LexRAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 225 RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal Nos.145-146 of 2011) FEBRUARY 29, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) PENAL CODE, 1860: A B ss. 302, 376(2)(f), and 377 - Rape and murder of a 3 year c old girl - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and sentence of death awarded by trial court, upheld by High Court - Held: The prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged - The chain of events proved by the prosecution ·is fully established and the D circumstances which were required to be proven by the prosecution, have been proved by them successfully - The cumulative effect of the entire prosecution evidence is that it points unmistakably towards the guilt of the accused - It is not only a case of circumstantial evidence simpliciter but aiso the E 'last seen together' principle - There is no justifiable reason to interfere with impugned judgment - Circumstantial. evidence - 'Last seen together' principle - Sentence/ Sentencing. SENTENCE/SENTENCING.: F Sentence of death - Mitigating and aggravating circumstances - Rape and murder of a 3 year old girl - Accused found guilty of offences punishable u/ss 302, 376(2)(f) and 377 /PC - Held: In fact, it is not heinous G simpliciter, but is a brutal and inhuman crime where a married person, aged 31 years, chooses to lure a three year old minor girl child and then commits rape on her - Further, obviously intending to destroy the entire evidence and the possibility of 225 H 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A being identified, he kills the minor child - It can hardly be even imagined that what torture and brutality the minor child must have faced during the course of commission of the crime - The injuries show the extent of brutal sexual urge of the accused, which targeted a minor child - The pain and agony B that he must have caused to the deceased minor girl is beyond imagination and is the limit of viciousness - Court has to examine the conduct of the accused prior to, at the time as well as after the commission of the crime - When a balance-sheet of the aggravating and mitigating c circumstances is drawn, in the instant case, for the purposes of determining whether the extreme penalty of death should be imposed upon the accused or not, the scale of justice only tilts against him as there is nothing but aggravating circumstances evident fr9m the record - Trial court was fully 0 justified in law and on the facts of the case, in awarding the extreme penalty of death - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 376(2)(f) and 377 - Circumstantial evidence. The appellant was prosecuted for committing offenc'es punishable u/ss 376 (2) (f), 377 and 302 IPC. The E prosecution case was that the appellant, at about 6.00 P.M. on 2.3.2007, took away the three year old daughter of PWs ·2 and 12 from their house stating that he would purchase her biscuits. Thereafter, the child did not return home. The following day the dead body of the child was F found in the fields. The post mortem report clearly showed the cause of death as rape and asphyxia. The trial court convicted the accused of the offences charged and sentenced him to various terms including sentence of death u/s 302 IPC. The High Court upheld the G conviction and the sentence. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence and the conviction of the accused is H founded on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK v. STATE OF 227 MAHARASHTRA forming the chain of events should be proved and they A should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of. guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other B person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the court while dealing with cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The c court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not. It has to be kept
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.