LexSAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1072 : 2024 INSC 987 Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No(s). 5412-5413 of 2024) 17 December 2024 [B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order of conviction and death sentence to the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364 and 377 IPC and ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO, for committing murder and brutal sexual assault of the 4 year old boy. Headnotes† Penal Code – ss.302, 364, 377 – Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 – ss.4, 5, 6, 29 – Murder, kidnapping and sexual assault – Case of brutal sexual assault and murder of four year old boy – Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to death for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364 and 377 IPC and ss.4 and 6 of the POCSO – High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of death – Correctness: Held: Time lag between the accused being last seen with the deceased and the sighting of the dead body lying was extremely short and accused was to offer a plausible explanation as to how he parted company with the deceased and the explanation offered must be satisfactory, which he failed to do so, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances – Presence of the accused at the scene of crime in the background of the evidence of last seen, is clear link in the chain of circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused – Injury on the private parts of the accused for which no other explanation offered, conduct of the appellant in pointing out where the apparel of the deceased was hidden, matching of blood group considered, all considered as an additional link in the chain of circumstances – Thus, circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the appellant exist – Injury on the * Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1073 Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat prepuce of the penis of the accused along with the matching of the blood group coupled with other circumstantial evidence clearly constitute foundational facts for raising presumption u/s. 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act – Appellant did not rebut the presumption by adducing proof to the contrary – Thus, the circumstances fully established, the circumstances so established consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and are not explainable by any other hypothesis; the circumstances are conclusive in nature and the chain of circumstance is so complete as to point to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offences charged – Conviction as imposed by the courts below upheld – Instant case is not a case where possibility of reformation is completely ruled out – Even though the case falls short of the rarest of rare category, in view of the nature of the crime, a sentence of life imprisonment which normally works out for 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate – Sentence of imprisonment for a prescribed period without remission would alone be proportionate to the crime and also not jeopardize the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system – Sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty- five years without remission would be ‘a just desert’ – Thus, the sentence of death for the offence u/s.302 set aside, substituting the same with that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission – Sentence imposed for offences u/ss. 364 and 6 of the POCSO Act to run concurrently – Considering the socio-economic condition of the accused, the fine imposed set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sentencing – Death sentence – Remission. [Paras 13-37, 39-42] Case Law Cited Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93 : (2008) 13 SCC 767; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; State of Rajasthan v. Kashiram [2006] Supp. 8 SCR 501 : (2006) 12 SCC 254; Pappu v. State of UP [2022] 2 SCR 13 : (2022) 10 SCC 321 – relied on. A.N. Venkatesh and another v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 22 714; Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1979] 2 SCR 330 : (1979) 3 SCC 90; Prakash v. State of Karnataka [2014] 5 SCR 1074 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 242 : (2014) 12 SCC 133; Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022] 4 SCR 225 : (2022) 8 SCC 668; Nawas Alias Mulanavas v. State of Kerala [2024] 3 SCR 913 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 315 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.