VEERENDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 13-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
225
VEERENDRA
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 5 & 6 of 2018)
MAY 13, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI
AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.  376A, 376 (2)(i), 302 – POCSO Act
– s. 6 – Rape and murder of a minor girl – Prosecution case that
appellant-accused had raped and throttled to cause death of victim,
who was daughter of appellant’s cousin sister – While in custody
during interrogation, the appellant made disclosure statement and
thereafter, at his instance, the victim’s corpse concealed underneath
gunny bags, was recovered – The post-mortem and the forensic
science laboratory (FSL) reports revealed commission of rape in a
diabolically and gruesome manner and causing of death by
throttling – Trial Court convicted him for offence punishable u/s
302, 376A, 376(2)(i) of IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act  and awarded
him death sentence – High Court set aside the conviction u/s 376A
of IPC and the rest of the sentences passed by trial Court were
confirmed including death sentence recorded for the offence u/s
302 of IPC – On appeal, held: The recovery of the dead body,
which was in a concealed condition from an unused and dilapidated
building based on the disclosure statement of an accused is a crucial
incriminating circumstance – Another incriminating circumstance
considered against the appellant is the presence of nail marks on
his face and neck and also his failure to offer explanation - The
deceased was lastly seen with the appellant on that fateful day – It
is evident that an additional link is available in this case owing to
the failure on the part of the appellant to explain all the incriminating
circumstances in the personal examination conducted u/s 313 of
CrPC – The cumulative effect of all incriminating circumstances,
would definitely justify the finding of the High Court as to the guilt
of the appellant – The trial Court and also the High Court rightly
concluded that the death of the victim is homicidal – The Courts
have also rightly found that victim was raped – Thus, on a careful
examination of the matter in its entirety, there is no perversity or
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 225
225
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
manifest illegality with respect to the concurrent finding of the trial
Court and the High Court that the appellant had committed the
offences.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 354(3) – Death
sentence – This penalty is awardable to a culprit only the category
of the case falls under ‘rarest of rare cases’, the culprit has become
a threat to the society at large and beyond reformation and his
elimination is the only way for eradication of the threat – The present
case cannot be considered as one falling in the category of ‘rarest
of rare cases’ in which there is no alternative but to impose death
sentence – While commuting capital punishment, the appellant was
awarded life imprisonment without application of the provisions of
premature release/remission for  a substantial length of period.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 304 – Culpable homicide and
murder – The right approach in cases of culpable homicide is to
first find out whether the offence falls under any of the four clauses
viz., clauses firstly to fourthly u/s. 300 IPC - If it is so found, then
the Court has to see whether the case is covered by any one of the
five exceptions to section 300 IPC, which would make a culpable
homicide ‘not amounting to murder’ – The offence, if proved, to fall
under one of the said exceptions would be punishable u/s. 304,
either under Part 1 or Part 2 as the case may be, or otherwise it
would be murder punishable u/s. 302 IPC.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.53A – Examination of
accused by medical practitioner – Non-conduct of – DNA Profiling
- There can be no doubt with respect to the position that a fair
investigation is necessary for a fair trial – However, solely on
account of defects or shortcomings in investigation an accused is
not entitled to get acquitted – The lapse or omission (purposeful or
otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted
to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when
it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in
case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the
investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim.
Evidence Act, 1872 – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen
Theory – In the instant case, the convic tion by th

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