# MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

- **Citation:** [2022] 16 S.C.R. 743
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-06-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 910-911 of 2022
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C. T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/manoj-pratap-singh-v-the-state-of-rajasthan-35472
- **Pages:** 112

## Headnote

Sentence / Sentencing - Death Sentence - Rarest of Rare case
- Kidnapping, rape and murder of a seven-and-a-half-year old
mentally and physically challenged girl - Case of circumstantial
evidence - Trial Court found appellant-accused guilty and imposed
death sentence u/s. 302 IPC - High Court found it to be a 'rarest of
rare case' and upheld the conviction and death sentence - Appeal
before the Supreme Court on two issues - First, whether concurrent
findings of fact required interference - Second, whether death
sentence be maintained or substituted by any other sentence - Held:
On facts, the chain is so complete in itself that no stretch of
imagination could take the court to any other hypothesis except the
guilt of the appellant in relation to the offences charged - Hence,
the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court holding
appellant guilty are imminently just and proper; and call for no
interference whatsoever - Insofar as sentence is concerned, in the
present case, the crime had been of extreme depravity, which shocks
the conscience, particularly looking to the target (a seven-and-ahalf-year old mentally and physically challenged girl) and then,
looking to the manner of committing murder, where the hapless
victim's head was literally smashed, resulting in multiple injuries
including fracture of frontal bone - This is apart from the facts that
the innocent victim was kidnapped on a stolen motorcycle by misusing
the trust gained by offer of confectionary items and also, apart
from the fact that she was brutally and inhumanly raped - Taking
up the test parameters pertaining to the criminal (i.e., the appellant),
of course, he has a family with wife and minor daughter and aged
father and the crime was committed when he was only 28 years of
age - However, these mitigating factors are pitted against several
other factors pertaining to the appellant himself - One, being of
his activities and actions before the present crime where he was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
found involved in at least four cases with offences ranging from s.3
of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, s.379 IPC
and even s.307 IPC - Second, being the fact that the present crime
itself was carried out with the aid of a stolen motorcycle - Third,
and crucial one being his conduct post-conviction where he not
only earned 7 days' punishment in jail for quarrelling with a coinmate but he has also been convicted of the offence of murder of
another jail inmate - A fortiori, there appears no probability of his
reformation and rehabilitation - This possibility of the appellant
relapsing in the same crime over again and nil probability of his
reformation/rehabilitation is a direct challenge as also danger to
the maintenance of order in the society - Consequently, it is a case
of no other option but to confirm the death sentence awarded to the
appellant - Penal Code 1860 - ss. 302, 363, 365 and 376(2)(f).
Sentence / Sentencing - Death Sentence - Evolution of
principles and norms - Discussed - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - ss.235 and 354.
