- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vijay Raikwar v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, aged about 19 years at the time of the incident, was tried for raping and murdering a 7½-year-old minor girl. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: the accused was last seen with the victim, he gave her a one-rupee coin, ordered a companion of the child to leave, and the victim’s frock along with blood-stained bedding was found in his house. The bloodstains matched the victim’s blood group and the accused offered no explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli (Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2013) convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 IPC and Sections 5(i), 5(m) & 5(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment and imposing the death penalty. The trial court’s death reference and the appellant’s Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2014 were jointly decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence on 2-7-2014. The present Supreme Court appeal challenges that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution was sufficient to uphold the appellant’s conviction for rape and murder under IPC and POCSO provisions.
- Whether the case met the “rarest of rare” threshold justifying the imposition of the death penalty, or whether the sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence; the chain of circumstances does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- In the alternative, even if conviction stands, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment because the case does not qualify as “rarest of rare” under the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and applied in Shyam Singh v. State of M.P.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 | Laid down the “rarest of rare” doctrine governing imposition of the death penalty. | Used as the primary benchmark to examine whether the present case warranted the death sentence; the Court concluded it did not. |
| Shyam Singh v. State of M.P. (2017) 11 SCC 265 | Recent reiteration of the mitigating and aggravating factors relevant to capital sentencing. | Reinforced the need to evaluate mitigating circumstances such as the offender’s age, criminal history, and conduct; supported commutation to life imprisonment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
On conviction: The Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court. The circumstances—last-seen evidence, unexplained presence of the victim’s frock and blood-stained bedding in the appellant’s house, matching blood group tests, and the appellant’s silence under Section 313 CrPC—formed a complete chain pointing unerringly to guilt. Therefore, the conviction under IPC Sections 376(2)(f) & 201 and POCSO Sections 5(i), 5(m), 5(r) read with Section 6 was affirmed.
On sentence: Applying the principles from Bachan Singh and considering each circumstance, the Court held that the offence, though brutal, did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category. Mitigating factors included the appellant’s young age (19), absence of prior criminal record, good jail conduct, and non-professional criminal background. Balancing these against the gravity of the crime, the Court found that life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: Conviction Affirmed; Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment.
Implications: The decision reinforces the stringent standards for confirming a death sentence under the “rarest of rare” doctrine. While upholding convictions based on strong circumstantial evidence, the Court emphasized consideration of mitigating factors such as youth, first-time offence, and conduct in custody. No new legal precedent was set, but the judgment underscores the careful scrutiny required before affirming capital punishment.
M.R. Shah, J.— Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 2-7-2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in Vijay Raikwar v. State of M.P. Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2014 sub nom Vijay Raikwar, 2014 SCC OnLine MP 8702 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 23-12-2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2013 and has confirmed the conviction of the original accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Pocso Act) and has confirmed the death penalty imposed, original accused has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant original accused was tried by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act for having committed the murder of the minor girl aged 7½ years after raping her. On considering the incriminating material against the accused and on appreciation the evidences and having considered that the accused was last seen together with the deceased and that the frock of the victim was found lying on the cot along with bloodstains on bed mattress and bedsheet in the house of the accused, which was not explained by the accused, and also considering the medical evidence, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act.
3. The trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and other terms of the imprisonment with fine. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also sentenced the accused to death penalty. Having sentenced the accused with death penalty, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made the reference to the High Court.
4. Being aggrieved with the conviction and the sentence, the accused also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2014 before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2014 sub nom Vijay Raikwar, 2014 SCC OnLine MP 8702 and order, the High Court has decided the reference against the accused and has also dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the accused, whereby, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the conviction and sentence of death penalty, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused at length.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the courts below have materially erred in holding the accused guilty for the offences under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act. He has vehemently submitted that in the present case, there is no eyewitness of the incident and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that unless and until the chain of evidence proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in committing the crime, both the courts have materially erred in convicting the accused.
7. Alternatively, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has prayed to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab . (1980) 2 SCC 684 , 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 as well as the recent decision of this Court in Shyam Singh v. State of M.P. (2017) 11 SCC 265 , (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 302
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the findings recorded by the trial court on appreciation of evidence which were confirmed by the High Court, we are of the firm view that the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act does not call for any interference as the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of evidence.
9. In the present case, prosecution has been successful in proving that the accused was last seen together with the victim; that he gave one rupee coin to the victim; he told one of the witness viz. Bharati, who was with the victim to go away; thereafter the dead body of the victim was found near the house of the accused and that the frock of the victim was lying on the cot and the bed mattress and bedsheet were bloodstained and the same was matched with the blood group of the victim and that the accused failed to explain the incriminating material/evidence found against him in the statement under Section 313 CrPC, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused which has rightly been confirmed by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has failed to satisfy this Court how the findings recorded by the trial court, confirmed by the High Court, holding the accused guilty for having committed the murder after raping a minor girl are perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. Under the above circumstances, we confirm the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the trial court, confirmed by the High Court.
10. Now, so far as the request and the prayer made on behalf of the accused to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment is concerned, having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the question of death sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court, confirmed by the High Court and considering the totality and circumstances of the case and the decisions of this Court in Bachan Singh (1980) 2 SCC 684 , 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 and Shyam Singh (2017) 11 SCC 265 , (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 302, we are of the opinion that the present case does not fall within the category of “rarest of rare case” warranting death penalty. We have considered each of the circumstance and the crime as well as the facts leading to the commission of the crime by the accused. Though, we acknowledge the gravity of the offence, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this case would fall in the category of “rarest of rare cases” warranting the death sentence. The offence committed, undoubtedly, can be said to be brutal, but does not warrant death sentence. It is required to be noted that the accused was not a previous convict or a professional killer. At the time of commission of offence, he was 19 years of age. His jail conduct also reported to be good. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances and considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we think that it will be in the interest of justice to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal challenging the conviction is hereby dismissed. His conviction for the offences under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 201 IPC as well as Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 5(r) read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act is hereby confirmed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, we commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
12. Present appeal stands disposed of accordingly, in terms of the above.
Alert