# MANOJ & ORS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [2022] 9 S.C.R. 452
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-05-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 248-250 of 2015
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela. M. Trivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/manoj-ors-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-36610
- **Pages:** 129

## Headnote

Sentence / Sentencing - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 397 -
Triple murder, in course of robbery - Three accused - Trial Court
convicted the accused-appellants u/s. 302 IPC and imposed death
penalty on them - High Court confirmed the conviction - On appeal,
held: Both the trial Court and High Court failed to provide an
effective sentencing hearing to the accused at the relevant stage
which is a right u/s 235(2) CrPC - The crime that the appellants
were held guilty of, was heinous, and its execution was vicious and
cruel - The repeated stabbings of two of the deceased almost in a
frenzy on the one hand and the defenceless state of the victims, on
the other, highlights that the accused were willing to go ahead with
their plans of robbing after eliminating the three women - At the
same time, the young age of the accused at the time of the incident
and lack of criminal antecedents cannot be lost sight of - Prosecution
case is silent on any real motive that may have instigated or moved
the three accused to have pre-planned for the commission of murder
other than robbery itself - Death sentence of all three accused
commuted to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years -
Arms Act - s.27.
Criminal Trial - Death Sentence - When to be awarded -
Discussed - A two-step process has to be followed to determine
whether a case deserves death sentence - Firstly, that the case
belongs to the 'rarest of rare' category, and secondly, that the option
of life imprisonment would simply not suffice - For the first step,
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have to be
identified and considered equally - For the second, the court has
to consider whether the alternative of life imprisonment was
unquestionable foreclosed as the sentencing aim of reformation was
unachievable, for which the State must provide material.
452
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 452
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Test Identification
Parade - TIPs are meant to test witness veracity and their capability
to identify unknown persons - TIPs should be conducted at the
earliest possible time to eliminate the chance of accused being shown
to witnesses before the identification parade, which might otherwise
affect such witnesses' memory - No provision of law enables an
accused to claim TIP as a matter of right - Delay or failure in holding
TIP ipso facto does not render the evidence inadmissible or
unacceptable, however it affects the credibility and weight attached
to such identification.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles
applicable to appreciation of evidence - The correct approach of
courts trying criminal cases involving circumstantial evidence should
be that the circumstances alleged, be fully established - All the facts
so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused - Circumstances should be conclusive and of such
tendency that they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis
but the one proposed to be proved.
Criminal Trial - Practice and Procedures - Omission of
prosecution witness to state a fact - Effect of: The omission of some
of the prosecution witnesses to mention a particular fact, or
corroborate something, which is deposed to by other witnesses does
not ipso facto favour an accused - However, more important is
whether the omission to depose about a fact is so fundamental that
the prosecution version becomes shaky and incredulous.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 24 - Role of Public
Prosecutor in Criminal Trial - Public prosecutor occupies a statutory
office of high regard - They are not part of the investigating agency,
rather an independent statutory authority who serve as officers to
the court - The role of the public prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated
to conducting a fair trial and not for a 'thirst to reach the case in
conviction'.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.172, 173 -
Maintenance of case diary mandatory - Police have the power to
investigate freely and fairly, i

## Text

_Characters 0–39,892 of 305,735. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39892 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
MANOJ & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 248-250 of 2015)
MAY 20, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA. M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 397 -
Triple murder, in course of robbery - Three accused - Trial Court
convicted the accused-appellants u/s. 302 IPC and imposed death
penalty on them - High Court confirmed the conviction - On appeal,
held: Both the trial Court and High Court failed to provide an
effective sentencing hearing to the accused at the relevant stage
which is a right u/s 235(2) CrPC - The crime that the appellants
were held guilty of, was heinous, and its execution was vicious and
cruel - The repeated stabbings of two of the deceased almost in a
frenzy on the one hand and the defenceless state of the victims, on
the other, highlights that the accused were willing to go ahead with
their plans of robbing after eliminating the three women - At the
same time, the young age of the accused at the time of the incident
and lack of criminal antecedents cannot be lost sight of - Prosecution
case is silent on any real motive that may have instigated or moved
the three accused to have pre-planned for the commission of murder
other than robbery itself - Death sentence of all three accused
commuted to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years -
Arms Act - s.27.
Criminal Trial - Death Sentence - When to be awarded -
Discussed - A two-step process has to be followed to determine
whether a case deserves death sentence - Firstly, that the case
belongs to the 'rarest of rare' category, and secondly, that the option
of life imprisonment would simply not suffice - For the first step,
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have to be
identified and considered equally - For the second, the court has
to consider whether the alternative of life imprisonment was
unquestionable foreclosed as the sentencing aim of reformation was
unachievable, for which the State must provide material.