Sentence / Sentencing - Death Sentence - Rarest of rare
doctrine - Effect, if any, of death sentence being awarded and
maintained only in extreme cases - Held: Even though rarest of
rare doctrine and its accompanying principles, as enunciated and
explained in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh cases, have been almost
uniformly applied by Courts in the country while dealing with the
question of sentencing when the statute provides for death penalty;
and over the time, even the proposition of larger/longer term of
actual imprisonment with no remission or curtailed remission has
also evolved but, it has never been the effort of the Courts to
somehow make the punishment of death sentence redundant and
non-existent for all practical purposes - The quest for justice in
such cases, with death sentence being awarded and maintained only
in extreme cases, does not mean that the matter w

## Text

_Characters 0–39,790 of 272,432. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39790 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
743
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 743
743
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No(s).910-911 of 2022)
JUNE 24, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing - Death Sentence - Rarest of Rare case
- Kidnapping, rape and murder of a seven-and-a-half-year old
mentally and physically challenged girl - Case of circumstantial
evidence - Trial Court found appellant-accused guilty and imposed
death sentence u/s. 302 IPC - High Court found it to be a 'rarest of
rare case' and upheld the conviction and death sentence - Appeal
before the Supreme Court on two issues - First, whether concurrent
findings of fact required interference - Second, whether death
sentence be maintained or substituted by any other sentence - Held:
On facts, the chain is so complete in itself that no stretch of
imagination could take the court to any other hypothesis except the
guilt of the appellant in relation to the offences charged - Hence,
the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court holding
appellant guilty are imminently just and proper; and call for no
interference whatsoever - Insofar as sentence is concerned, in the
present case, the crime had been of extreme depravity, which shocks
the conscience, particularly looking to the target (a seven-and-ahalf-year old mentally and physically challenged girl) and then,
looking to the manner of committing murder, where the hapless
victim's head was literally smashed, resulting in multiple injuries
including fracture of frontal bone - This is apart from the facts that
the innocent victim was kidnapped on a stolen motorcycle by misusing
the trust gained by offer of confectionary items and also, apart
from the fact that she was brutally and inhumanly raped - Taking
up the test parameters pertaining to the criminal (i.e., the appellant),
of course, he has a family with wife and minor daughter and aged
father and the crime was committed when he was only 28 years of
age - However, these mitigating factors are pitted against several
other factors pertaining to the appellant himself - One, being of
his activities and actions before the present crime where he was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
found involved in at least four cases with offences ranging from s.3
of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, s.379 IPC
and even s.307 IPC - Second, being the fact that the present crime
itself was carried out with the aid of a stolen motorcycle - Third,
and crucial one being his conduct post-conviction where he not
only earned 7 days' punishment in jail for quarrelling with a coinmate but he has also been convicted of the offence of murder of
another jail inmate - A fortiori, there appears no probability of his
reformation and rehabilitation - This possibility of the appellant
relapsing in the same crime over again and nil probability of his
reformation/rehabilitation is a direct challenge as also danger to
the maintenance of order in the society - Consequently, it is a case
of no other option but to confirm the death sentence awarded to the
appellant - Penal Code 1860 - ss. 302, 363, 365 and 376(2)(f).
Sentence / Sentencing - Death Sentence - Evolution of
principles and norms - Discussed - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - ss.235 and 354.
Sentence / Sentencing - Death Sentence - Rarest of rare
doctrine - Effect, if any, of death sentence being awarded and
maintained only in extreme cases - Held: Even though rarest of
rare doctrine and its accompanying principles, as enunciated and
explained in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh cases, have been almost
uniformly applied by Courts in the country while dealing with the
question of sentencing when the statute provides for death penalty;
and over the time, even the proposition of larger/longer term of
actual imprisonment with no remission or curtailed remission has
also evolved but, it has never been the effort of the Courts to
somehow make the punishment of death sentence redundant and
non-existent for all practical purposes - The quest for justice in
such cases, with death sentence being awarded and maintained only
in extreme cases, does not mean that the matter would be approached
and examined in the manner that death sentence has be avoided,
even if the matter indeed calls for such a punishment - The judicial
process would be compromising on its objectivity if the approach is
to nullify the statutory provision carrying death sentence as an
alternative punishment for major offences (like that of s.302 IPC),
even after it has passed muster of judicial scrutiny and has been
held not unconstitutional - The pursuit in collecting mitigating
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
745
circumstances could also not be taken up with any notion or idea
that somehow, some factor be found; or if not found, be deduced
anyhow so that the sentence of death be forsaken - Such an
approach would be unrealistic, unwarranted and rather not
upholding the rule of law - Rule of law.
Sentence / Sentencing - Death Sentence - Post-conviction
conduct - Relevance - Held: Courts have refrained from awarding
or approving death sentence even in cases of gruesome killings,
essentially on the premise that even a semblance of probability of
reformation of the convict ought to be given a chance, rather than
awarding capital punishment, which is of irretrievable nature - In
this regard, the jail conduct of the convict carries its own bearing
and relevance in the overall consideration; and the Supreme Court
has leaned in favour of commuting the sentence of death to that of
imprisonment for life in case of unblemished jail conduct, even if
the crime itself had been of gruesome or abhorrent nature.
