Supreme Court of India – Criminal Appeal (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024)

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns the rape and murder of the wife of PW-1, who, along with her husband, earned their livelihood by hawking utensils. On 24.11.2019, PW-1 dropped the deceased at Yellapatar Village so she could pursue this vocation. She subsequently went missing, and calls to her mobile phone went unanswered.

PW-1 lodged a complaint with the police, who, along with PW-1 and his relatives, searched for the missing woman. On the following day, PW-3 first located her dead body in bushes on the right side of the road leading to Yellapatar Village. PW-1 rushed to the spot, identified the body, and informed the police, whereupon an inquest was conducted and investigation commenced. Based on Ex. P2 complaint of PW-1, PW-24 altered the provisions of law to Sections 376D and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

The prosecution case was that accused A1 to A3 followed the deceased on her way to the village, pulled her towards an isolated bushy area, and committed rape on her one by one despite her vehement protests. To avoid implication after the rape, A1 allegedly slit her throat while A2 and A3 held her hands and legs to immobilize her. It was further alleged that A2 stole the mobile phone of the deceased and A3 took Rs. 200/-, which was found in his possession.

The trial court convicted A1 to A3 for offences under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, imposing death and life imprisonment respectively, in addition to fines of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- with default simple imprisonment of three and two months respectively. Under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, all accused were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. A2 and A3 were further convicted under Section 404 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.

On appeal, the High Court modified the sentence of death under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life, with a direction that the accused remain in custody till their last breath, without remission, while otherwise maintaining the conviction for rape and murder. In the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, notice was issued limited to the quantum of sentence. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court examined the judgment more broadly to satisfy itself regarding the conviction, expressing serious reservations about the conviction under the SC/ST Act and certain circumstances relied on by the High Court.

The present appeal before the Supreme Court concerns A2. The Court ultimately partly allowed the appeal and also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Telangana Legal Services Authority so that legal assistance may be provided to the other two convicted accused to enable them to file an appeal before the Supreme Court through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the conviction of A2 under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC could be sustained on the circumstantial and forensic evidence, independent of certain erroneous circumstances relied upon by the High Court (such as the “last seen together” theory, alleged confessional statements, and Section 27 recoveries).
2. Whether the ingredients of the offences charged under Section 3(1)(w)(i) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were established, particularly with respect to the accused’s knowledge of the victim’s caste status.
3. Whether the conviction of A2 under Section 404 read with Section 34 IPC, based on alleged recovery of the deceased’s mobile phone, was legally sustainable.
4. What sentence ought to be imposed on A2 for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, in light of the mitigating circumstances and the High Court’s direction of life imprisonment till the last breath without remission.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Scope of Consideration Despite Limited Notice

Although notice in the Special Leave Petition was confined to the quantum of sentence, the Supreme Court perused the entire judgment and record to satisfy itself regarding the conviction. The Court emphasized that, since the High Court’s order merges with the Supreme Court’s order, it was “duty-bound” to comment on aspects of the High Court’s reasoning with which it disagreed, particularly concerning the SC/ST Act conviction and certain incriminating circumstances accepted by the High Court.

Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence Relied on by the High Court

Rejection of “Last Seen Together” Theory as Applied

The trial court had relied, inter alia, on a ‘last seen together’ theory based on the depositions of PW-4 and PW-5, who stated that they had seen the deceased and A1 to A3 proceeding in the same direction towards Yellapatar Village. The High Court treated the lack of explanation by the accused, after being seen together with the deceased, as providing an additional link in the chain of circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Supreme Court noted that there was no proved acquaintance between the accused and the deceased. In such a factual situation, the Court held that a “last seen together” theory could not be validly propounded as a circumstance against the accused, even though it accepted that both the accused and the deceased were in the same vicinity shortly before the crime. The Court thus declined to treat this as a true “last seen together” circumstance in the legal sense, although proximity in time and place remained relevant.

Inadmissibility of Confession Made in Police Custody

The High Court also relied on an alleged confession made by the accused to PW-15, who had been summoned to the police station as a witness. According to the prosecution, PW-25 (DSP Asifabad, the Investigating Officer) secured the presence of PW-15 and one Md. Yunus as panch witnesses, and the confession was made to them.

The Supreme Court held that no reliance could be placed on such a confession obtained at the behest of the police while the accused were in police custody. It found the High Court’s view that this confession could be relied upon to be wholly untenable. The Court emphasized that a confession made in police custody and orchestrated through panch witnesses at the police station is not admissible as substantive incriminating evidence in the manner adopted by the High Court.

Improper Invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act

The Court next examined the alleged recovery of material objects—MO1 (mobile), MO11 (knife) and MO21 (cash)—which the prosecution had projected as admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As per the prosecution, these items were handed over along with the confession to PW-15 and were said to be in the possession of the accused at the time of their arrest. The clothes (MOs 12 to 20) worn by the accused at the time of arrest were likewise projected as seized under Section 27.