452
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 452
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Test Identification
Parade - TIPs are meant to test witness veracity and their capability
to identify unknown persons - TIPs should be conducted at the
earliest possible time to eliminate the chance of accused being shown
to witnesses before the identification parade, which might otherwise
affect such witnesses' memory - No provision of law enables an
accused to claim TIP as a matter of right - Delay or failure in holding
TIP ipso facto does not render the evidence inadmissible or
unacceptable, however it affects the credibility and weight attached
to such identification.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles
applicable to appreciation of evidence - The correct approach of
courts trying criminal cases involving circumstantial evidence should
be that the circumstances alleged, be fully established - All the facts
so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused - Circumstances should be conclusive and of such
tendency that they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis
but the one proposed to be proved.
Criminal Trial - Practice and Procedures - Omission of
prosecution witness to state a fact - Effect of: The omission of some
of the prosecution witnesses to mention a particular fact, or
corroborate something, which is deposed to by other witnesses does
not ipso facto favour an accused - However, more important is
whether the omission to depose about a fact is so fundamental that
the prosecution version becomes shaky and incredulous.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 24 - Role of Public
Prosecutor in Criminal Trial - Public prosecutor occupies a statutory
office of high regard - They are not part of the investigating agency,
rather an independent statutory authority who serve as officers to
the court - The role of the public prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated
to conducting a fair trial and not for a 'thirst to reach the case in
conviction'.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.172, 173 -
Maintenance of case diary mandatory - Police have the power to
investigate freely and fairly, in the course of which, it is mandatory
to maintain a diary where the day-to-day proceedings are to be
recorded with specific mention of time of events, places visited,
departure and reporting back, statements recorded, etc - Criminal
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
Court is empowered to summon these diaries u/s 172(2) for purpose
of inquiry or trial, s. 173(3) makes it clear that the accused cannot
claim any right to peruse them, unless the police themselves, rely on
it to refresh their memory or if the court uses it for contradicting the
testimony of the police officers.
 Criminal Trial - Fundamental canons of criminal
jurisprudence founded on Arts. 20 and 21 of the Constitution require
not just the investigating agency but also courts in their own
independent field, to ensure that investigation is fair and does not
hamper the individual's freedom, except in accordance with law,
i.e., ensure adherence to the rule of law.
Criminal Trial - Practical guidelines to collect mitigating
circumstances - Trial Court must elicit information from the accused
and the State both - The State must for an offence carrying capital
punishment - at the appropriate stage, produce material which is
preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court
disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused
- This will help establish proximity to the accused person's frame of
mind - The State must in a time-bound manner collect additional
information pertaining to the accused -Information regarding the
accused's jail conduct and behaviour, activities the accused involved
themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the
form of a report from the relevant jail authorities.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sentencing - An effective
sentencing hearing to the accused at the relevant stage is a right
under s.235(2).
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The goal of reformation is ideal, and what society
must strive towards - there are many references to it peppered
in this court's jurisprudence across the decades - but what is
lacking is a concrete framework that can measure and evaluate
it. Unfortunately, this is mirrored by the failure to implement prison
reforms of a meaningful kind, which has left the process of
incarceration and prisons in general, to be a space of limited
potential for systemic reformation. The goal of reformative
punishment requires systems that actively enable reformation
and rehabilitation, as a result of nuanced policy making. As a small
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
step to correct these skewed results and facilitate better
evaluation of whether there is a possibility for the accused to be
reformed (beyond vague references to conduct, family
background, etc.), it is necessary to frame practical guidelines
for the courts to adopt and implement, till the legislature and
executive, formulate a coherent framework through legislation.
These guidelines may also offer guidance or ideas, that such a
legislative framework could benefit from, to systematically collect
and evaluate information on mitigating circumstances. [Para 212]
[573-E-H]
2.1. There is urgent need to ensure that mitigating
circumstances are considered at the trial stage, to avoid slipping
into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime, as is
noticeably the situation in a majority of cases reaching the
appellate stage. To do this, the trial court must elicit information
from the accused and the state, both. The state, must - for an
offence carrying capital punishment - at the appropriate stage,
produce material which is preferably collected beforehand, before
the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological
evaluation of the accused. This will help establish proximity (in
terms of timeline), to the accused person's frame of mind (or
mental illness, if any) at the time of committing the crime and
offer guidance on mitigating factors (1), (5), (6) and (7) spelled
out in Bachan Singh. Even for the other factors of (3) and (4)- an
onus placed squarely on the State- conducting this form of
psychiatric and psychological evaluation close on the heels of
commission of the offence, will provide a baseline for the appellate
courts to use for comparison, i.e., to evaluate the progress of the
accused towards reformation, achieved during the incarceration
period. [Paras 213 & 214][574-B-E]
2.2. The State must in a time-bound manner, collect
additional information pertaining to the accused. An illustrative,
but not exhaustive list is as follows: a) Age; b) Early family
background (siblings, protection of parents, any history of violence
or neglect); c) Present family background (surviving family
members, whether married, has children, etc.; d) Type and level
of education; e) Socio-economic background (including conditions
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
of poverty or deprivation, if any.); f) Criminal antecedents (details
of offence and whether convicted, sentence served, if any); g)
Income and the kind of employment (whether none, or temporary
or permanent etc); h) Other factors such as history of unstable
social behaviour, or mental or psychological ailment(s), alienation
of the individual (with reasons, if any) etc. This information should
mandatorily be available to the trial court, at the sentencing stage.
