TATTU LODHI@ PANCHAM LODHI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 16-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 561 
TATTU LODHI@ PANCHAM LODHI 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 292-293of2014) 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND ABHAY 
MANOHAR SAPRE JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.363, 364, 376(2)(j}/511 and 201 -
Kidnapping and attempt to commit rape of minor girl followed by 
her murder -
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and 
death sentence - Held: In view of evidence of witnesses, medical 
evidence and recovery of incriminating material, no reason to 
inlerfere with the funding of courts below that appellant kidnapped 
the victim and after subjecting her to sexual abuse throttled her to 
death - The chain of circumstance was complete - Medical evidence 
further showed that the victim was subjected to rape - Trial court 
erred in convicling appellant onZv for attempted rape - As regards 
sentencing, the facts do not make out a rarest of rare case, therefore, 
dealh sentence is not confirmed - Appellant is inflicted with 
imprisonmenl for l!fe wilh further direction tha1 he shall no/ be 
released from prison till he completes ac!Ual period of 25 years of 
imprisonment - Se11tence/Sen1encing. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. On a careful consideration of the evidence of 
shopkeeper (PW-7) from where the victim bought "Gutka" for 
the accused and the evidence of complainant and other witnesses 
along with medical evidence, seizure report and report from the 
forensic science laboratory confirming the presence of huinan 
blood on the gunny bag, bed-sheet and bed-cover which were 
seized from the house of accused, there is no good reason to 
interfere with the findings of the trial court cl nly confirmed by the 
High Court that the appellant-accused kiclnappccl the victim and 
"after subjecting her to sexual abuse, throttled her to death. The 
first submission on behalf of the appellant that the chain of 
circumstantial evidence is not complete ancl docs not prove the 
guilt of accused is found to be without any substance. [Para 3] 
[564-A-C] 
561 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
562 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
2. The post-mortem report, besides showing injuries on 
the neck and face showed several bruise marks on the abdomen 
as well as an injury on the left side of the vagina. The internal 
examination clearly records thus: " .... in the reproductive organ 
the hymen membrane was ruptured. Mild bleeding and 
inflammation were found .... " In view of said findings recorded in 
the post-mortem report of the seven year old victim duly proved 
by the doctor (PW-9), there was no justification not to hold the 
accused guilty of rape simply because PW-9 in his oral deposition 
made a casual statement that there was attempt to commit rape 
on the deceased before her death. [Para 4) (564-A-C) 
3. The facts of this case do not make out a "rarest of rare" 
case so as to confirm the death sentence of the appellant. The 
death penalty is therefore not confirmed. The occurrence is of 
the year 2011 when the appellant was about 27 years old. 
Considering the fact that the deceased, a helpless child fell victim 
of the crime oflust at the hands of the appellant and there may be 
probabilities of such crime being repeated in case the appellant 
is allowed to come out of the prison on completing usual period 
of imprisonment for life which is taken to be 14 years for certain 
purposes, the appellant should be inflicted with imprisonment 
for life with a further direction that he shall not be released from 
prison till he completes actual period of25 years of imprisonment. 
[Paras 9, 101 [567-C-GI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 292-293 of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2013 of the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Reference No. 3of2013 and 
Criminal Appeal No. 711 of2013. 
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rukhsana Choudhary, Ms. 
Shampa Nath, Ms. Vandana Gogna, Ms, Vasav Ananthavraman & Ms. 
Annan ya, Ad vs. for the appellant. 
Sunny Choudhary, Mishra Saurabh & Abhilash Attri, Advs. for 
the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. The appellant, charge-sheeted 
for offences under Section 366(A), 363, 364, 376(2)(t)/5 I land 201 of 
TATTU LODHI@ PANCHAM LODHI v. STATE OF MADHYA 
PRADESH [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
the Indian Penal Code (for brevity '!PC') was tried by the Twelfth 
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 324 of20

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