NAND KISHORE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 18-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
NAND KISHORE
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2019)
JANUARY 18, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing – Death sentence – Award of – On facts,
rape and murder of a minor girl by appellant aged 50 years –
Conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 363, 366 and 376(2)(i) and
award of death sentence on basis of the circumstantial evidence –
Upheld by the courts below – On appeal, held: By applying the
‘last seen’ theory to the facts of the case and considering the forensic
and medical evidence on record, courts below rightly convicted the
appellant – As regards imposition of death sentence, it is the
appellant’s case that he was denied the proper legal assistance in
the matter and is a manhole worker – It cannot be said that there is
no possibility of reformation of the appellant – Reasons assigned
by the courts below, do not constitute special reasons within the
meaning of s.354(3) Cr.P.C to impose death penalty – Instant case
does not fall within the ‘rarest of rare’ cases – In view thereof, the
death sentence imposed by the trial court, as upheld by the High
Court, is modified to that of life imprisonment with actual period of
25 years, without any benefit of remission – Sentences imposed for
all offences to run concurrently – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 363,
366 and 376(2)(i) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.354(3).
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 So far as the conviction is concerned, the
findings recorded by the trial court which are based on the
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, are
satisfactory. Though the case totally rests on circumstantial
evidence, it is to be noticed that PW-4, brother of the deceased
had accompanied the deceased to ‘Mela’ on the fateful day. He
has identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade and
further he has categorically stated that the appellant took away
the deceased from the ‘Mela’. Further, PW-1, has deposed that
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 260
260
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
261
when he was coming from his shop to the residence, he saw a
dog running away with a leg of a child in its mouth and on being
chased it dropped the leg. Further investigation revealed
detection of headless body of the deceased in the bushes. Further,
PW-7, has also stated that he had seen the appellant on the fateful
day at 9:00 p.m. with a girl wearing yellow frock. By applying the
‘last seen’ theory to the facts of the case and further considering
the forensic and medical evidence on record, trial court has rightly
recorded guilt of the accused for the offences alleged. Even the
High Court, referring to the relevant evidence on record, rightly
confirmed the conviction of the appellant for the charges levelled
against him. [Para 10-11][265-C-G]
1.2 The instant case solely rests on circumstantial evidence.
It is the specific case of the appellant that he was denied the
proper legal assistance in the matter and he is a manhole worker.
The appellant was aged about 50 years. Further, in this case there
is no finding recorded by the courts below to the effect that there
is no possibility of reformation of the appellant. The reasons
assigned by the trial court as confirmed by the High Court, do
not constitute special reasons within the meaning of Section
354(3) Cr.P.C to impose death penalty on the accused. Taking
into account the evidence on record and the totality of the
circumstances of the case, and by applying the test on the
touchstone of case law, the case on hand will not fall within the
‘rarest of rare’ cases. In that view of the matter, the death sentence
imposed by the trial court, as confirmed by the High Court,
requires modification. While confirming the conviction, recorded
by the trial court, as confirmed by the appellate court, the
sentence is modified to that of life imprisonment with actual period
of 25 years, without any benefit of remission. The sentences
imposed for all offences shall run concurrently. [Para 14][269-C-
F]
Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
(2017) 6 SCC 1 – distinguished.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
Swamy Shradhananda(2) v. State of Karnataka (2008)
13 SCC 767; Neel Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 5
SCC 766; Selvam v. State (2014) 12 SCC 274; Tattu
NAND KISHORE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 9 SCC 675;

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