The accused too, should be given the same opportunity to produce
evidence in rebuttal, towards establishing all mitigating
circumstances. [Para 215][574-E-H; 575-A-C]
2.3 Information regarding the accused's jail conduct and
behaviour, work done (if any), activities the accused has involved
themselves in, and other related details should be called for in
the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities (i.e., probation
and welfare officer, superintendent of jail, etc.). If the appeal is
heard after a long hiatus from the trial court's conviction, or High
Court's confirmation, as the case may be - a fresh report (rather
than the one used by the previous court) from the jail authorities
is recommended, for an more exact and complete understanding
of the contemporaneous progress made by the accused, in the
time elapsed. The jail authorities must also include a fresh
psychiatric and psychological report which will further evidence
the reformative progress, and reveal post-conviction mental
illness, if any. [Para 216][575-C-E]
3.1. In the instant case, there can be no doubt that the crime
committed by the three accused was brutal, and grotesque. The
three defenceless victims were women of different age groups
(22, 46, 76 years) who were caught off-guard and severely
physically assaulted, resulting in their death, in the safety and
comfort of their own home. To have killed three generations of
women from the family of PW-1, is without a doubt, grotesque.
The manner of the offence was also vicious and pitiless - Ashlesha
and Rohini, were stabbed repeatedly to their death, while Megha
was shot point blank in the face. The post-mortem (Ex. P44)
reflects that the stab wounds were extensive - ranging across
the bodies of the victim. The extensive bleeding at the crime
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
457
scene further reflects cruel and inhumane manner of attack,
against the three women. The crime in itself, could no doubt be
characterised as "extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical,
revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
indignation of the community" as defined in Machhi Singh. These
are the aggravating circumstances. On an application of the
Bachan Singh test (as clarified and explained, in numerous
decisions), however, the mitigating circumstances need to be
considered (and that too, liberally and expansively). [Para 218 &
219][576-C-G]
3.2. It is unfortunate to note that both the trial Court, and
High Court, failed to provide an effective sentencing hearing to
the accused, at the relevant stage, which is a right under Section
235(2) CrPC recognised by this court in several cases. In fact, it
was argued by the accused that the trial court in contravention of
this court's judgments, had proceeded to hear on sentencing
almost immediately, depriving the accused of the opportunity to
put forth their case for a less stringent sentence. The trial court
order on sentencing, records in passing - the plea of 'young age'
and 'socio-economic factors' as mitigating circumstances, but
reflects, at best, a mechanical consideration of the same. Swayed
by the brutality of the crime and "shock of the collective and
judicial conscience", the High Court affirmed imposition of the
death penalty solely on the basis of the aggravating circumstances
of the crime, with negligible consideration of mitigating
circumstances of the criminal. This is in direct contravention of
Bachan Singh. [Para 223][578-B-E]
3.3. The crime that the appellants have been held guilty of,
is heinous; its execution was vicious and cruel, by any stretch of
imagination. The deception practised by the appellants, in entering
the flat, and, when encountering resistance, attacking the three
women, was calculated and ruthless. The repeated stabbings of
two of the deceased, almost in a frenzy, on the one hand, and the
defenceless state of the victims, on the other, highlights that the
accused were willing to go ahead with their plans (of robbing)
after eliminating the women of three generations. No doubt, two
of the victims appear to have put up resistance, if one looks at
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
the stab wounds inflicted all over their bodies, including on their
arms and faces. They were unarmed and weak. At the same time,
the young age of the accused at the time of the incident (35, 20,
22 respectively) and lack of criminal antecedents (except in the
case of Manoj, who was allegedly involved in a case of petty theft)
cannot be lost sight of. Further, the prosecution case is silent on
any real motive that may have instigated or moved the three
accused to have pre-planned for the commission of murder - other
than robbery, itself. This coupled with the fact that Rahul was
shot in his leg during the commission of the crime, indicates that
perhaps it is reasonable to assume that they were amateurs in a
robbing-gone-wrong situation, who were not intent on taking the
lives of these three women. One can surmise that having ventured
to rob, perhaps they did not contemplate the kind of resistance
that was put up by the victims, which led them to act the way they
