RAVISHANKAR @ BABA VISHWAKARMA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 03-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 285
285
RAVISHANKAR @ BABA VISHWAKARMA
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1523-1524 of 2019)
OCTOBER 03, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing: Rape/murder of minor – Conviction
based on circumstantial evidence – Imposition of death sentence –
Held: There is no absolute principle of law that no death sentence
can be awarded in a case where conviction is based on circumstantial
evidence – Such a standard would be ripe for abuse by seasoned
criminals who always make sure to destroy direct evidence – Further,
in many cases of rape and murder of children, the victims owing to
their tender age can put up no resistance – In such cases, it is
extremely likely that there would be no ocular evidence – It cannot,
therefore, be said that in every such case notwithstanding that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court
must not award capital punishment for the mere reason that the
offender has not been seen committing the crime by an eye-witness
– Such a reasoning, if applied uniformly and mechanically will have
devastating effects on the society which is a dominant stakeholder
in the administration of our criminal justice system.
Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Residual doubt – This
Court has increasingly become cognizant of ‘residual doubt’ in many
recent cases which effectively create a higher standard of proof
over and above the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard used at
the stage of conviction, as a safeguard against routine capital
sentencing, keeping in mind the irreversibility of death.
Penal Code, 1860: ss.363, 366, 376(2)(m),  376(2)(n), 376-
A, 302 and 201 – Rape and murder of minor girl – Trial court held
appellant guilty of kidnapping a 13 years old girl committing rape
on her and killing her by throttling and thereafter destroying
evidence by throwing her half naked body in dry well – Trial court
as well as High Court awarded death sentence – On appeal, held:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
This is a case of circumstantial evidence which is supported by
ocular and medico-scientific evidence – DNA evidence using the
established STR technique proved that appellant committed sexual
intercourse with the deceased – Various injuries on her body along
with signs of struggle proved that such crime was committed in a
barbaric manner – A slipper was recovered through the appellant
which was later identified as belonging to the deceased, giving
finality to the circumstantial chain – The findings of kidnapping,
rape, resultant death and destruction of evidence were proved
beyond reasonable doubt, as evidenced by concurrent findings of
the Courts below – As regards the sentencing, there were some
residual doubts – A crucial witness for constructing the last seen
theory, was partly inconsistent in cross-examination and quickly
jumped from one statement to the other – Two other prosecution
witnesses had seen the appellant feeding biscuits to the deceased
one year before the incident and their long delay in reporting the
same failed to inspire confidence – The mother of the deceased
deposed that the wife and daughter of the appellant came to her
house and demanded the return of the money which she had
borrowed from them but failed to mention that she suspected the
appellant of committing the crime initially – Ligature marks on the
neck evidencing throttling were noted by doctors and in the
postmortem report, but find no mention in the panchnama prepared
by the police – Viscera samples sent for chemical testing were spoiled
and hence remained unexamined – Although nails’ scrappings of
the accused were collected, no report was produced to show that
DNA of the deceased was present – All these factors of course have
no impact in formation of the chain of evidence and are wholly
insufficient to create reasonable doubt to earn acquittal – However,
‘residual doubt’ as a mitigating factor would effectively raise the
standard of proof for imposing the death sentence – This case falls
short of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the death sentence alone
deserves to be awarded to the appellant – Death penalty is set aside
and is substituted with the life imprisonment.
Penal Code, 1860: s. 376A – Conviction under – High Court
while confirming death sentence observed that the girl was found
bleeding due to forcible sexual intercourse - which fact, however, is
not supported by medical eviden

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