MOHAN ANNA CHAVAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 1072 · Decided: 16-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1072 
A 
MOHAN ANNA CHAVAN 
).~ ,.
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2007) 
MAY 16, 2008 
B 
l . 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. 
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) 
t 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
.,..
c 
ss. 363, 376, 302 and 201 - Kidnapping of two minor 
girls aged 5 years and 10 years - Rape - Murder - Accused 
also earlier twice convicted of offences of kidnapping and rape 
of minor girls - Conviction and sentence of death awarded by 
trial court - Confirmed by High Court - Held : The case fa//s 
D in rarest of rare category - The past instances, the depraved 
;._ 
acts of accused call for only death sentence - Judgment of 
.. 
High Court does not warrant any interference - Sentence/Sen-
fencing - Principles explained - Circumstantial evidence. 
E 
EVIDENCE: 
Circumstantial evidence - Held : Conviction can be 
based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be 
tested by touchstone of law relating thereto - In the instant 
case, prosecution has been able to establish the accusations 
F - Sentence of death awarded by trial court and confirmed by 
High Court,· upheld - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 363, 376, 302 
and 201. 
The appellant was prosecuted for commission of of-
fences of rape and murder of two minor girls-one aged 
G about 5 years and the other a~out 10 years and residing 
in his neighborhood. The prosecution case was that at 
r 
abolltJ.O~ PJn.QQ 13.12.1999 the accused along with his 
daughter went to the grocery shop of P.W.6. At that time 
the two children also w~nt tJiere. They asked the accused 
H 
1072 
1 
MOHAN ANNA CHAVAN v. STATE OF 
1073 
MAHARASHTRA 
to give them sweets. Ttie accused replied that he did not A 
have change and asking them to accompany him, took 
both the children with him. The accused returned to the 
locality in the morning of 14.12.1999. The residents in-
cluding P.W.5, P.W.11 and P.W.13 caught hold of him and 
tied him to a pillar. The police was informed. The accused B 
was stated to have made an extra judicial confession that 
he had murdered both the children and thrown the body 
of one of them in a well and concealed the body of the 
other in a bamboo bush. He led the police and the 'panch' 
witnesses to the place where he had committed rape on c 
the children. At his instance the bodies were recovered. 
It was also pointed out that in the year 1989 the accused 
was convicted of kidnapping a minor girl and commit-
ting rape on her. Thereafter again he was convicted of 
the offence of committing rape on another minor girl. of 0 
less than nine years and was sentenced to 10 years rig-
orous imprisonment. The trial court relying upon the pros-
ecution evidence, convicted the accused of the offences 
charged and sentenced him to death. The High Court 
upheld the conviction and conformed the sentence. 
E 
In the instant appeal it was contended for the ac-
cused-appellant that since the case rested on circumstan-
tial evidence, a case for conviction was not made out. In 
the alternative it was pleaded that death sentence was 
not the proper punishment. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. It has been consistently laid down by this 
Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial 
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when G 
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to 
be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the 
guilt of any other person. [Para 5] [1083-E] 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); 
Eradu and Ors. v. State of-Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); H 
1074 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 
A Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); 
State of U.P v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); 
Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok 
Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P (AIR 1989 SC 1890). -
relied on 
B 
c 
1.2. The circumstances from which an inference as 
to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved 
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be 
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be in-
ferred from those circumstances. [Para 5] [1083-G] 
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621 C. 
Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193, 
Pada/a Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 
79), State of U.P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 
0 
1104) - relied on. 
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" by Alfred Wills - referred to. 
1.3 There is no doubt that conviction can be based 
s

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