did, to continue with their plan, and ensure that the victims did not
survive to tell the tale. [Paras 224 & 225][578-D-F; 579-A-D]
3.4. The reports received from the Superintendent of Jail
reflect that each of the three accused, have a record of overall
good conduct in prison and display inclination to reform. It is
evident that they have already, while in prison, taken steps
towards bettering their lives and of those around them, which
coupled with their young age unequivocally demonstrates that
there is in fact, a probability of reform. On consideration of all
the circumstances overall, it is found that the option of life
imprisonment is certainly not foreclosed. Imposition of death
sentence would be unwarranted in the present case. It would be
appropriate and in the overall interests of justice to commute
the death sentence of all three accused, to life imprisonment for
a minimum term of 25 years. [Para 226 & 228][579-D-E; 580-AB]
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, [1983]
SCR 3 413; Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88;
Anil v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69 : [2014]
3 SCR 34 and Rajesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2011) 13 SCC 706 - relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
459
Umesh Tukaram Padwal & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
(2019) 8 SCC 567; Lal Singh and others v. State of
U.P 2003 (12) SCC 554; Muthuswami v. State of Madras
AIR 1954 SC 4; Mohammed Abdul Hafeez v. State of
AP (1983) 1 SCC 143; Mohd. Aman & Anr. v. State of
Rajastha (1997) 10 SCC 44; Chandran @ Surendran
& Anr. v. State of Kerala (1991) Supp (1) SCC 39; Noor
Aga v.State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417 : [2008] 10
SCR 379; Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020)
10 SCC 733 : [2020] 8 SCR 1071; Reena Hazarika v.
State of Assam (2019) 13 SCC 289 : [2018]
13 SCR 1108; Suresh Sakharamb Nangare v. State of
Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 249 : [2012] 7 SCR 1186;
State of Andhra Pradesh v.Dr. M.V. Ramana Reddy &
Ors (1991) 4 SCC 536 : [1991] 3 SCR 600; Rajesh
Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC
428 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 277; Matru @ Girish
Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971) 2 SCC 75 :
[1971] 3 SCR 914; Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab
AIR 1956 SC 415; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab 1996
(6) SCALE 72; Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)
4 SCC 345; SMoosa Patel v. State of Gujarat (2011) 2
SCC 198 : [2011] 2 SCR 121; Puran v. State of Punja
AIR 1953 SC 459 Darya Singh v. State of Punjab [1964]
7 SCR 397; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9
SCC 719 : [2009] 13 SCR 774; Malkhan Singh v. State
of MP. (2003) 5 SCC 746 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 443;
Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1978) 3 SCC 86 :
[1978] 3 SCR 694; Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West
Bengal (2012) 7 SCC 646 : [2012] 10 SCR 95; Sonvir
v. State (NCT) of Delh (2018) 8 SCC 24 : [2018] 7
SCR 830; Ashish Jain & Ors. v. Makrand Singh (2019)
3 SCC 770 : [2019] 1 SCR 345; Hari Om @ Hero v
State of UP (2021) 4 SCC 345; Dharam Deo Yadav v.
State of UP (2015) 5 SCC 509; Pantangi Balarama
Venkata Ganesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 14
SCC 607 : [2009] 11 SCR 636; Santosh Kumar Singh
v. State Through CBI (2010) 9 SCC 747 : [2010] 13
SCR 901; Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
(2011) 5 SCC 509 : [2011] 7 SCR 354; Krishan Kumar
Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 : [ 2011]
8 SCR 774; Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 80 : [2011] 2 SCR 939; Sandeep v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 107 : [2012] 5
SCR 952; Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Prades (2014)
5 SCC 353 : [2014] 3 SCR 212; Mukesh & Ors. v.
State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1 : [2017]
6 SCR 1; Anil v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC
69 : [2014] 3 SCR 34; Pattu Rajan v. The State of Tamil
Nad (2019) 4 SCC 771 : [2019] 5 SCR 535; State of
Bihar v. Kapil Singh [1968] 3 SCR 310; Mohd. Aman
v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 10 SCC 44; Balbir Singh
v State of Punjab 1996 (6) SCALE 72; Hanumant v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 343; Tufail
v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1969) 3 SCC 198; Ram Gopal
v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656; State of
U.P. v. Anil Singh (1988) Supp SCC 686; C. Muniappan
v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 : [2010] 10
SCR 262; Surajit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2013)
2 SCC 146 : [2012] 13 SCR 634; Shanker & Ors. v.
State of Madhya Prades (2018) 15 SCC 725 : [2018] 6
SCR 814; Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad (2002) 6
SCC 470 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 379; Rammi @
Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Prades (1999) 8 SCC
649 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 1; Appabhai and Anr. v.