Sentence / Sentencing - Psychological evaluation report -
Report on likelihood of reformation and rehabilitation - When may
be called for - Held: In appropriate cases, after conviction, the
Court may call for report to determine whether the accused could
be reformed or rehabilitated; and it would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case - There cannot be any universal formula
for calling for such a report - In the present case, where the
appellant-convict was incessantly indulged in criminal activities
before the crime in question; carried out gruesome deeds of the
present crime; was further involved in questionable jail conduct,
including quarrelling with a fellow inmate and earning 7 days'
punishment; and then also involved in murder of another jail inmate,
calling for any further report of the likelihood of reformation and
rehabilitation of the appellant could be proposed only if the judicial
process is determined to annul the death sentence altogether, by
finding one way or the other to avoid the same in every case - Such
an approach would be counter-productive to the entire system of
maintenance of order in the society and would strike at the roots of
the rule of law - In the circumstances of the present case, the
suggestions about calling for any so-called psychological evaluation
report could only be termed as impractical and unrealistic and could
only be rejected.
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Sentence / Sentencing - Sentencing principles - Crime and
criminal tests - Aggravating and Mitigating circumstances -
Discussed.
Criminal jurisprudence - Case of circumstantial evidence -
Theory of residual doubt - If available for the purpose of sentencing
- Held: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the conclusion
of guilt is recorded only after the circumstances are found to be
forming an unbreakable chain, so consistent as to rule out any
other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused - These being
stringent norms, as followed consistently by the Courts based on
the panchsheel principles expounded in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda,
and requirement being of the proof of the case beyond reasonable
doubt, theoretically there is no scope for any 'residual doubt'
operating even in the cases of circumstantial evidence - The cases
in which theory of residual doubt has at all been referred, had been
standing on their own facts, where alternative to death sentence
was considered appropriate - However, while taking up the matter
for sentencing, it is not expected to reopen the chain of circumstantial
evidence to find any weak link which may fall in the category of
residual doubt - If at all any such doubt is reasonably existing, the
very basis of conviction would be in question - After the final
conclusion on the guilt and after pronouncing conviction, no concept
of residual doubt as such is available for the purpose of sentencing
- Sentence / Sentencing.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Having examined the post-mortem report and
the testimonies of the doctors conducting post-mortem, it is clear
that even by distortion of language occurring in their testimonies,
it cannot be deduced that there was any doubt or difference of
opinion in the Medical Board about the cause of death. In other
words, the doctors had been clear, categorical and consistent that
the victim girl died due to the injuries caused on her head. [Para
37.2.2][810-G-H]
2. The facts and factors established beyond doubt on record
forming the complete chain of circumstances are that: a) the
deceased was seven-and-a-half-years old mentally and physically
challenged girl; b) the deceased was last seen with the appellant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
747
when he kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of her
parents; c) the appellant was arrested within about 71⁄2 hours of
kidnap; d) the clothes worn by the appellant were bloodstained,
which were seized and sealed; e) after about 11⁄2 hours of his arrest,
the dead body of the victim girl was recovered at a faraway place
on the disclosure and information of the appellant; f) the
motorcycle used by the appellant and the frock worn by the victim
girl were also recovered at a faraway place at the disclosure and
information of the appellant; g) the appellant failed to account for
his own whereabouts as also the whereabouts of the victim girl
since after the time of kidnap; h) the appellant also failed to show
the reason of his knowledge about the place/places where the
dead body, the motorcycle and the frock were recovered; i) as
per the evidence on record, it had been a case of brutal rape
(with gruesome injuries on and around private parts) and
merciless killing (with horrific injuries on head) of the victim girl;
j) the victim died due to the injuries on her head; k) the DNA
profile of blood collected from the person and clothing of the
