LexHARESH MOHANDAS RAJPUT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 921 HARESH MOHANDAS RAJPUT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2030-2031 of 2009) SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 376 - Rape followed A B by murder of a minor girl by strangulation - Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence - Conviction of accused- C appellant under ss. 302 and 376 /PC - Justification of - Held: Dead body of deceased was found inside the house of appellant-accused with blood stains under the cot - There were blood stains on the bed-sheet and on the floor underneath the cot - The appellant could not offer any D explanation whatsoever as how the dead body of the victim girl could reach his house - More so, nothing on record to controvert the evidence of the doctor who conducted the post- mortem and opined that there had been sexual assault on the victim and she died of strangulation and there had been E ligature marks on her neck -Appellant was present in his house when police arrived there - The alibi taken by the appellant that he had gone to a liquor shop for drinks leaving his house open remained unsubstantiated and was found to be false - In such a fact situation, conviction of appellant . F affirmed - However, the case does not fall within the "rarest of rare cases" - Punishment of death sentence awarded by the High Court set aside and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court restored. Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Appreciation of G - Held: Though~ conviction may be based solely on circumstantial evidence, however, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn· should be fully established - The same should be of a conclusive nature and 921 H 1' 922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A exclude all possible hypothesis except the one to be proved - The facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the s accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have oeen done by the accused. Sentence! Sentencing - Death sentence - When warranted - Rarest of the rare case - Held: "Rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat C to the harmonious and peaceful co-existence of the society - The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society - Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment D provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment - The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women - In case the crime is committed in a most E cruel and inhuman manner which is in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner, where the act affects the entire moral fibre of the society, e.g. crime committed for power or political ambition or indulge in organized criminal activities, death sentence should be F awarded - For awarding the death sentence, there must be existence of aggravating circumstances and the consequential absence of mitigating circumstances - As to whether death sentence should be awarded, would depend upon the factual scenario of the case in hand. G H According to the prosecution, the appellant caused the death of a minor girl aged 10 years by strangulating her after committing rape on her. There was no eye- witness to the incident and the case was based on circumstantial evidence. The trial court convicted the HARESH MOHANDAS RAJPUT .v. STATE OF 923 MAHARASHTRA appellant and sentenced .·him to undergo life A imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 10 years imprisonment under Section 376 IPC. However, both the sentences were-direeted to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the State filed appeal for enhancement of sentence and appellant also filed an appeal against his conviction. The B High Court upheld the conviction and enhanced the sentence· to death penalty. In the instant appeals, the question which arose for consideration was whether the prosecution case met the requirement of proof on circumstantial evidence and the C facts of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.