- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Amit Alias Ammu v. State Of Maharashtra .
Factual and Procedural Background
The deceased, an 11–12-year-old schoolgirl, was last seen on 28-3-2001 in the company of the appellant, a 20-year-old acquaintance whose father worked with the victim’s father. When she did not return home from school, her parents lodged a missing report. The next afternoon (29-3-2001) PW-1, while grazing buffaloes, discovered her body in a dilapidated building in a secluded forest area and immediately informed the police, leading to FIR Ext. 28. Investigation resulted in the appellant’s arrest the same night. The Sessions Court convicted him of rape (Section 376 IPC) and murder (Section 302 IPC), imposing death for the latter and 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the former, along with ₹25,000 compensation under Section 357 CrPC. The High Court affirmed both conviction and sentence. The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which rendered the present opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the circumstantial evidence—particularly the “last seen” circumstance and post-mortem findings—was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s convictions under Sections 302 and 376 IPC.
- Whether the death penalty satisfied the “rarest of the rare” standard or should be commuted to life imprisonment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The time of death was not established; absent that, the “last seen” circumstance could not lawfully ground a conviction.
- Alleged contradictions in the post-mortem report (simultaneous reference to early decomposition and fresh injuries) undermined its reliability.
- Relied on Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam (2002) 6 SCC 715 to contend that “last seen” alone does not inevitably implicate the accused.
Prosecution/State's Position
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution's legal arguments; its stance is inferred only through the court’s acceptance of the evidence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam (2002) 6 SCC 715 | “Last seen” circumstance must be closely linked in time and place to warrant an inference of guilt; otherwise the accused must be asked to explain. | The Court held that the present facts fit squarely within the principle: the accused was last seen with the victim shortly (within hours) before her death and offered no explanation, thereby justifying conviction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Credibility of “last seen” witnesses (PW-1 & PW-11): Their testimony was found “trustworthy and reliable,” establishing that the appellant was alone with the victim on 28-3-2001.
2. Time of Death: Although the post-mortem report did not specify an exact time, the High Court—accepted by the Supreme Court—used the absence of rigor mortis (in a temperate region where it lasts 2–3 days) to fix death between 3–4 p.m. on 28-3-2001. This closely matched the time when the appellant was last seen with the victim.
3. Post-mortem Contradictions: The report was admitted by the defence; hence the appellant could not impeach it without cross-examining the doctor. The alleged inconsistency regarding “fresh” injuries did not undermine the core findings of sexual assault and strangulation.
4. Failure to Explain: In his Section 313 CrPC statement, the appellant offered only a bare denial. Given the proximity in time and place and absence of an alternative explanation, the Court invoked the principle from Mohibur Rahman that the accused bears a heavy onus in such circumstances, which he failed to discharge.
5. Sentencing: While condemning the crime as “most heinous,” the Court assessed mitigating factors—youth (about 20 years), student status, lack of prior criminal record, and absence of evidence that he posed a continuing danger. Concluding that the case did not meet the “rarest of the rare” threshold, the Court substituted life imprisonment for the death penalty.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Convictions under Sections 302 and 376 IPC are affirmed; the sentence of death is commuted to life imprisonment. All other sentences and the ₹25,000 compensation remain intact; the appeal is allowed only to the limited extent of sentence reduction.
Implications: The decision reiterates that (i) reliable “last seen” evidence, when temporally proximate and unexplained, can sustain murder and rape convictions, and (ii) even in heinous crimes, the death penalty is reserved for the “rarest of the rare,” requiring careful consideration of mitigating factors. No new legal precedent was established, but existing principles were applied and clarified.
Order
1. The dead body of the deceased, a young child aged about 11-12 years and a student of VIth standard, was first sighted by PW 1 on 29-3-2001 at about 3.45 p.m Immediately, he reported the matter to the police station concerned. His oral report was recorded in writing i.e FIR, Ext. 28.
2. On Ext. 28, it has been recorded that on 29-3-2001, PW 1 accompanied by Ajay, PW 11, had gone to the rear portion of a place known as Gaimukh for grazing she-buffaloes. One of the buffaloes went into a dilapidated building close by. In order to drive out that animal on going inside, he noticed the dead body of a school girl in school uniform lying in supine condition. He informed the police. The two police officials came to the site along with him. The said unidentified girl was seen by him the previous day as well in the forest in the area where he usually goes for grazing the animals. At that time she was in the company of a boy aged about 20 years. She was carrying a school bag. At that time too, PW 11 was with PW 1. The description of the boy has also been given. The said boy was having with him a bicycle like that of Ranger type. The boy on being asked gave his name as “Gandhi” and stated that the name of the accompanying girl is Vidya who was his sister and as her family members were going to come to Devi Temple, he had brought her directly from her school. Both were brought to the road and they went away sitting on the bicycle. The girl seen by PW 1 and PW 11 was the same whose body had been found. The investigation led to the arrest of the appellant at 11.00 p.m on 29-3-2001.
3. The father of the deceased and the appellant work in the same office. The deceased and the appellant knew each other. The appellant was charged and found guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of the deceased as also for her rape under Section 376 IPC. The Sessions Court, for offence under Section 302 awarded death penalty and for offence under Section 376, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. A compensation of Rs 25,000 in terms of the judgment of the Sessions Court was awarded under Section 357 CrPC for being paid to the parents of the victim for mental torture, agony and the loss sustained of their only female child.