The Supreme Court found that there was no concealment of these articles in the sense contemplated by Section 27. Since the objects were allegedly already on the persons of the accused at the time of their arrest, they could have been seized on a simple police search. Attempting to convert such a seizure into a Section 27 “recovery” was held to be impermissible and contrary to the very principle underlying Section 27, which operates only where a disclosure leads to discovery of material objects that were previously concealed and are then recovered in the presence of witnesses.

Consequently, the Court refused to treat the alleged Section 27 recoveries as valid incriminating circumstances and declined to rely on them as part of the chain of evidence. It expressly recorded that it could “find absolutely no reason” to accept the above circumstances (purported last-seen, police-station confession, and Section 27 recoveries) as bases for conviction, notwithstanding the High Court’s reliance on them.

Independent Evaluation of Remaining Evidence Supporting IPC Convictions

Having rejected the questionable circumstances relied on by the High Court, the Supreme Court independently examined whether the remaining evidence provided a complete chain of circumstances sufficient to sustain the conviction of A2 under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC.

Presence of Accused in Vicinity and Witness Testimony

• PW-5: At about 9:00 a.m. on the day of the incident, while crossing Yellapatar Village on his motorcycle, PW-5 saw the accused going to Ramnaik Thanda and observed that the deceased was also proceeding in the same direction, carrying a bag full of utensils on her head.
• PW-4: While working in a nearby field around 10:30 a.m. the same day, PW-4 heard the shrieks of a lady, went in search, but could not find anyone. He deposed that he saw the accused at that time proceeding from Ramnaik Thanda—where the body was eventually found—towards Yellapatar Village. He later confirmed that the shrieks he had heard came from the location where the body was discovered.
• PW-6: Around 11:30 a.m. the same day, the accused came to PW-6’s kirana shop and sat on a bench. PW-6 noted that A2 took water from a pot and drank, and that all the accused had blood stains on their clothes.
• PW-8: PW-8 testified that the accused, residents of the village, were missing from the village after the incident.

These testimonies collectively placed the accused and the deceased in close spatial and temporal proximity to Ramnaik Thanda at the time corresponding to the commission of the crime, and also suggested suspicious conduct (blood-stained clothes and subsequent disappearance from the village).

Medical and Forensic Evidence

The medical evidence, particularly the postmortem, clearly established that the deceased was the victim of homicidal death and had been raped. PW-18, the doctor who conducted the postmortem, identified 14 ante-mortem external injuries and conclusively indicated rape. The preliminary postmortem report (Ex. P18) estimated the time of death as 24 to 28 hours prior to the examination, which matched the timeframe when witnesses had observed the accused and the deceased and when PW-4 heard the woman’s shrieks near Ramnaik Thanda.

PW-18 deposed that vaginal smear and swab (containing semen and spermatozoa) and DNA profile from the dead body were handed over to the police for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. PW-21 deposed that blood samples were obtained from the accused and sent for DNA and serology analysis. PW-21 also testified that Autosomal STR analysis showed that seminal stains on the saree of the victim matched the DNA profiles of A1 and A2 and were of the same biological origin. This directly linked A1 and A2 to the sexual assault on the victim.

Failure of Alibi and Completion of Circumstantial Chain

The Court further noted that, in their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused failed to establish any alibi for the relevant period. This failure to account for their presence during the critical timeframe, when read alongside the medical, forensic, and eyewitness evidence, was treated as reinforcing the incriminating circumstances.

The Supreme Court concluded that the combination of:

• medical evidence of rape and homicidal death,
• the time of death coinciding with the period when the accused and deceased were seen in and around Ramnaik Thanda,
• eyewitness accounts of shrieks from the exact location where the body was found and of the accused being present before and thereafter,
• forensic DNA evidence linking A2 to semen stains on the victim’s saree, and
• the accused’s inability to substantiate any alibi,

constituted a complete chain of circumstances sufficient to convict under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC. Thus, even after discarding the improperly used circumstances (last seen as framed by the High Court, confession in custody, and Section 27 recoveries), the Court found the prosecution evidence adequate to sustain the IPC convictions.

Analysis of SC/ST Act Convictions

The Court then examined whether the offences under the SC/ST Act were made out. While the prosecution had proved the caste of the deceased/victim, there was no evidence that the accused knew her caste or that they had any prior acquaintance with her from which such knowledge could be inferred.

The Court held that knowledge of the victim’s caste status is an essential ingredient for the offences charged under the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act (Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v)). In the absence of any proof that the accused knew the deceased’s caste or that the offence was committed with such knowledge, the legal requirement for conviction under the SC/ST Act was not satisfied. Consequently, the Court concluded that no offence under the SC/ST Act was established and that no conviction could be entered thereunder.

Analysis of Section 404 IPC Conviction Against A2

The conviction of A2 under Section 404 read with Section 34 IPC was based on the alleged appropriation of the deceased’s mobile phone. However, the Court had already found that the supposed recovery of the mobile phone via PW-15 (who allegedly received it from A2) could not be treated as a valid incriminating circumstance because the recovery had been improperly cast as a Section 27 Evidence Act recovery.

