MANOHARAN versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARIETY HALL POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1007 · Decided: 01-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN, SANJIV KHANNA, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 21 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
MANOHARAN
v.
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VARIETY HALL POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1174-1175 of 2019)
AUGUST 01, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN, SURYA KANT AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 376 and 201 – 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-
appellant) 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, causing their death by drowning – Co-
accused was shot dead by the police in an encounter – Appellant
recorded confession before Magistrate u/s.164 CrPC which was
partially retracted subsequently – Prosecution examined forty-nine
witnesses including persons who witnessed abduction, purchase of
milk and cow dung powder and those who saw children in custody
of the accused persons at various places – Medical and forensic
evidence proved drowning and rape as well as injuries on appellant’s
body – Trial Court held appellant guilty u/ss. 120-A, 364-A, 376,
302, 302 r/w 34 and 201 – High Court set aside appellant’s
conviction u/ss.120-B and 364-A, but confirmed conviction u/ss.376,
302, s.302 r/w ss.34 and 201 – On appeal, conviction affirmed by
Supreme Court –  Held (per R.F. Nariman, J. [for himself and Surya
Kant, J.]): The fact that appellant brutally raped the 10 year old
girl was corroborated not only by his confessional statement but
also by DNA test which found appellant’s pubic hair on panty of
the girl – Appellant admitted that he purchased cow dung powder
(poison) and administered to the children – Thereafter, he and the
other accused threw the children in the canal – The entire chain of
events was made out and prosecution proved its case beyond
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 1007
1007
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
reasonable doubt – Courts below rightly convicted the appellant of
rape and murder – Held (per Sanjiv Khanna, J.): Prosecution case
that hair belonging to the appellant was found in the van is accepted,
but forensic report that this was the pubic hair of appellant is
debatable – Except the aforesaid, the prosecution proved the case
beyond doubt – Confessional statement of appellant u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.
was rightly accepted – Conviction of appellant u/ss. 302, 376 and
201 IPC upheld and maintained.
Sentence  / Sentencing – Death penalty – Murder – Rape –
Appellant and a co-accused (now deceased) – Confession of
appellant recorded before Magistrate u/s.164 CrPC which was
partially retracted subsequently – Trial Court held appellant guilty
u/ss. 120-A, 364-A, 376, 302, 302 r/w 34 IPC and 201 and awarded
life sentence u/s.376 IPC and death sentence u/s.302 IPC – High
Court set aside appellant’s conviction u/ss.120-B and 364-A, but
confirmed conviction and sentences u/ss.376, 302, s.302 r/w ss.34
and 201 – Death sentence also confirmed by High Court – On appeal
before Supreme Court, conviction unanimously affirmed, however,
death sentence upheld by majority – Held (per R.F. Nariman, J.
[for himself and Surya Kant, J.]) (Majority judgment): A young 10
year old girl was first horribly gangraped after which she and her
brother aged 7 years were done away with while they were conscious
by throwing them into a canal which caused their death by drowning
– Crime committed was cold blooded and in the most heinous fashion
possible – No remorse shown by Appellant at all – That Appellant
made a confessional statement would not, on facts, mean that he
showed remorse for committing such a heinous crime – He did not
stand by this confessional statement, but falsely retracted only parts
of the statement which implicated him of both the rape of the young
girl and the murder of both her and her little brother – Consequently,
death sentence confirmed – Held (per Sanjiv Khanna, J.) (Minority
judgment): Appellant’s partial retraction of confession was rightly
disbelieved – However, retraction by itself should not be treated as
absence of remorse or repentance – A thought of doubt and attempt
to retract had surfaced on account of belief that the sense of remorse,
repentance and forgiveness would not be appreciated and given
due regard, cannot be ruled out – Benefit in this regard must 

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