A) Abstract / Headnote

This case revolves around the conviction of Rabbu @ Sarvesh for offenses under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A, and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as Sections 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The trial court awarded the death penalty under Sections 376A and 302 IPC, life imprisonment under Section 376D, and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 450. The primary issues pertain to the reliability of the dying declarations, conflicting DNA evidence, and whether the case qualifies as “rarest of rare” for death penalty justification. The Supreme Court, after examining mitigating factors including the appellant’s socio-economic background, commuted the death penalty to a fixed 20-year rigorous imprisonment without remission.

Keywords: Dying declarations, death penalty, socio-economic background, rape and murder, rarest of rare.

B) Case Details

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal Nos. 449-450 of 2019

iii) Judgment Date:
12 September 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice K.V. Viswanathan

vi) Author:
Justice B.R. Gavai

vii) Citation:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 37

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A, and 302 read with Section 34, IPC
• Sections 5(g)/6, POCSO Act, 2012
• Section 164, CrPC (Dying declarations)

ix) Judgments Overruled:
None reported.

x) Related Law Subjects:
Criminal Law, POCSO Act, Sentencing Jurisprudence.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The case emerges from the heinous rape and murder of a minor victim. The appellant, aged 22 at the time of the incident, was convicted based on dying declarations and circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the High Court upheld the convictions, invoking the doctrine of “rarest of rare” to impose the death penalty. This decision was challenged on grounds of inconsistent evidence and socio-economic factors that argued against the death sentence.

D) Facts of the Case

1. The victim was raped, assaulted, and set ablaze by the accused. She succumbed to her injuries shortly after the incident.
2. Multiple dying declarations were recorded, implicating the appellant.
3. A DNA report suggested the involvement of a third person, which the defense used to question the appellant’s sole culpability.
4. The appellant’s socio-economic background, young age, and lack of prior criminal record were presented as mitigating factors.

E) Legal Issues Raised

i. Reliability of Dying Declarations
The defense argued inconsistencies across three dying declarations. They also highlighted improvements in the victim’s statements as time progressed.

ii. Applicability of the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine
The appellant’s background and conduct during incarceration were raised as factors against imposing the death penalty.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

i. The defense questioned the dying declarations’ reliability due to inconsistencies.
ii. DNA evidence suggested the involvement of a third party, creating doubt.
iii. The case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold due to the appellant’s young age, socio-economic challenges, and potential for reformation.
iv. Procedural lapses in the trial court’s sentencing process were highlighted, including failure to weigh mitigating factors adequately.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

i. The prosecution defended the consistency of the dying declarations, corroborated by oral testimony.
ii. The heinous nature of the crime warranted capital punishment under the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
iii. The appellant’s psychological evaluation and behavior reports were insufficient to offset the gravity of the crime.
iv. Precedent cases were cited to reinforce the justification for the death penalty.

H) Related Legal Provisions

i. IPC Provisions:

• Section 450: House-trespass to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment.
• Section 376(2)(i): Rape of a minor under specific aggravating circumstances.
• Section 376D: Gang rape.
• Section 376A: Rape leading to death or vegetative state.
• Section 302: Punishment for murder.
• Section 34: Common intention.

ii. POCSO Act:

• Section 5(g)/6: Aggravated penetrative sexual assault and punishment.

iii. Procedural Law:

• Section 164, CrPC: Recording of dying declarations.

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Court upheld the conviction based on corroborated dying declarations, the victim’s statements under Section 164, CrPC, and the absence of procedural infirmities.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasized reformation over retribution, particularly when socio-economic and psychological factors favor rehabilitation.

c. Guidelines
The Court reiterated sentencing principles balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, referencing precedents like Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, where fixed-term imprisonment replaced the death penalty.

J) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment reflects a calibrated approach to sentencing, prioritizing rehabilitation over retribution in light of mitigating factors. While affirming the heinousness of the crime, the Court leaned towards a humane perspective on justice.

References

1. Shivu and Another v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, [2007] 2 SCR 555.
2. Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Another v. State of Maharashtra, [2015] 5 SCR 1112.
3. Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar, [2013] 14 SCR 297.
4. Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, [2008] 11 SCR 93.
5. Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharasthra, [2013] 6 SCR 949.
6. Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, [2017] 2 SCR 62.
7. Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, [2001] Supp. 5 SCR 612.
8. Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, [2013] 3 SCR 90.
9. Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2023] 16 SCR 765.
10. Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala, [2024] 3 SCR 913.