MOLAI AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 26-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
MOLAi AND ANR. 
11. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
' ' 
OCTOBER 26, 1999 
[S.P. KURDUKAR, K.T. THOMAS AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
t 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 376(2)(g), 302134 and 201. 
Circumstantial evidence-Rarest. of rare case-Mitigating 
circumstances-Absence of-First accused was working as a guard in the 
Central Jail and second accused was a prisoner in the same jail undergoing 
sentence for an offence-Deceased, daughter of an Assistant Jailor, resided 
in the Jail premises-Accused raped the deceased when she was alone in the 
D house-Thereafter, accused strangulated the deceased and threw the dead 
body into a septic tank-Held: The accused exhibited criminality in their 
conduct by throwing the dead body into the septic tank totally disregarding 
respect for a human dead body-There are no mitigating circumstances 
also-This case, therefore, squarely falls in the category of one of the rarest 
E of rare cases-Hence, capital punishment to the accused is the only proper 
punishment. 
Criminal Trial: 
Inciminating circumstance-Determination of-Blood on the weapon 
F of offence found to be of human origin-Held: lt would be an incriminating 
circumstance. 
The appellants-accused were convicted by the trial court for offences 
under Sections 376{2){g), 302/34 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 and were 
awarded capital punishment subject to confirmation by the High Court. The 
G High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence of both 
the appellants. Hence this appeal. 
H 
According to the prosecution, the first appellant, at the relevant time, 
was working as a guard in the Central Jail. The second appellant was a 
prisoner undergoing a sentence in the same Jail for an offence under Section 
104 
MOLAi v. STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
105 
376 IPC. The deceased, daughter of an Assistant Jailor (PW-6), resided in A 
the Jail premises. On the fateful day the appellants were sent to the house of 
the said Assistant Jailor to look after the quarter and work in the garden. 
Finding the deceased alone in the house the appellants raped her and, 
thereafter, strangulated her and threw the dead body in the septic tank. The 
appellants had given a false explanation to PW-1 when she visited the house B 
that the deceased was not in the house and that she had gone out with her 
friend on a cycle. The knife recovered at the instance of the first appellant 
had human blood on it as certified by the Forensic Science Laboratory's report 
but the blood group could not be determined. 
On behalf of the accused persons i~ was contended that it would be unsafe C 
to connect the knife with the crime in question in the absence of determination 
of the blood group; and that this was not one of the rarest of rare cases and, 
therefore, the capital punishment was uncalled for. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Forensic Science Laboratory's report has clearly certified 
that the blood found on the knife was of human origin. It would be an 
incriminating circumstance if blood on the weapon of offence we're found to 
be of human origin. [116-C) 
State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, [1999)3 SCC 507, relied on. 
2. False explanation was given by the appellants when PW-1 went to the 
house of the deceased, they told her that the deceased had gone along with 
D 
E 
her friend on a cycle. The same false information was also given to PW-3 
when she returned from the school. This false explanation itself is a 
circumstance, which can be used against the appellants. The courts below F 
have rightly taken this circumstance as proved against both the accused. 
[lll-A) 
3. The first appellant was posted as a guard at the quarter of PW-6 and 
was supposed to protect the person and property. He has totally committed the G 
breach of confidence, which was reposed in him by PW-6. The second appellant 
was then serving a sentence for the offence of rape. He was working in the 
garden. Both the accused took the undue advantage of the situation knowing 
fully well that the deceased was alone in the house. Both the accused had every 
opportunity to commit the crime in question and they had done a most brutal, 
~-
heinous &nd shameful act by committing rape on the deceased, then "H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A strangulating the deceased and throwing the dead body in the septic tank with 
an intention to cause disappearance of evidence. The courts below have very 
carefully scrutinised the material on 

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