State of Gujarat 1988 Supp (1) SCC 241; Vinod Kumar
v. State of Haryana (2015) 3 SCC 138 : [2015] 1
SCR 328; Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtr (1973) 2 SCC 793 : [1974] 1 SCR 489;
Kartike Malhar v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614 :
[1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 239; Ramashish Yadav v. State of
Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 555 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 285;
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994)
4 SCC 602 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 360; Deepak
Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik (2013) 5 SCC 277 : [2013]
1 SCR 402; Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chan (1999) 7 SCC
467 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 81; Siddharth Vasisht @
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
461
Manu Sharma v. State of NCT Delhi (2010) 6 SCC 1 :
[2010] 4 SCR 103; Mukund Lal v. Union of India 1989
Supp (1) SCC 622 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 524; Malkiat
Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 4 SCC 341 : [1991] 2
SCR 256; Inadequacies and Deficiencies, in re v. State
of Andhra Pradesh (2021) 10 SCC 598; Jagmohan
Singh v. State of Uttar Prades (1973) 1 SCC 20 : [1973]
2 SCR 541; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v.
State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 : [2009] 9
SCR 90;
Shankar KisanraoKhade v. State of
Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546 : [2013] 6 SCR 949;
Swamy Shraddananda (2) @ Mural Manohar Mishra
v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 : [2008] 11
SCR 93; Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2013) 2
SCC 452 : [2012] 13 SCR 85; Mohd. Farooq Abdul
Gafur & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 14 SCC
641 : [2009] 12 SCR 1093; Chhannu Lal Verma v. State
of Chattisgarh (2019) 12 SCC 438 : [2018] 14
SCR 355; Swamy Shraddananda (2) @ Mural Manohar
Mishra v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 :
[2008] 11 SCR 93; Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana
(2013) 2 SCC 452 : [2012] 13 SCR 85; Manoharan v.
State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station,
(2019) 7 SCC 716 : [2019] 18 SCR 1007; Sangeet &
Anr. v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452 : [2012] 13
SCR 85; Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of
Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546 : [2013] 6 SCR 949;
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
(2019) 12 SCC 460 : [2018] 14 SCR 585; Ravji v. State
of Haryan (1996) SCC 2 175 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR
195; Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 6 SCC
271 : 1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 783; Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State
of Orissa (2003) 9 SCC 310; Mohan Anna Chavan v.
State of Maharashtra, (2008) 7 SCC 561 : [2008] 8
SCR 1072; Bantu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 11
SCC 113 : [2008] 11 SCR 184; Shivaji v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 15 SCC 268; State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Sattan @ Satyendra and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC
736 : [2009] 3 SCR 643; Rajesh Kumar v. State (2011)
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
462
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
13 SCC 706; Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of
Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 : [2008] 11 SCR 93;
Union of India v. V Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1 : [2015]
14 SCR 613; Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC
76 : [2002] 1 SCR 377; Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v.
State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 292 : [2014] 3
SCR 406; Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 2
SCC 713 : [2013] 1 SCR 783; Mulla & Anr. v. State of
U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508 : [2010] 2 SCR 633;
Kamleshwar Paswan v. UT Chandigarh (2011) 11 SCC
564 : [2011] 1 SCR 647; Sunil Gaikwad v. State of
Maharashtra (2014) 1 SCC 129 : [2013] 9 SCR 295;
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC
1 : [2014] 1 SCR 609; Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State
of Maharashtra (2010) 1 SCC 775 : [2009] 16
SCR 322; Malkiat Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab
(1991) 4 SCC 341 : [1991] 2 SCR 256; Muniappan v.
State of T.N. (1981) 3 SCC 11 : [1981] 3 SCR 270;
Birju v. State of M.P., (2014) 3 SCC 421 : [2014] 1
SCR 1047; Bharat Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Order dated 17.04.2014, DSR No. 1/2014; Anil v. State
of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69 : [2014] 3 SCR 34;
Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannam v. State of Bihar (2019)
16 SCC 584 : [2019] 8 SCR 266; Allaudin Mian v. State
of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5 : [1989] 2 SCR 498;
RameshbhaiChandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat
(2009) 5 SCC 740; Rajesh Kumar v. State (NCT of
Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 706; Mukesh v. State (NCT of
Delhi) (2017) 3 SCC 717; Chhannulal Verma v. State
of Chhattisgarh (2019) 12 SCC 438 : [2018] 14
SCR 355; Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1967) 4 SCC
190; Allaudin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5 :
[1989] 2 SCR 498; Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish v. State of
Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 43 : [2012] 10 SCR 70;
Gurvail Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab (2013) 2 SCC
713 : [2013] 1 SCR 783; Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2012) 4 SCC 107 : [2012] 1 SCR 1009; Shyam Singh
@ Bhima v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 11 SCC 265;
Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 4
SCC 257 : [2012] 3 SCR 630 and M.A Antony @
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
463
Antappan v. State of Kerala (2020) 17 SCC 751 -
referred to.
R v Dohoney & Adams 1997 1997 (1) Crl App Rep
369; District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial
District v. Osborne 557 U.S. 52 (2009) - referred to.
185th Report, on Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 2003
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 8 SCC 567
referred to
Para 24
[2003] 12 SCC 554
referred to
Para 26
AIR 1954 SC 4
referred to
Para 26
(1983) 1 SCC 143
referred to
Para 26
(1997) 10 SCC 44
referred to
Para 36
(1991) Supp (1) SCC 39
referred to
Para 36
[2008] 10 SCR 379
referred to
Para 39
[2020] 8 SCR 1071
referred to
Para 39
[2018] 13 SCR 1108
referred to
Para 40
[2012] 7 SCR 1186
referred to
Para 45
[1991] 3 SCR 600
referred to
Para 48
[1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 277
referred to
Para 48
[1971] 3 SCR 914
referred to
Para 48
AIR 1956 SC 415
referred to
Para 49
[1996] 6 SCALE 72
referred to
Para 49
(2021) 4 SCC 345
referred to
Para 50
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 51
[2011] 2 SCR 121
referred to
Para 65
AIR 1953 SC 459
referred to
Para 94
[1964] 7 SCR 397
referred to
Para 94
[2009] 13 SCR 774
referred to
Para 94
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 443
referred to
Para 100
[1978] 3 SCR 694
referred to
Para 100
[2012] 10 SCR 95
referred to
Para 100
[2018] 7 SCR 830
referred to
Para 114
[2019] 1 SCR 345
referred to
Para 114
(2021) 4 SCC 345
referred to
Para 116
(2015) 5 SCC 509
referred to
Para 137
[2009] 11 SCR 636
referred to
Para 139
[2010] 13 SCR 901
referred to
Para 139
[2011] 7 SCR 354
referred to
Para 139
[2011] 8 SCR 774
referred to
Para 139
[2011] 2 SCR 939
referred to
Para 139
[2012] 5 SCR 952
referred to
Para 139
[2014] 3 SCR 212
referred to
Para 139
[2017] 6 SCR 1
referred to
Para 139
[2014] 3 SCR 34
relied on
Para 139
[2019] 5 SCR 535
referred to
Para 140
[1968] 3 SCR 310
referred to
Para 148
(1997) 10 SCC 44
referred to
Para 148
[1996] 6 SCALE 72
referred to
Para 148
AIR 1953 SC 343
referred to
Para 149
(1969) 3 SCC 198
referred to
Para 149
AIR 1972 SC 656
referred to
Para 149
(1988) Supp SCC 686
referred to
Para 157
[2010] 10 SCR 262
referred to
Para 157
[2012] 13 SCR 634
referred to
Para 157
[2018] 6 SCR 814
referred to
Para 157
[2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 379
referred to
Para 157
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
465
[1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 158
1988 Supp (1) SCC 241
referred to
Para 158
[2015] 1 SCR 328
referred to
Para 159
[1974] 1 SCR 489
referred to
Para 160
[1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 239
referred to
Para 160
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 285
referred to
Para 168
[1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 360
referred to
Para 171
[2013] 1 SCR 402
referred to
Para 171
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 81
referred to
Para 171
[2010] 4 SCR 103
referred to
Para 171
[1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 524
referred to
Para 173
[1991] 2 SCR 256
referred to
Para 173
(2021) 10 SCC 598
referred to
Para 178
(1980) 2 SCC 684
relied on
Para 182
[1973] 2 SCR 541
referred to
Para 183
[2009] 9 SCR 90
referred to
Para 185
[2013] 6 SCR 949
referred to
Para 185
[2008] 11 SCR 93
referred to
Para 186
[2012] 13 SCR 85
referred to
Para 186
[2009] 12 SCR 1093
referred to
Para 186
[2018] 14 SCR 355
referred to
Para 186
[1983] SCR 3 413
relied on
Para 189
[2008] 11 SCR 93
referred to
Para 189
[2012] 13 SCR 85
referred to
Para 189
[2019] 18 SCR 1007
referred to
Para 189
[2012] 13 SCR 85
referred to
Para 193
[2013] 6 SCR 949
referred to
Para 194
[2018] 14 SCR 585
referred to
Para 195
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 195
referred to
Para 198
[1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 783
referred to
Para 198
(2003) 9 SCC 310
referred to
Para 198
[2008] 8 SCR 1072
referred to
Para 198
[2008] 11 SCR 184
referred to
Para 198
(2008) 15 SCC 268
referred to
Para 198
[2009] 3 SCR 643
referred to
Para 198
(2011) 13 SCC 706
relied on
Para 199
[2008] 11 SCR 93
referred to
Para 200
[2015] 14 SCR 613
referred to
Para 200
[2002] 1 SCR 377
referred to
Para 203
[2014] 3 SCR 406
referred to
Para 204
[2013] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 204
[2010] 2 SCR 633
referred to
Para 204
[2011] 1 SCR 647
referred to
Para 204
[2013] 9 SCR 295
referred to
Para 204
[2014] 1 SCR 609
referred to
Para 204
[2009] 16 SCR 322
referred to
Para 204
[1991] 2 SCR 256
referred to
Para 205
[1981] 3 SCR 270
referred to
Para 206
[ 2014] 3 SCR 34
referred to
Para 206
[2014] 1 SCR 1047
referred to
Para 210
[2014] 3 SCR 34
referred to
Para 217
[2019] 8 SCR 266
referred to
Para 223
[1989] 2 SCR 498
referred to
Para 223
(2009) 5 SCC 740
referred to
Para 223
(2011) 13 SCC 706
referred to
Para 223
(2017) 3 SCC 717
referred to
Para 223
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
[2018] 14 SCR 355
referred to
Para 223
(1967) 4 SCC 190
referred to
Para 223
[1989] 2 SCR 498
referred to
Para 223
(2011) 13 SCC 706
referred to
Para 223
[2012] 10 SCR 70
referred to
Para 223
[2013] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 226
[2012] 1 SCR 1009
referred to
Para 226
(2017) 11 SCC 265
referred to
Para 226
[2012] 3 SCR 630
referred to
Para 226
(2020) 17 SCC 751
referred to
Para 226
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 248-250 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2014 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Reference No.4/2013/DA/8
and Criminal Appeal Nos.3 and 266 of 2014 respectively.
Ms. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv., Kaustubh Anshuraj, Shri Singh,
Ms. Shivani Misra, Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Anirudh Sanganeria, Ms. Sridevi
Panikkar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AAG, Sunny Choudhary, Ms. Saumya
Kapoor, Siddhanth, Shikhar Kishore, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The present judgment will dispose of three appeals1 preferred
by three accused persons. They were convicted under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC) (3 counts) imposed with death penalty by the
judgment and orders of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore2.
This was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh atIndore3.
1 Criminal Appeal No. 248-250/2015
2 Dated 13.12.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 536/2011
3 Dated 29.09.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2014, 266/2014 & Criminal
Reference No. 04/2013
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
2. The appellants (Manoj, Rahul @ Govind and Neha Verma,
hereafter referred by their names) were convicted for offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC (three counts) for committing the murder, during
the course of robbery, of Megha Deshpande, Ashlesha Deshpande and
Smt. Rohini Phadke on 19.06.2011. All three appellants were sentenced
to capital punishment with fine of 1000/- on each count, and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment
(RI) on each count. Under Section 397 IPC, they were sentenced to
undergo 10 years RI with fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of
fine, 6 months additional RI. Under Section 449 IPC, they were
sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of 1000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, 6 months additional RI.Manoj and Rahul@ Govind were
also convicted for offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) (B) of the
Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 1 yearRI with fine of 1000/- and
in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI.Rahul wasalso
convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 3
years RI with fine of 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6
months additional RI.
Facts
3. The facts are that PW-1 Niranjan Deshpande rented a part of
House no. 24 Shrinagar Main from its landlord PW-5 Vishal Pandey,
few days before the date of incident i.e., 19.06.2011. Niranjan's wife
Megha, daughter Ashlesha and mother-in-law Smt. Rohini Phadke were
at those premises, residing there. In the evening of that dayanother tenant
PW-2 Dipti Kapil who lived on the same floor told PW-5 Vishal Pandey
that Niranjan's flat was bolted from the outside and reported seeing
patches of blood on the door. On receiving this information, the landlord
went to enquire. When no one opened the door, he looked through the
open window and saw the dead bodies of the deceased persons lying
near the bedroom door and blood was on the floor. He called his neighbour
PW-9 Mahesh Parmar and Mukesh on the spot, before telephoning PW1 Niranjan Deshpande to reach there immediately. PW-5 Vishal Pandey
also lodged a first information report (FIR) at Police Station MIG Colony,
Indore4 which was recorded by PW-31 Inspector Mohan Singh Yadav
(investigating officer"IO"). The FIRalleging that some unknown persons
murdered the three deceased ladies with sharp weapons and fled the
4 FIR No. 401/2011 dated 19.06.2011
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
scene, registered offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 25
Arms Act.
4. The police reached the premises and prepared a spot map of
the crime scene. Several articles found at the spot were seized. It was
later (on the next day) reported that Megha's golden bangles and
Mangalsutra, Rohini Phadke's two gold bangles, and Ashlesha's mobile
phone, camera and ATM cards were missing. Investigation started and
on 22.06.2011 at around 06:00 AM, PW-28 Vijay Chauhan while on
patrolling duty, spotted Neha Verma outside an ATM near L.I.G, under
suspicious circumstances. On receiving this information, the IO (PW31) along with PW-4 Banno Solanki and others, reached the spot. Neha
Verma was searched. This yielded an ATM card, which belonged to the
deceased Ashlesha. Neha was taken for questioning; her disclosure
statements led to her subsequent arrest. Based on information she
provided, the police recovered some robbed articles from her house.
5. Upon disclosure statements of Neha the other accused i.e.,
Rahul @ Govind and Manoj were arrested and from their possession
the robbed jewellery, knife anda pistol was seized. Investigation revealed
that during the alleged incident Rahul @ Govind inadvertently shot his
own foot and recorded a false FIR in this regard at the Annapurna Police
Station by dehatinalisi dated 19.06.20115 against unknown persons.
Accordingly, an FIR6 was registered by PW-30 ASI R.S. Makwana for
offences punishable under Sections 294, 307 and 34 IPC. Manoj was
also injured during the incident and secured treatment from PW-8 Dr.
Achutmal Tejwani. The clothes and shoes worn by the accused were
seized; and parts of the broken and disposed mobile phone and camera
were also recovered and seized pursuant to their disclosure statements.
The appellants underwent identification parade. Their fingerprints were
examined, the seized articles were sent for chemical and DNA test and
permission for prosecution was taken.
6. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed a final report
indicting the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 302,
397 and 449 IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act. The trial court framed
charges against the accused under Sections397/34 in alternative 302/34
5 Ex. P103-C
6 Ex. P107
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
and 449 IPC, and besides these charges Manoj was charged under section
25(1-B) (B) of Arms Act, 1959 and Rahul @ Govind was charged under
S. 25(1-B) (B) and 27 of Arms Act. All the appellants abjured their guilt
and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 36 witnesses and produced
certain documents (Ex. P1-P129) in support of their case. After recording
the evidence of prosecution, the appellants' statements were recorded
under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC). The appellants
examined a total of 6 defence witnesses and produced certain documents
(Ex. D1-D50) in support of their case.
Trial Court's findings
7. As the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence, upon
appreciation of the material evidence adduced by the prosecution, thetrial
court concluded that the accused persons were present at the scene of
occurrence on 19.06.2011 at about 5:00-5:15 PM and that evidence of
experts who lifted the fingerprints of the accused (from the house) along
with the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-9 and PW-31 proved
that they had entered into the house. Upon recovery of the knife and
firearm which caused the death, it was established by way of chemical,
DNA as well as ballistic examination that those articles were used and
that during the sequence of the incident, blood of the deceased persons
was found on the clothes of the accused persons.The trial court further
concluded that the footprints at the crime scene were similar to those of
the shoes recovered from the accused persons, and the gun shot injury
caused by the bullet which hit the foot of Rahul @ Govind as well as the
bullet which hit the body of the deceased, were fired from the same
weapon, which was recovered from his possession. It was held that this
left no doubt in establishing the guilt of Rahul and Manoj, and duringthe
whole incident The evidence also proved Neha's presence at that time.
The trial court held that this established her involvement in the crime
along with the accused persons; every hypothesis of the innocence of
the accused was ruled out.
8. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court
convicted the appellants of committing the offences they were charged
with. On the point of sentence, the trial court took the view that given
the magnitude and diabolic manner in which the offences were committed,
the case on hand fell under the category of rarest of the rare case and
warranted death penalty.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
High Court's findings confirming the Trial Court's order
9. The Division Bench of the High Court7 confirmed the sentences
imposed on the appellants and the reference made by the trial court was
answered in the affirmative. The High Court concluded that the forensic
experts as well as the neighbours and the investigating officer had seen
the blood-stained floor, walls, and bedsheets, and that the evidence
produced on record with respect to them did not leave any major lacuna
in the case of the prosecution; further, the presence of the accused in
the house, their intention of committing such a heinous crime, and the
manner in which the accused persons had caused the death, had been
duly proved.
10. The High Court relied upon the statements of fingerprint expert
PW-24 K.K. Dwivedi who visited the site and lifted the chance
fingerprints which matched with the appellants' fingerprints, as well
asjewellery recovered from their possession -which was identified by
PW-1 and PW-3 as belonging to the deceased. The weapons (knife and
country made pistol) used for the commission of the offence were
recovered from the accused and the same was proved. Also, the accused
persons were duly identified in open court by the witnesses pursuant to
their depositions.
11. The High Court further held thatthe accused, during their
examination under Section 313 CrPC failed to explain their conduct and
even gave incorrect and false answers. It therefore affirmed the trial
court's conclusions and findings.
12. Upon examination of whether this case would fall in the
category of "rarest of rare case" to justify the imposition of capital
punishment on the appellants, the High Court was of the view that as the
incident shook the collective conscience of the community and the acts
of murder committed by the appellants were so gruesome, merciless
and brutal, the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating
circumstances and hence,this case fell under the category of rarest of
the rare case which manifests society's abhorrence of such crime.
Contentions on behalf of the Appellants
13. Ms.