Additionally, although the mobile number was proved to be that of PW-11 through the testimony of PW-22, there was nothing to indicate that the recovered handset was the same one in which that SIM card had been used. The prosecution’s case was that the mobile handset had been taken from the deceased while the SIM card had been thrown away; however:

• no SIM card was recovered, and
• the ownership of the handset itself was not established.

In view of these evidentiary deficiencies, the Supreme Court held that the ingredients of Section 404 read with Section 34 IPC were not proved against A2 and therefore acquitted him of that offence. The Court further held that, for the same reasons and given the lack of proof of caste-related intent or knowledge, A2 must also be acquitted of the offences alleged under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Sentencing Analysis for A2 Under Section 302 IPC

Turning to sentencing, the Court noted that the High Court had modified the trial court’s death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, with a specific direction that the accused remain in custody till their last breath, without remission.

The Supreme Court confined its sentencing analysis to A2 and considered the mitigating factors noted by the High Court:

• A2 was about 40 years of age at the time of the offence.
• He had a family comprising his wife, four children, and aged parents and was the sole earning member.
• He had no past criminal record.
• The High Court itself had found that he did not pose a grave danger to society at large warranting the extinguishment of his life.
• The case was categorically held by the High Court not to fall in the “rarest of the rare” category requiring imposition of the death penalty.
• The trial court had noted that, while A2 was in custody, there was no adverse report from jail authorities about his conduct or suggesting that he was beyond reformation.
• Before the Supreme Court too, the State Counsel did not contend that A2’s prison conduct was adverse or that he was beyond reformation.

Despite this body of mitigating material, the Division Bench of the High Court had nonetheless imposed a sentence of life imprisonment “till the remainder of his life,” without remission. The Supreme Court found this approach excessive in light of the mitigating circumstances and the conclusion that the case was not of the rarest of rare category.

The Court held that this was a case in which the sentence of life imprisonment till the remainder of A2’s natural life could appropriately be modified to a fixed term of 25 years of imprisonment without remission for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Final Configuration of Convictions and Sentences

In conclusion, the Supreme Court:

• affirmed A2’s conviction under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of the medical, forensic, and remaining circumstantial evidence;
• modified the sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC from imprisonment for life till the remainder of A2’s life without remission to imprisonment for life for a period of 25 years without remission;
• affirmed the conviction and sentence of A2 under Section 376D read with Section 34 IPC as imposed by the courts below, and directed that the sentences under Sections 302/34 and 376D/34 IPC be suffered concurrently;
• set aside and vacated A2’s convictions under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, finding that the essential ingredient of knowledge of the victim’s caste was not proved;
• acquitted A2 of the offence under Section 404 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that the alleged mobile phone recovery and link to the deceased’s property were not satisfactorily established.

Directions Regarding Co-Accused

The Court noted that there were three accused in all, each having been convicted and sentenced identically, but only A2 had pursued an appeal to the Supreme Court. Observing this, the Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of its judgment to the Member Secretary, Telangana Legal Services Authority, with a further direction that through the concerned District Legal Services Authority, legal assistance be provided to the other accused to enable them to file appeals before the Supreme Court via the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

• The appeal of A2 was PARTLY ALLOWED.
• The conviction of A2 under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC was affirmed.
• The sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was modified to imprisonment for life for a term of 25 years without remission, in place of life imprisonment till the last breath without remission as imposed by the High Court.
• The conviction and sentence under Section 376D read with Section 34 IPC were affirmed, with both IPC sentences to run concurrently.
• A2 was acquitted of offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
• A2 was also acquitted of the offence under Section 404 read with Section 34 IPC.
• Pending applications, if any, were ordered to stand disposed of.

Implications:

The immediate consequence for A2 is that while his convictions for murder and gang rape remain intact, he benefits from a substantial reduction in the severity of the custodial regime under Section 302 IPC—from imprisonment till the end of his natural life without remission to a fixed term of 25 years’ imprisonment without remission, to run concurrently with the sentence under Section 376D IPC. He also stands relieved of all criminal liability under the SC/ST Act and under Section 404 IPC.

More broadly, the judgment underscores that:

• convictions under the SC/ST Act require clear proof that the accused were aware of the victim’s caste and that such status is connected to the commission of the offence;
• confessions obtained in police custody and attempts to treat mere seizure from an arrested person as a Section 27 Evidence Act recovery cannot be used as incriminating circumstances in the manner adopted by the High Court; and
• the imposition of sentences of life imprisonment till the last breath without remission must be carefully weighed against mitigating factors, especially where the case is not in the “rarest of the rare” category.

The Court did not purport to lay down any new legal rule but rather applied existing principles to the facts. It also sought to ensure parity and fairness by directing that legal aid be afforded to the co-accused, enabling them to seek similar appellate scrutiny of their convictions and sentences.