H MANOHARAN versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARIETY HALL POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE (REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NOS.446-447 OF 2019) IN

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1078 · Decided: 07-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN, SANJIV KHANNA, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
MANOHARAN
v.
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARIETY HALL
POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE
(Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.446-447 of 2019)
in
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1174-1175 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 07, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN, SURYA KANT AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Review – In death penalty cases – Application of restrictive
principles – Murder – Rape – Co-accused (now deceased) using
borrowed school van, picked up a 10-year old girl and her 7-year
old brother who were waiting to go to school – He thereafter picked
up his friend (accused-petitioner) from his house – Girl child was
raped and sodomised – Both children were administered poison (cow
dung powder) mixed in milk – However, they spat out the substance
and only ingested a small portion – Since poisoning did not work,
the children were thrown into a nearby canal, leading to their death
by drowning – Conviction of accused-petitioner u/ss.302, 376(2)(f),
(g) & 201, IPC and death sentence by trial court and High Court –
Present three-Judge Bench unanimously affirmed the conviction and
by majority upheld the death sentence – Majority judgment
upholding conviction and death penalty delivered by Surya Kant,
J. (for Rohinton F. Nariman, J. and himself) – Minority judgment
upholding conviction but awarding life sentence (till natural death)
without remission / commutation delivered by Sanjiv Khanna, J. –
Review Petitions – Held: Liable to be dismissed – Per Surya Kant,
J. (for R.F. Nariman, J. and himself), held: Prosecution case was
established through numerous evidences in addition to a clear
confession proving petitioner’s guilt beyond any residual doubt –
Conflicting versions were deposed by petitioner and defence
witnesses, and no explanation to discharge onus u/s.106 of the
Evidence Act was provided – Hence, it was not a case fit for
application of theory of “residual doubt” – Just because the now
deceased co-accused was the mastermind whose offence was
[2019] 18 S.C.R.1078
1078
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1079
comparatively more egregious, one cannot commute the otherwise
barbarically shocking offences of the petitioner – Also, attempted
retraction of confession by the petitioner showed how he was in
fact remorseless – It was not in the spur of the moment or a crime of
passion; but craftily planned, meticulously executed and with
multiple opportunities to cease and desist – Offences of petitioner
were so grave as to shock the conscience of the Court and of society
and amounted to the rarest of the rare – No grounds to review
judgment upholding his conviction and death penalty – Per Sanjiv
Khanna, J., held: Reasons given by Surya Kant, J. in dismissing the
review petition and upholding the conviction of petitioner are entirely
agreed upon and concurred with – On the question of sentence, no
good ground and reasons to review the observations and findings
in the minority judgment – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 376(2)(f),
(g) & 201 – CrPC, 1973 – ss.163, 164 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.24
and 106.
Review – Scope of – Held [per Surya Kant, J. (for R.F.
Nariman, J. and himself)]: Scope of a review is more constrained
than that of an appeal – A party cannot be allowed to re-urge the
case on merits to effectively seek re-appreciation of evidence when
the matter has already been decided earlier, even if on different
grounds – Interference in the earlier judgement assailed in a Review
is permissible only on the basis of an error apparent on the face of
record or discovery of important new evidence which has a direct
bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case and if not well
appreciated, would cause manifest injustice.
Precedents – Verdicts with multiple opinions – Interpretation
of – Dissenting opinions – Precedential value of – Held [per Surya
Kant, J. (for R.F. Nariman, J. and himself)]: Dissenting opinions
have little precedential value and there is no difference in operation
between decisions rendered unanimously or those tendered by
majority, albeit with minority dissenting views – Jurisprudence.
Confession – Validity – Voluntariness of a confession – Held
[per Surya Kant, J. (for R.F. Nariman, J. and himself)]: Cornerstone
of a valid confession in India is only whether such a statement was
made in compliance with statutory provisions which mandate that
the same must be before the Magistrate after compliance with certain
safeguards meant to ensure voluntariness and lack of coercion by
MANOHARAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARIETY
HALL POLICE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.