Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Divison Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta has partially allowed a criminal appeal and modified the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant. The Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 376(AB), 377, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act but held that the case did not meet the threshold of "rarest of rare" to justify the death penalty.

While the Court acknowledged the grave nature of the offense committed against a ten-year-old girl, it noted that the brutality of the crime alone cannot form the sole basis for capital punishment. The Court directed that the appellant shall undergo life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without the possibility of remission. The decision followed a detailed analysis of the evidence, testimonies, and mitigating circumstances.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence | Last Seen, Ballistic Trail And Absconding Form Unbroken Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence

The incident occurred on 28 July 2018 in the under-construction premises of Shivalik Engineering College, where the victim, a ten-year-old girl referred to as 'X', resided with her family. According to the prosecution, around 12:30 p.m., X was playing outside her house with cousins and friends when she went missing. Her father (PW1), after speaking with the children, learned that the appellant had taken them to his hut, given them Rs.10 each, and asked them to go to a shop, while he kept X.

PW1 and PW13 corroborated the statement. Upon questioning, the appellant claimed that X had left after taking the money. A search was conducted, and hours later, X's body was discovered concealed under empty cement bags in the appellant's hut by PW3. An FIR was filed at P.S. Sahaspur, District Dehradun.

The investigation led to the appellant's arrest, and he was charged under Sections 302, 201, 376, and 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Post-mortem confirmed the cause of death as asphyxia due to manual throttling. Seventeen prosecution witnesses were examined.

The Trial Court, after evaluating testimonies, including those of child witnesses PW11 and PW12, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence included DNA samples linking the appellant to the crime scene and victim. Dr. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (PW17), the FSL expert, confirmed that DNA obtained from the victim’s underwear matched that of the appellant.

The Fast Track Court, Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death, observing that the crime was extremely brutal, and the convict, a father himself, should have understood the nature of his acts.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital heard the Criminal Jail Appeal No. 64 of 2019 and Criminal Reference No. 02 of 2019. It upheld the Trial Court's findings and confirmed the death sentence, citing the appellant’s presence in his room at the time of the crime, recovery of the body from his hut, and matching DNA results.

The Supreme Court carefully considered the findings of the lower courts and the evidence on record. It recorded: "Taking a cumulative view of all the above circumstances, in our view, the prosecution has proven its case against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt."

On the issue of last seen theory, the Court noted: "It cannot be doubted, therefore, in fact, proven beyond doubt that the appellant was last seen with X inside his hut on the date of the incident, and this was immediately prior to the occurrence of the incident."

Regarding DNA evidence, the judgment stated: "There is no infirmity which has been brought about in the chain of the seizure of these articles and their consequent examination by the appellant."

While affirming the conviction, the Court shifted focus to sentencing. It noted: "The case at hand is one, based on admittedly circumstantial evidence." Citing Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra, the judgment stated: "Capital sentencing is not a normal penalty discharging the social function of punishment... a Court may choose to give primacy to life imprisonment over death penalty in cases which are solely based on circumstantial evidence."

The Court remarked: "The Courts below have only commented on the brutality of the crime in question, to hand down the death penalty to the appellant. No other circumstance came to be discussed... Such an approach in our view cannot be sustained."

It cited Gudda v. State of M.P.: "In a civilised society — a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye ought not to be the criterion to clothe a case with 'the rarest of the rare' jacket..."

Further, referring to Manoj v. State of M.P., the Court reiterated the two-step test: "Firstly, that the case belongs to the 'rarest of rare' category, and secondly, that the option of life imprisonment would simply not suffice."

Finally, the Court noted that while it had called for probation, jail administration, and psychological reports, "no such inquiry was conducted and the grievous nature of the crime was the only factor that was considered while awarding the death penalty."

Also Read: DNA Profiling Not 100 Percent Accurate | Cannot Be Sole Basis For POCSO Conviction Without Corroborative Evidence Says Karnataka HC

The Court issued the following directive:

"In light of the above discussion, taking into account the above mitigating circumstances and the threshold of 'rarest of rare' category, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant instead of the punishment of the death penalty."

It also stated: "The present Appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 7th January 2020 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 64 of 2019 & Criminal Reference No. 02 of 2019, is modified to the above extent. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Ranjit Tomas, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Minakshi Vij, AOR;  Mr. Alok Bhat Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR ; Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv.

Case Title: XYZ vs. State of Uttarakhand

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 861

Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 331-332/2022

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta