MOHD. FIROZ versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 19-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 168
168
MOHD. FIROZ
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019)
APRIL 19, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366,
376A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(POCSO) – ss. 5 (i), 5 (m), 6 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 106 – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 304, 313 – Rape and sexual
assault on the young child-victim – Appellant-accused along with
one another accused person was convicted for death sentence and
life imprisonment, respectively, by the trial court for the offences u/
ss. 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366 IPC r/w. s. 5(i) r/w. s. 6 and
s.5(m) r/w. s. 6 of the POCSO Act – High Court, while dismissing
the appeal, affirmed the order of conviction by trial court regarding
the appellant herein but acquitted the other accused person –
Appellant has, thus, preferred the present appeal – Whether the
trial had been conducted in a fair manner by following the due
procedure and the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt since the case was based on circumstantial
evidence- Whether the prosecution had adequately proved the
circumstance with regard to the theory of “last seen together”–
Whether the prosecution had sufficiently proved the “proximity of
time” i.e. ‘the time gap between the victim being lastly seen with the
appellant-accused and the time when she was found injured and
unconscious in the field’ – Held: In the instant case, neither any
explanation was offered by the appellant in his further statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. nor any concrete defence was taken
during the course of the cross-examination of the witnesses –
Conduct of the accused in absconding away also was a
circumstance duly proved by the prosecution against him – Time
gap between the victim being lastly seen with the appellant-accused
and the time when she was found injured and unconscious in the
field was hardly 12 hours– The said injuries had resulted into her
death – Prosecution had proved the close proximity of time when
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
the victim was last seen with the appellant and when the victim was
found unconscious and in injured condition, which ultimately
resulted into her death – Nothing on record to suggest that the due
procedure was not followed or there was deprivation of the legal
aid or legal assistance to accused –Views taken by the Courts below
with regard to the conviction of the appellant for offences charged
against him, deem it proper to commute, and accordingly commute
the sentence of death for the sentence of imprisonment for life, for
offence punishable u/s.302 IPC – While balancing the scales of
retributive justice and restorative justice, appellant-accused,
sentenced to imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of
imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence
under section 376A, IPC.
Sentencing - Restorative Justice- One of the basic principles
of restorative justice is to give an opportunity to the offender to
repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful
individual when he is released from the jail- maximum punishment
prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing
the crippled psyche of the offender- Hence, while balancing the
scales of retributive justice and restorative justice.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The first and foremost circumstance regarding the
visit of the appellant along with ‘R’ on the date and time as alleged
was very crucial and that was admitted by the appellant. By such
admission, even his identity had stood proved. There cannot be
gainsaying that no conviction could be based on the statement of
the accused recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the
prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused by leading
independent and cogent evidence, nonetheless it is equally
settled proposition of law that when the accused makes
inculpatory and exculpatory statements, the inculpatory part of
the statement can be taken aid of to lend credence to the case of
prosecution. In the instant case also, though the conviction of
the appellant-accused could not be made merely on his admission
of the circumstance of his visit to the house of the informant on
the previous day evening of the fateful day, such admission could
certainly be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the
p

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