RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 12-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 23 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 306-307 of 2013)
in
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 145-146 of 2011)
DECEMBER 12, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Administration of Criminal Justice – Capital Punishment –
Factors to be considered – Appellant convicted for the rape and
murder of a 3 year old girl – Conviction as also capital punishment
awarded to the appellant was confirmed by the High Court – Appeals
filed by the appellant before Supreme Court – Dismissed – Review
Petitions also dismissed  – However, review petitions restored in
view of Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in Mohd.
Arif alias Ashfaq case – Held: Ordinarily, it would not be advisable
to award capital punishment in a case of circumstantial evidence –
But there is no hard and fast rule that death sentence should not be
awarded in a case of circumstantial evidence – If the court has
some doubt, on the circumstantial evidence on record, that the
accused might not have committed the offence, then a case for
acquittal would be made out – If the court is inclined to award the
death penalty then there must be some exceptional circumstances
warranting the imposition of the extreme penalty – In the instant
case, samples were taken from the body of the accused and sent for
DNA profiling, however, the result was not produced before the trial
court – There is no explanation for this – In the absence of any
justification for not producing the DNA evidence, it would be
dangerous, on the facts of this case, to uphold the sentence of death
of the appellant – Further, probability (not possibility or
improbability or impossibility) that a convict can be reformed and
rehabilitated in society must be seriously considered by the courts
before awarding the death sentence – It is the obligation on the
prosecution to prove, through evidence, that the probability is that
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 585
585
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated –  For the purposes
of sentencing, the Sessions Judge, the High Court as well as Supreme
Court did not take into consideration the probability of reformation,
rehabilitation and social re-integration of the appellant into society
– Further, trial court was also in error in taking into consideration,
for the purposes of sentencing, the pendency of two similar cases
against the appellant which it could not, in law, consider – However,
looking to the crimes committed by the appellant and the material
on record including his overall personality and subsequent events,
the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is commuted but the
appellant should not be released from custody for the rest of his
normal life – Penal Code, 1860– ss.376(2)(f), 377 and 302–
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.54 – CrPC, 1973 – s.354.
Evidence – DNA – Forensic science – Importance of – Held:
DNA profiling is an extremely accurate way of comparing specimens
and such testing can make a virtually positive identification – Where
DNA profiling has not been done or it is held back from the Trial
Court, an adverse consequence would follow for the prosecution –
Cr.P.C., 1973 – ss.53-A, 164-A.
Sentence/Sentencing – Prior history of the convict or criminal
antecedents – If to be considered – Held: Mere pendency of one or
more criminal cases against a convict cannot be a factor for
consideration while awarding a sentence – Not only is it statutorily
impermissible (except in some cases) but even otherwise it violates
the fundamental presumption of innocence – a human right - that
everyone is entitled to.
Disposing of the review petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Ordinarily, it would not be advisable to award
capital punishment in a case of circumstantial evidence. But there
is no hard and fast rule that death sentence should not be awarded
in a case of circumstantial evidence. The precautions that must
be taken by all the courts in cases of circumstantial evidence is
this: if the court has some doubt, on the circumstantial evidence
on record, that the accused might not have committed the offence,
then a case for acquittal would be made out; if the court has no
doubt, on the circumstantial evidence, that the accused is guilty,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
then of course a conviction must follow. If the court is inclined to
award the death penalty then there must be some exceptional
circumstances warranting the imposi

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