menace to society. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has argued that this is an extremely heinous crime committed ruthlessly and that the aggravating circumstances made out by the High Court clearly outweigh the alleged mitigating circumstances. Therefore, this is a clear case for imposition of the death penalty..The Court cited a catena of judgments in this regard including Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, [(1983) 3 SCC 470], Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2017) 6 SCC 1], popularly known as Nirbhaya case, Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra [(2017) 6 SCC 631] and Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2019) 4 SCC 415]..The Court noted that the present case consisted of a crime even more shocking than that in Khushwinder’s case, in that a young 10-year-old girl was horribly gang-raped after which she and her brother aged 7 years were murdered by throwing them into a canal which caused their death by drowning..The Court also noted the recent amendments made to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide “The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2019”..By way of the amendments, the minimum sentence has gone up from 10 years to 20 years, and imprisonment for life has now been expressly stated to be imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the person. Significant among the amendments is that death penalty has also been introduced..The Court held that trial court and High Court have correctly applied and balanced aggravating circumstances with mitigating circumstances to find that the crime committed was in cold blood and involved the rape of a minor girl and murder of two children in the most heinous fashion possible..No remorse was shown by the Appellant at all and given the nature of the crime it is unlikely that the Appellant, if set free, would not be capable of committing such a crime yet again, the Court said. The fact that the Appellant made a confessional statement would not, on the facts of this case, mean that he showed remorse for committing such a heinous crime..It, therefore, confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appeals..Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissents on sentencing.Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote a separate judgment concurring with the finding of the majority on conviction but dissenting with regard to the sentence..Justice Khanna dealt at length on ‘rarest of rare’ jurisprudence in death penalty matters..The expression ‘rarest of rare’ literally means rarest even in the rare, i.e. a rarest case of an extreme nature. The expression and the choice of words mean that punishment by death is an extremely narrow and confined rare exception, he held..The normal, if not an unexceptional rule, is punishment for life, which rule can be trimmed and upended only when the award of sentence for life is unquestionably foreclosed. Thus, Justice Khanna opined that capital punishment is awarded and invoked only if the facts and material produced by the prosecution disdainfully and fully establish that the option of imprisonment for life will not suffice and is wholly disproportionate and therefore the case belongs to the ‘rarest of rare’ category..Various judgments were cited in this regard including the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others..“In V. Sriharan (supra), the majority judgment referring to the above criticism, while fully endorsing the anguish, had observed that the situation on the lack of uniformity and inconsistency in awarding death sentence and its ill effects is of serious concern…” .Khanna J referred to the various mitigating factors in favour of the appellant including the fact that he was 23 years of age, was a first-time offender and belonged to a poor family. Further, the appellant Manoharan was not initially involved in the abduction and kidnapping of the children. He was not the mastermind. Mohanakrishnan had thought, conceived and had single-handedly executed the plan to abduct the children..He, therefore, quashed the death penalty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life without remission/ commutation under Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC..[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court today confirmed the death penalty awarded to a person convicted for rape and murder of two minor children..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant..Justices Nariman and Surya Kant confirmed the conviction and death sentence while Justice Khanna dissented with respect to the sentence. He said that the case does not fall within the rarest of the rare category and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment..Facts.One Mohanakrishnan who had borrowed a vehicle, picked up two children, a girl aged 10 years old and her brother aged 7 years old from outside a Hindu Temple as the children were preparing to go to school..At 9.30 a.m. Mohanakrishnan picked up the Appellant from his house. The children were then taken to a remote area called the Gopalsamy Temple Hills and rape was allegedly committed on the girl..Thereafter, considering that the girl had been brutally raped (her anus having ruptured), the two accused bought cow dung powder, a poisonous substance. This substance together with milk was allegedly administered by both Mohanakrishnan as well as the Appellant to the two children in an attempt to do away with both of them. Both children ingested only a small portion of it and did not die..Mohanakrishnan and the Appellant thereafter to do away with both the children threw them in Parambikulam-Axhiyar Project canal. It was alleged by the prosecution that the girl was tied up and pushed into the canal by the Appellant whereas the boy was pushed into the canal by Mohanakrishnan. The dead bodies of the girl and boy were subsequently recovered from the canal.The appellant was apprehended by the police while Mohanakrishnan was killed in an encounter. That left only the Appellant to be tried as an accused. A confession