4. The High Court by the impugned judgment has confirmed the award of death penalty to the appellant as also other sentences and compensation awarded. The appellant aggrieved therefrom has approached this Court on grant of leave.
5. The facts which are fully established and have also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, may first be noticed in brief. The appellant knew the deceased. His father and that of the deceased were colleagues. The appellant at about 11.30 a.m had gone to the house of the deceased on 28-3-2001 and had enquired about the deceased as deposed to by PW 6, the elder brother of the deceased. PW 6 told the appellant that the deceased had not come back from the school. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC the appellant admitted to have so gone to the house of the deceased. The father of the deceased PW 5 used to drop his daughter at the school and as usual on 28-3-2001 at about 7.30 a.m he dropped her at the school. She used to return home from school at around 12.00 noon. Since on that date, she did not return, the mother of the deceased informed her husband on the telephone. He rushed back home from the office and they searched for their daughter and ultimately not finding her, a missing report was lodged by PW 5.
6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Sessions Court held the appellant guilty. The High Court on detailed and critical examination of evidence has upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Court. Reliance has been placed, inter alia, on the post-mortem report, Ext. 57 and recovery articles such as matchbox used for burning the school bag, bicycle etc. Out of the deposition of the witnesses, the prosecution case was primarily based on the testimony of PW 1 and PW 11 and on the circumstance of last seen as deposed by these two witnesses.
7. As already noticed, the body of the deceased was recovered on 29-3-2001. It stands established that the same was recovered from a dilapidated building in a remote area of the forest as deposed to by PW 1 and PW 11. As per the post-mortem report the cause of death is strangulation. It also shows the commission of a sexual assault on the deceased prior to her death. It may be noted that the defence admitted the post-mortem report. An argument was sought to be urged that the post-mortem report could not be relied upon in view of contradictions therein. The contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel is that on one hand, the report states that the body had early signs of decomposition and on the other, all the injuries have been stated to be fresh. There was no requirement to note whether the injuries were fresh or not. Further, the post-mortem report having been admitted it is not open to the appellant to criticize the recitals therein without giving an opportunity to the doctor to explain it.
8. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that unless the time of death is established it is not permissible to rely upon the circumstance of last seen so as to convict the appellant. The main circumstance against the appellant is of last seen with the deceased as deposed to by PW 1 and PW 11. We have carefully examined the testimony of PW 1 and PW 11. Their evidence is trustworthy and reliable. It has a ring of truth. It stands fully established that they had seen the deceased and the appellant on 28th March as noticed hereinbefore. Apparently, both left as deposed to by PW 1 but as the circumstances show that, in fact, they did not leave. When on the next day PW 1 again came to the same area for grazing buffaloes, he found the body of the deceased, whereupon the matter was reported to the police and an FIR recorded and investigation conducted as noticed earlier. It has also come in evidence that usually PW 1 used to go to the same area for grazing the animals, which was a secluded area and also had a dilapidated building. It is apparent from the site plan as well. Regarding the contention that the time of the incident had not been established and therefore, the circumstance of last seen is not sufficient to convict the appellant, the High Court on examination of the evidence has reached the following conclusion:
“In the instant case, the region being temperate, rigor mortis lasts for about two to three days. If we apply this analogy, then at the time of the post-mortem examination, which was conducted on 30-3-2001 and begun at 11.40 a.m, the doctor did not find rigor mortis. That means the time of death must have been on 28-3-2001 between 3.00 p.m and 4.00 p.m, since the rigor mortis in a temperate region lasts for two days. This is not the case, therefore, where time of death cannot be ascertained on the basis of these recognised guidelines, merely because the same is not given in the post-mortem report. In our considered view, this is not the circumstance which affects the material particulars of the prosecution case in the crime in question.”
We are in complete agreement with the conclusion of the High Court on the aspect of time of death.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of this Court by a Bench of which one of us (Justice Brijesh Kumar) was a member in Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam (2002) 6 SCC 715 for the proposition that the circumstance of last seen does not by itself necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. It depends upon the facts of each case. In the decision relied upon it has been observed that there may be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. The present is a case to which the observation as aforesaid and the principle laid squarely applies and the circumstances of the case cast a heavy responsibility on the appellant to explain and in absence thereof suffer the conviction. Those circumstances have already been noticed, in which case such an irresistible conclusion can be reached will depend on the facts of each case. Here it has been established that the death took place on 28th March between 3 and 4 p.m It is just about that much time that the appellant and the deceased were last seen by PW 1 and PW 11. No explanation has been offered in the statement by the appellant recorded under Section 313 CrPC. His defence is of complete denial. In our view, the conviction for offence under Sections 302 and 376 has been rightly recorded by the Court of Session and affirmed by the High Court.
10. The next question is of the sentence. Considering that the appellant is a young man, at the time of the incident his age was about 20 years; he was a student; there is no record of any previous heinous crime and also there is no evidence that he will be a danger to the society, if the death penalty is not awarded. Though the offence committed by the appellant deserves severe condemnation and is a most heinous crime, but on cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the case falls in the category of rarest of the rare cases. We hope that the appellant will learn a lesson and have an opportunity to ponder over what he did during the period he undergoes the life sentence. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we modify the impugned judgment and instead of death penalty, award life imprisonment to the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. In all other respects, the impugned judgment is maintained. The appeal is allowed to this limited extent.
Alert