victim girl matched with the DNA profile of blood found on the
coat, pant and shirt of the appellant and on the motorcycle. This
chain is so complete in itself that no stretch of imagination could
take this Court to any other hypothesis except the guilt of the
appellant in relation to the offences charged. Hence, the
concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court holding
the appellant guilty are imminently just and proper; and call for
no interference whatsoever. [Para 39][812-B-F; 813-A]
3. The present case of circumstantial evidence answers to
the panchsheel principles of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda of proving
a case based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant was rightly
convicted by the Trial Court and his conviction has rightly been
maintained by the High Court. The prosecution has been able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, rather beyond any doubt
whatsoever. The chain of circumstances projected by the
prosecution is complete in its entirety and leads only to the result
that the appellant had been the person who kidnapped, raped
and murdered the victim, seven-and-a-half-years old mentally and
physically challenged girl. Hence, the concurrent findings leading
to conviction of the appellant deserve to be confirmed. [Para
40][813-F-H]
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
4. The Trial Court had scrupulously carried out its duty in
terms of Section 235(2) CrPC. The judgment of conviction was
pronounced on 28.09.2013 and the question of sentence was taken
up 3 clear days later, i.e., on 01.10.2013; and the death sentence
was awarded only after duly hearing the accused-appellant, after
duly taking into consideration the aggravating and mitigating
factors, and while duly recording special reasons. [Para 50.1][848A-B]
5. The heinous nature of the crime, like that of the present
one, in brutal rape and killing of a mentally and physically
challenged girl, who was only about seven-and-a-half-year-old,
definitely carries excessively aggravating circumstances,
particularly when the manner of commission of both the major
offences of rape and murder shows depravity of highest order
and would ex facie shock anyone's conscience. The horrific manner
of killing the victim, by causing ghastly head injuries had been
nothing less than beastly conduct of the appellant. However,
gruesome nature of the action and the crime, by itself, may not
be decisive, particularly as regards the question of capital
punishment. Thus, the other relevant factors need to be
cautiously examined, particularly those of the tests pertaining to
the criminal himself. [Para 50.2][848-C-D]
6. The appellant was 28 years of age at the time of
commission of crime and was having family comprising of his wife,
an eight-year-old daughter and parents. He is not shown to be
coming from any affluent background but, at the same time, it is
also not shown if he comes from a very poor socio-economic
background. Taken as a whole, these factors of the age, family
and socio-economic background of the appellant are not so
clinching as to overwhelm and override the aggravating factors.
Then, the pertinent question is as to whether there exists a
reasonable probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the
appellant? If the answer to this material question is in the
affirmative, it may have bearing upon the test to find if the case
falls in rarest of rare category. But, if there are factors which
operate against affirmative answer to this question on the
probability of reformation and rehabilitation, the aggravating
circumstances would assuredly outweigh the mitigating
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
749
circumstances warranting capital punishment. [Paras 50.3 and
50.3.1][848-E-G]
7. The present case had been of extreme inhumane acts
and actions of the appellant where, amongst other offending acts
and actions, he (1) kidnapped the victim girl, who was only 71⁄2
years of age, who was even otherwise a mentally and physically
challenged child, with betrayal of trust when the victim girl got
lured with confectionary items given by him; (2) brutally raped
the victim girl, as noticeable from the gruesome injuries on and
around her private parts and as established by the medical officers
who conducted post-mortem; and (3) mercilessly killed the victim
girl by causing horrid injuries on her head, as established not
only by the doctors but also by the surrounding facts, including
bloodstains on the scene of crime, on the motorcycle, and on the
clothing of the appellant at the time of his arrest. On the personal
score, even though the appellant was about 28 years of age and
was having the family of wife, a daughter who was also about 8
years of age and aged parents, he was continuously involved in
criminal activities. Even if the other past cases are left aside, he
committed the crimes in question by using a stolen motorcycle.
The tremors thrown by the appellant to shock anyone's conscience
with his beastly conduct have not stopped even with this inhumane
crime and even after his conviction. [Paras 51 & 51.1][850-A-E]
8. In the present case, the further shocking and disturbing
factor is that even while in jail, the appellant's conduct has not
been free from blemish where, apart from quarrelling with other
inmate on 17.04.2015 and earning 7 days' punishment, the
appellant had been accused and convicted of the offence of yet
another murder, this time of a co-inmate of the jail, while joining
hands with three other inmates. A perusal of the material placed
on record makes it clear that the appellant, with three other jail
inmates, has been convicted by the Trial Court of the offence
under Section 302/34 IPC for murder of another jail inmate, who
was a Pakistani national in the high security cell of the prison;
and that the appellant has been awarded the sentence of
imprisonment for life. Though it has been pointed out that an
appeal against the said decision is pending and no comments on
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
the merits of that case is made at all but, the appellant's culpable
conduct in jail compels the Court to ponder over the question as
to whether it would be realistic to believe on the probability of
his reformation and rehabilitation yet. [Paras 52 and 53][851-AF]
9. In the present case, where all the elements surrounding
the offence as also all the elements surrounding the offender cut
across the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to commute the
sentence of death to any other sentence of lesser degree. Even
the alternative of awarding the sentence of imprisonment for whole
of the natural life with no remission does not appear justified in
view of the nature of crimes committed by the appellant and
looking to his incorrigible conduct. The facts of the present case,
taken as a whole, make it clear that it is unlikely that the appellant,
if given an absolution, would not be capable of and would not be
inclined to commit such a crime again. Consequently, The Court
find it to be a case of no other option but to confirm the death
sentence awarded to the appellant, for that being inevitable in
this particular case. These appeals are dismissed; conviction of
the appellant of offences under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f), 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is confirmed; and the
sentences awarded to the appellant, including the death sentence
for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
are also confirmed. [Paras 57 and 60][853-E-F; 854-G]
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 -
followed.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116: [1985] 1 SCR 88 - relied on.
Viran Gyanlal Rajput v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 2
SCC 311; Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v. State of
Maharashtra (2019) 13 SCC 640; Nand Kishore v. State
of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 16 SCC 278 : [ 2019]
1 SCR 260 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sakru
Mahagu Binjewar & Ors. (2019) 20 SCC 102; Machhi
Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 :
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
[1983] 3 SCR 413; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 :
[2009] 9 SCR 90; Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State
of Maharashtra (2021) 1 SCC 596 ; Kamta Tiwari v.
State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 250 : [1996] Suppl. SCR 507
; Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra
(2015) 1 SCC 253 : [2014] 14 SCR 961 ; Swamy
Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC
767 : [2008] 11 SCR 93 ; Pappu v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 1097-1098 of 2018
decided on 09.02.2022 2022 (3) SCALE 45; Rajendra
Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 3 SCC 646:
[1979] 3 SCR 78 ; Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2
SCC 277 : [1983] 2 SCR 690; Shankar Kisanrao
Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546 :
[2013] 6 SCR 949 ; Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias
Muruganand Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 1 : [2015] 14 SCR 613
; Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
(2019) 12 SCC 460 : [2018] 14 SCR 585; Jagmohan
Singh v. The State of U.P [1973] 2 SCR 541;
Ravishankar Alias Baba Vishwakarma v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2019) 9 SCC 689 : [2019]
14 SCR 285; Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 1 SCC 596 ; Ashok Debbarma
Alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura (2014) 4 SCC
747: [2014] 4 SCR 287 and Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy
Joseph v. State of Maharashtra 2014 (4) SCC 69 :
[2014] 3 SCR 34 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 2 SCC 311
referred to
Para 27.2
(2019) 13 SCC 640
referred to
Para 27.2
[2019] 1 SCR 260
referred to
Para 27.2
(2019) 20 SCC 102
referred to
Para 27.2
[1983] 3 SCR
referred to
Para 29.2
[2009] 9 SCR 90
referred to
Para 29.2
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
(1980) 2 SCC 684
followed
Para 29.2
(2021) 1 SCC 596
referred to
Para 29.3
[1996] Suppl. SCR 507
referred to
Para 29.3
[2017] 3 SCR 850
referred to
Para 29.4
[2008] 11 SCR 93
referred to
Para 29.4
2022 (3) SCALE 45
referred to
Para 33
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 33
[1952] SCR 1091
referred to
Para 36.1
[1952] SCR 1091
referred to
Para 36.1
[1973] 2 SCR 541
referred to
Para 44.1
[1979] 3 SCR 78
referred to
Para 44.2
[1983] 2 SCR 690
referred to
Para 44.4
[2013] 6 SCR 949
referred to
Para 44.7
[2015] 14 SCR 613
referred to
Para 44.7
[2018] 14 SCR 585
referred to
Para 44.8
[2019] 14 SCR 285
referred to
Para 48.1
(2021) 1 SCC 596
referred to
Para 48.2
[2014] 4 SCR 287
referred to
Para 48.2.1
[2014] 3 SCR 34
referred to
Para 56.1
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 910-911 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Murder
Reference No.3 of 2013 and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 854 of 2013.
A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Adv. for the
Appellant.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., D. K. Devesh, Adv. for the
Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Table of Contents*
Preliminary
2
Relevant factual and background aspects
7
The Evidence
12
The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and awarded
death sentence
33
Deceased aged 71⁄2 years, mentally and physically
challenged
33
Deceased last seen with the appellant
34
Discoveries on the information of appellant
34
Medical evidence
35
Report of FSL
36
Defence contentions rejected
37
Chain of circumstances complete
40
Death sentence by the Trial Court
41
High Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to the
appellant
44
Rival Submissions
48
The scope and width of these appeals
61
Procedural questions relating to investigation and trial
64
Concurrent findings of fact: whether requiring interference?
67
Whether death sentence be maintained or substituted by
any other sentence
80
Death sentence: Evolution of principles and norms
82
The theory of residual doubt
112
The crime and criminal tests: Aggravating and Mitigating
circumstances of the present case
117
Conclusion
128
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
* Ed. Note: Pagination of the Table of Contents is as per the original judgment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Preliminary
Leave granted
2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and
order dated 29.05.2015 in D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 3 of
2013 and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 854 of 2013 whereby, the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has affirmed the judgment
of conviction dated 28.09.2013 and order of sentencing dated 01.10.2013
in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2013, as passed by the Court of Special
Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Cases, Rajsamand.
2.1. The High Court, while upholding conviction of the appellant of
offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f), 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 18601 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 20122, has confirmed the death sentence awarded to him
by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
2.2. In addition to the sentence of death for the offence under
Section 302 IPC, the appellant has been awarded the punishments of
imprisonment for a term of 7 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the
offence under Section 363 IPC; imprisonment for a term of 7 years and
fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 365 IPC; imprisonment
for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2)(f)
IPC; and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence
under Section 6 POCSO. While providing for default stipulations of further
imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine amount, it has also been
provided that the fine amount shall be given to the mother of the deceased
girl as compensation.
3. In these appeals, the conviction of the appellant as also the
punishment awarded to him, particularly the capital punishment, are under
challenge. Before dealing with the relevant aspects in necessary details,
we may draw a brief sketch and outline of the matter.
3.1. The appellant has been accused of kidnapping a physically
and mentally challenged seven-and-a-half-year-old girl in front of her
parents from their fruit and vegetable vending cart; having thereafter
taken her to a secluded place; having committed rape upon her; and
having killed her by causing injuries on her head.
1 Hereinafter also referred to as 'IPC'.
2 Hereinafter also referred to as 'POCSO'.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
3.2. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence to
the effect that the victim was lastly seen with the appellant when he
took her away; that the dead body of victim and other articles related
with the crime were recovered at the instance of the appellant; that the
appellant failed to satisfactorily explain his whereabouts and his
knowledge of the location of dead body; and that the medical and other
scientific evidence was consistent with the prosecution case. Thus,
according to the prosecution, the entire chain of events was complete
and was conclusive of the guilt of the appellant, excluding any other
hypothesis. Per contra, the appellant asserted that he was falsely
implicated, though he did not adduce any evidence in defence.
3.3. In its judgment dated 28.09.2013, the Trial Court convicted
the appellant of the offences aforesaid with the findings that the
prosecution had been able to substantiate the charges by proving beyond
doubt that the appellant kidnapped the victim girl, committed rape and
then murdered her and concealed the dead body. Then, on 01.10.2013,
after having heard the accused-appellant and the prosecution on the
question of sentence, the Trial Court found no reason to take any lenient
view in the matter, particularly looking to the gruesome nature of crime
and thus, awarded varying punishments, including that of death sentence
under Section 302 IPC.
3.4. The sentence of death was submitted for confirmation to the
High Court in terms of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19733. On the other hand, the accused-appellant preferred an appeal
against the judgment and order of the Trial Court. Both, the reference
case for confirmation of death sentence and the appeal preferred by the
appellant, were considered together and the High Court, after finding
that each and every incriminating circumstance had clearly been
established, affirmed the conviction. As regards the question of sentence,
the High Court, with reference to the nature of offence, in brutal rape
and murder of a seven-and-a-half-year-old mentally and physically
challenged girl along with the calculated attempt to cover up the crime,
found the present one to be 'rarest of rare case' and, accordingly,
confirmed the punishments awarded to the appellant, including the
sentence of death.
3 'CrPC', for short.
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
3.5. In the present appeals, conviction of the appellant has been
questioned essentially with the contentions that the investigation was not
impartial; that the trial was conducted in a hurried manner; that proper
legal aid with a counsel of sufficient experience was not provided to the
appellant; that probability of false implication cannot be ruled out since
the name of the appellant was not stated in the missing person report;
and that blood sample might not have been collected from the motorcycle
since, admittedly, it was raining heavily at the relevant time. The sentence
awarded to the appellant has also been put to the question, essentially
with the submissions that awarding of sentence both under IPC and
POCSO is not sustainable; and that the Trial Court as also the High
Court have not properly examined the mitigating factors existing in favour
of the appellant, including the residual doubts in the weak chain of
circumstances. It is also submitted that in the hurriedly conducted trial,
the appellant was unable to effectively present his case; and that the
young age of the appellant, his poor socio-economic background with
family members being dependant on him, and the likelihood of reformation
deserve due consideration as mitigating factors against capital punishment.
3.6. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondent-State
that the evidence of the witnesses related with the deceased is duly
corroborated by the testimony of independent witnesses; that name of
the appellant finds mentioned in the missing person report as also in the
FIR; and that the forensic and medical evidence isconsistent with the
case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the abhorrent nature of
crime justifies awarding of death sentence in the present case, where
the appellant kidnapped a minor girl who was not of sound physical and
mental health; and committed brutal rape and murder. It has also been
submitted that the subsequent conduct of the appellant in jail has been
moreover questionable and he had killed another inmate with stone for
which, he has been further convicted of the offence under Section 302/
34 IPC; and this demonstrates that the appellant is a threat to the society.
3.7. Thus, two major points would arise for determination in these
appeals; first, as to whether conviction of the appellant calls for any
interference; and second, if conviction is maintained, as to whether the
sentence of death awarded to the appellant deserves to be affirmed or
deserves to be substituted by any other sentence?