was recorded before the Magistrate in a statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Appellant which was partially retracted later by a letter, which the Appellant asked the trial court to treat as a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses – 49 in all. The trial court in a detailed judgment ultimately held the Appellant guilty under Section 120-B, Section 364-A, Section 376, Section 302, Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 376 IPC, the Appellant was awarded life sentence, and for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he was given the death sentence..On appeal, the Madras High Court set aside the Appellant’s conviction under Sections 120-B and 364-A, but confirmed the sentences under Sections 376, 302, Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 201. After considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately the death sentence imposed by the trial court was confirmed by the High Court..Supreme Court affirms Conviction.The appellant preferred to assail the verdict before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after careful consideration of the High Court judgment concluded that the High Court had done an exhaustive analysis of all aspects. The Supreme Court held that though this was a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of events had been made out and the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it upheld the conviction of the appellant..Supreme Court on Death Penalty.It then proceeded to address the question of the sentence handed down to the appellant..The Appellant had pleaded that the mitigating circumstances in the present case are that the accused belongs to a rural area and he is only 23 years old and has no other previous conviction, and if let out will not be a menace to society. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has argued that this is an extremely heinous crime committed ruthlessly and that the aggravating circumstances made out by the High Court clearly outweigh the alleged mitigating circumstances. Therefore, this is a clear case for imposition of the death penalty..The Court cited a catena of judgments in this regard including Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, [(1983) 3 SCC 470], Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2017) 6 SCC 1], popularly known as Nirbhaya case, Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra [(2017) 6 SCC 631] and Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2019) 4 SCC 415]..The Court noted that the present case consisted of a crime even more shocking than that in Khushwinder’s case, in that a young 10-year-old girl was horribly gang-raped after which she and her brother aged 7 years were murdered by throwing them into a canal which caused their death by drowning..The Court also noted the recent amendments made to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide “The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2019”..By way of the amendments, the minimum sentence has gone up from 10 years to 20 years, and imprisonment for life has now been expressly stated to be imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the person. Significant among the amendments is that death penalty has also been introduced..The Court held that trial court and High Court have correctly applied and balanced aggravating circumstances with mitigating circumstances to find that the crime committed was in cold blood and involved the rape of a minor girl and murder of two children in the most heinous fashion possible..No remorse was shown by the Appellant at all and given the nature of the crime it is unlikely that the Appellant, if set free, would not be capable of committing such a crime yet again, the Court said. The fact that the Appellant made a confessional statement would not, on the facts of this case, mean that he showed remorse for committing such a heinous crime..It, therefore, confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appeals..Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissents on sentencing.Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote a separate judgment concurring with the finding of the majority on conviction but dissenting with regard to the sentence..Justice Khanna dealt at length on ‘rarest of rare’ jurisprudence in death penalty matters..The expression ‘rarest of rare’ literally means rarest even in the rare, i.e. a rarest case of an extreme nature. The expression and the choice of words mean that punishment by death is an extremely narrow and confined rare exception, he held..The normal, if not an unexceptional rule, is punishment for life, which rule can be trimmed and upended only when the award of sentence for life is unquestionably foreclosed. Thus, Justice Khanna opined that capital punishment is awarded and invoked only if the facts and material produced by the prosecution disdainfully and fully establish that the option of imprisonment for life will not suffice and is wholly disproportionate and therefore the case belongs to the ‘rarest of rare’ category..Various judgments were cited in this regard including the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others..“In V. Sriharan (supra), the majority judgment referring to the above criticism, while fully endorsing the anguish, had observed that the situation on the lack of uniformity and inconsistency in awarding death sentence and its ill effects is of serious concern…” .Khanna J referred to the various mitigating factors in favour of the appellant including the fact that he was 23 years of age, was a first-time offender and belonged to a poor family. Further, the appellant Manoharan was not initially involved in the abduction and kidnapping of the children. He was not the mastermind. Mohanakrishnan had thought, conceived and had single-handedly executed the plan to abduct the children..He, therefore, quashed the death penalty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life without remission/ commutation under Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC..[Read Judgment]
