VASANT SAMPAT DUPARE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 26-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 961 
VASANT SAMPAT DUPARE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2486-2487 of 2014) 
A 
NOVEMBER26, 2014 
B 
[DIPAK MISRA, ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 376(2)(f) - Rape and 
murder of 4 years old minor girl - Conviction based on c 
circumstantial evidence -
Held: The incriminating 
circumstances clearly established and the chain of. 
circumstances conclusive in nature to lead to a definite 
conclusion that the crime was committed by the appellant -
The crime was committed in an inhuman manner - The D 
appalling cruelty shown by him to the minor girl child was 
extremely shocking and it gets accentuated, when his age is 
taken into consideration.- The offence was not committed 
under any mental stress or emotional disturbance and it is 
· difficult to comprehend that he would not commit such acts E 
and would be reformed or rehabilitated -
As the 
circumstances would graphically depict, he would remain a 
menace to the society, for a defenceless child has become 
his prey - There were no mitigating circumstances - A 
helpless and defenceless child gets raped and murdered F 
because of the acquaintance of the appellant with the people 
of the society- This is not only betrayal of an individual trust 
but destruction and devastation of social trust- It irrefragably 
invites the extreme abhorrence and indignation of the 
collective - It meets the test of rarest of the rare case -
G 
Conviction and death sentence affirmed. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The circumstances that were clearly 
established were that the appellant was seen in the 
courtyard where the minor girl and other children were H 
961 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 14 S.C.R. 
A playing; thatthe appellant was seen taking the deceased 
on his bicycle; that he went to the grocery shop owned 
by PW-6 to buy Mint chocolate along with her; that the 
accused told PW-2 that the child was the daughter of 
his friend and he was going to 'Tekdi~Wadi' along with 
B the girl; that the appellant led to discovery of the dead 
body of th4il deceased, the place where he had washed 
his clothes and at his instance the stones smeared with 
blood were recovered; that the medical report clearly 
indicated about the injuries· sustained by the deceased 
C on her body; that the injuries sustained on the private 
parts were stated by the doctor to have been caused by 
forcible sexual intercourse; that the stones that were 
seized were smeared with blood and the medical 
evidence corroborated.the fact that injuries could have 
o been caused by battering with stones; that the chemical 
analysis report showed that the blood group on the 
stones matched with the blood group found on the 
clothes of the appellant; that the appellant did not offer 
any explanation with regard to the recovery made at his 
E instance; and that nothing was stated in his examination 
under Section 313 CrPC that there was any justifiable 
reason to implicate him in the crime in question. Thus, 
each of the incriminating circumstances were clearly 
established and the chain ,of circumstances were 
F conclusive in nature to lead to a definite conclusion that 
the crime was committed by the accused. [Para 35) 
[988-E-H; 989-A-D] 
. 
Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295 : 
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 363 ; Dharam Oeo Yadav 
G 
v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 5 SCC 509 ; 
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 
67; Mohmed lnayatullah v. The State of 
Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828: 1976 (1) SCR 
715 ; Aftab Ahmad Anasar:i v. State of Uttaranchal 
. H 
(2010) 2 sec 583: 2010 (1) SCR 1021; State of 
VASANT SAM PAT DU PARE v. STATE OF 
963 
MAHARASHTRA 
Maharashtra v. Damu (2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000 
A 
(3) SCR 880 ; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh 
(2000) 1 sec 471 : 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 215; 
State of Punjab v. Gurnam Kaur (2009) 11 SCC 
225: 2009 (3) SCR 1195; AftabAhmad Anasari 
v. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 $CC 583 ; 
B 
Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 
SCC 396 : 2011 (6) SCR 330 ; Manu Sharma v. 
State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 sec 1 : 2010 (4) 
SCR 103 ; Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam 
(2013) 7 SCC 417; Prakash Chand v State (Delhi 
C 
Admn.) (1979) 3 sec 90 : 1979 (2) SCR 330 ; 
H.P. Admn. v. Om Prakash (1'972) 1 SCC 249 : 
1972 (2) SCR 765 ; A.N Vekatesh v. State of· 
Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714 - relied on. 
Furman v. Georgia 33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408 US 238 
D 
(1972)- referred to. 
2.1. Materials
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.