A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines an extremely grave instance of sexual assault and homicidal death of a minor child aged two and a half years, committed by a close family member. The Supreme Court was called upon to assess the correctness of conviction under Sections 376(2)(f), (i), (m), 376A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as well as the confirmation of death penalty imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The case was founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen theory, medical evidence, DNA profiling, and forensic corroboration.

The Court undertook a meticulous evaluation of the chain of circumstances in light of the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reaffirming that circumstantial evidence, when unimpeachable and complete, can sustain conviction even in capital cases. The judgment further engages in an elaborate doctrinal discussion on the interplay between Sections 299 and 300 IPC, especially clause fourthly of Section 300, to determine whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea for murder.

While upholding the conviction for murder and aggravated sexual assault, the Court revisited the jurisprudence on rarest of rare doctrine and sentencing proportionality. It ultimately commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for 25 years under Section 376A IPC, holding that although the crime was exceptionally brutal, the option of a lesser sentence was not entirely foreclosed due to absence of specific intent to cause death.

Keywords:
Sexual assault on minor, circumstantial evidence, clause fourthly Section 300 IPC, rarest of rare doctrine, sentencing proportionality

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arises from an appeal challenging both conviction and sentence in a case involving sexual assault and death of a very young child. The factual matrix disclosed an offence of exceptional brutality, invoking strong societal outrage and judicial scrutiny. The Trial Court characterised the case as falling within the rarest of rare category and imposed death penalty under Sections 302 and 376A IPC, along with life imprisonment under other aggravated sexual offence provisions.

The High Court, while confirming both conviction and sentence, relied heavily on the medical evidence, DNA analysis, and the unbroken chain of circumstances. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised challenges on multiple grounds, including alleged infirmities in circumstantial evidence, non-compliance with Section 235(2) CrPC, incorrect application of Section 300 IPC, and erroneous imposition of death penalty.

The Supreme Court was therefore tasked with addressing layered questions: whether the prosecution had successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence; whether the homicidal death occasioned during sexual assault satisfied the statutory requirements of murder; whether the death penalty was justified under prevailing sentencing jurisprudence; and whether retrospective application of amended sentencing provisions violated Article 20(1).

The judgment is significant for its structured approach to capital sentencing, its reaffirmation of constitutional protections against ex-post facto enhancement of punishment, and its nuanced application of mens rea principles in cases of sexual violence resulting in death of minors.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The victim, a girl aged approximately two and a half years, was residing with her parents near her maternal grandfather’s house. On the evening of 11 February 2013, during a village religious gathering, the appellant, who was the maternal uncle of the victim, took the child from her grandfather on the false pretext that her father had asked for her. This fact was consistently established through the testimony of PW-2, corroborated by prompt lodging of the FIR.

When the child did not return, a search ensued. She was ultimately found lying in an under-construction Anganwadi building, unclothed from the waist down, with the appellant lying nearby. The child exhibited visible bite marks, severe injuries, and bleeding from the genital region. She was immediately taken to a medical practitioner but was declared dead.

Post-mortem examination revealed multiple bite injuries, extensive abrasions, and catastrophic perineal tearing with merging of vaginal and anal orifices, identified as Injury No.17, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The medical board conclusively opined that death resulted from shock and haemorrhage following forceful sexual assault.

The appellant was medically examined within hours and found to have abrasions on the glans penis, consistent with recent sexual intercourse. Forensic analysis revealed that blood stains on the appellant’s trousers matched the DNA profile of the victim. The appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
ii. Whether death caused during forceful sexual assault on a minor attracts clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC?
iii. Whether imposition of death penalty was justified under the rarest of rare doctrine?
iv. Whether retrospective application of enhanced sentencing provisions violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution?
v. Whether non-compliance with Section 235(2) CrPC vitiated sentencing?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Appellant submitted that the case rested purely on circumstantial evidence with missing links and non-examination of crucial witnesses. It was argued that absence of semen detection weakened the prosecution case. The appellant further contended that injuries could not conclusively establish intention to cause death, thereby excluding applicability of Section 302 IPC.

It was urged that sentencing on the same day as conviction violated Section 235(2) CrPC, depriving the appellant of meaningful opportunity of hearing on sentence. The defence also challenged retrospective imposition of life imprisonment for remainder of natural life as unconstitutional under Article 20(1).

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Respondent submitted that every incriminating circumstance stood conclusively proved and formed a consistent chain excluding any hypothesis of innocence. The State relied heavily on medical evidence, DNA profiling, last-seen theory, and absence of explanation by the accused.

It was contended that the nature of injuries and the age of the victim clearly attracted clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC. The State defended death penalty by invoking societal conscience, extreme brutality, and breach of familial trust.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 300 clause fourthly, IPC
ii. Sections 376(2)(f),(i),(m) and 376A, IPC
iii. Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012
iv. Section 235(2), CrPC
v. Article 20(1), Constitution of India

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 376(2) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act, Section 376A IPC, and Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence satisfied the five-fold test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda.

On the issue of murder, the Court held that considering the age of the victim, the appellant must have had knowledge that such sexual assault was likely to cause death, thereby attracting clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC.

However, on sentencing, the Court distinguished between knowledge and intention. It held that absence of deliberate intent to kill and consistent judicial practice warranted commutation of death penalty. Consequently, death sentence under Section 302 IPC was reduced to life imprisonment.

Under Section 376A IPC, the Court imposed rigorous imprisonment for 25 years, rejecting death penalty in view of temporal proximity of statutory amendment and proportionality concerns.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

Where death of a minor is caused during forceful sexual assault, knowledge of likely fatal consequences is sufficient to attract clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC, even in absence of intent to kill. However, such cases do not automatically warrant death penalty unless the option of lesser punishment is completely foreclosed.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that retrospective statutory stipulations restricting remission powers by mandating imprisonment for remainder of natural life would offend Article 20(1) if applied ex-post facto.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Circumstantial evidence cases can sustain death penalty only if unimpeachable and foreclosing all alternatives.
ii. Clause fourthly murder convictions ordinarily merit life imprisonment.
iii. Sentencing must balance societal outrage with constitutional proportionality.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reflects a calibrated judicial response balancing retributive justice with constitutional restraint. It strengthens jurisprudence on sexual violence against minors while reinforcing limits on capital punishment.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
3. Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Constitution of India