MANOJ PRATAP SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 24-06-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
743
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 743
743
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No(s).910-911 of 2022)
JUNE 24, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing – Death Sentence – Rarest of Rare case
– Kidnapping, rape and murder of a seven-and-a-half-year old
mentally and physically challenged girl – Case of circumstantial
evidence – Trial Court found appellant-accused guilty and imposed
death sentence u/s. 302 IPC – High Court found it to be a ‘rarest of
rare case’ and upheld the conviction and death sentence – Appeal
before the Supreme Court on two issues – First, whether concurrent
findings of fact required interference – Second, whether death
sentence be maintained or substituted by any other sentence – Held:
On facts, the chain is so complete in itself that no stretch of
imagination could take the court to any other hypothesis except the
guilt of the appellant in relation to the offences charged – Hence,
the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court holding
appellant guilty are imminently just and proper; and call for no
interference whatsoever – Insofar as sentence is concerned, in the
present case, the crime had been of extreme depravity, which shocks
the conscience, particularly looking to the target (a seven-and-a-
half-year old mentally and physically challenged girl) and then,
looking to the manner of committing murder, where the hapless
victim’s head was literally smashed, resulting in multiple injuries
including fracture of frontal bone – This is apart from the facts that
the innocent victim was kidnapped on a stolen motorcycle by misusing
the trust gained by offer of confectionary items and also, apart
from the fact that she was brutally and inhumanly raped – Taking
up the test parameters pertaining to the criminal (i.e., the appellant),
of course, he has a family with wife and minor daughter and aged
father and the crime was committed when he was only 28 years of
age – However, these mitigating factors are pitted against several
other factors pertaining to the appellant himself – One, being of
his activities and actions before the present crime where he was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
found involved in at least four cases with offences ranging from s.3
of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, s.379 IPC
and even s.307 IPC – Second, being the fact that the present crime
itself was carried out with the aid of a stolen motorcycle – Third,
and crucial one being his conduct post-conviction where he not
only earned 7 days’ punishment in jail for quarrelling with a co-
inmate but he has also been convicted of the offence of murder of
another jail inmate – A fortiori, there appears no probability of his
reformation and rehabilitation – This possibility of the appellant
relapsing in the same crime over again and nil probability of his
reformation/rehabilitation is a direct challenge as also danger to
the maintenance of order in the society – Consequently, it is a case
of no other option but to confirm the death sentence awarded to the
appellant – Penal Code 1860 – ss. 302, 363, 365 and 376(2)(f).
Sentence / Sentencing – Death Sentence – Evolution of
principles and norms – Discussed – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – ss.235 and 354.
Sentence / Sentencing – Death Sentence – Rarest of rare
doctrine – Effect, if any, of death sentence being awarded and
maintained only in extreme cases – Held: Even though rarest of
rare doctrine and its accompanying principles, as enunciated and
explained in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh cases, have been almost
uniformly applied by Courts in the country while dealing with the
question of sentencing when the statute provides for death penalty;
and over the time, even the proposition of larger/longer term of
actual imprisonment with no remission or curtailed remission has
also evolved but, it has never been the effort of the Courts to
somehow make the punishment of death sentence redundant and
non-existent for all practical purposes – The quest for justice in
such cases, with death sentence being awarded and maintained only
in extreme cases, does not mean that the matter would be approached
and examined in the manner that death sentence has be avoided,
even if the matter indeed calls for such a punishment – The judicial
process would be compromising on its objectivity if the approach is
to nullify the statutory provision carrying death sentence as an
altern

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