4. With the aforesaid outline, we may take note of the relevant
factual and background aspects in necessary details.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
757
Relevant factual and background aspects
5. The prosecution in the present case had its foundation in the
oral information stated in the form of complaint by PW-1 Kamla on
17.01.2013 at about 08:15 p.m. at Police Station Kankroli, District
Rajsamand while being accompanied by her father PW-3 Madan Lal.
The complainant alleged that earlier in the day, she was at her fruitvegetable vending cart near R. K. Hospital with her husband PW-2
Dharam Das and her father PW-3 Madan Lal; that at around 06:30
p.m., Manoj Singh, who earlier lived in the nearby Housing Board Colony,
came to her cart on a motorcycle, purchased fruits and gave chocolates
to her 8-year-old mentally challenged daughter K4 and left; that he
returned to the cart after about 10 minutes, placed her daughter K on his
motorcycle and proceeded towards Somnath Chauraha; and that attempts
were made to chase him but he was not found. It was also stated by the
complainant that she could not note the registration number of the
motorcycle but the same was of sky-blue colour. The complainant also
described the features and attire of her daughter and alleged that Manoj
Singh had kidnapped her daughter.
5.1. The contents of aforesaid oral complaint were reduced in
writing (Ex. P-1) by PW-19 Nand Lal, who was the Officer-in-charge
of Police Station Kankroli at the relevant time (as the Station House
Officer5 PW-20 Ganesh Nath was away) and, accordingly, FIR No. 16
of 2013 (Ex. P-2) came to be registered for the offence under Section
363 IPC.
5.2. The said PW-19 Nand Lal immediately commenced
investigation and recorded the statements of informant Kamla as also of
her father Madan Lal; informed the SHO; transmitted messages for
Nakabandi; and also carried out unsuccessful search at the Housing
Board Colony and other places. Thereafter, the SHO - PW-20 Ganesh
Nath - took over investigation and recorded the statement of Dharam
Das, father of the victim girl; and in view of the allegations, added the
offence under Section 365 IPC.
4 Having regard to the nature of case, the name of victim has been omitted in the
narrations and extractions and at all other places in this judgment; and is substituted by
the expression 'K'. For clarification, it may also be stated that the name of victim girl
has been mentioned differently and with alias at different places. But her identity is
otherwise not in dispute and we have retained the substituted expression 'K' at every
place, irrespective of any of the alternative names appearing.
5 'SHO', for short.
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
5.3. All the proceedings aforesaid took place until midnight of
17.01.2013. The SHO, thereafter, proceeded in search of the victim and
the offender while taking the said Madan Lal and Dharam Das with
him. Ultimately, the accused-appellant was found at the Old Bus Stand,
Kankroli, at about 2 a.m., who divulged his name and particulars as
Manoj Pratap Singh son of Surendra Pratap Singh Rajput, resident of
Basantpur, Police Station Gugli, District Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh.
He was taken to Police Station Kankroli, was arrested, and his clothes
carrying bloodstains were seized.
5.4. It has been the case of prosecution that on being questioned,
the appellant stated that he had killed the girl whom he kidnapped near
R. K. Hospital and her dead body was lying near Kamal Talai, which he
could get recovered. The information so furnished by the appellant was
recorded (Ex. P-40); and the body of the deceased was recovered at
around 3:15 a.m. from a patari by the bridge at Kamal Talai as per the
disclosure of the appellant.
5.5. In view of the recovery of the dead body of K, the offence
under Section 302 IPC was added for investigation. The SHO prepared
the necessary memos and reports and sent the dead body for post-mortem
examination. In view of the post-mortem report indicating rape with the
victim, the offence under Section 376(2)(f) was also added. The SHO
also got the accused-appellant examined in relation to the injuries on his
body. In the meantime, investigation was transferred to the Circle Officer,
Rajsamand PW-25 Umesh Ojha. According to prosecution, the accusedappellant divulged more information on 19.01.2013 about the location of
motorcycle used in the crime as also the place of committing the crime
and the place where clothing of the deceased was lying. This information
was reduced in writing (Ex. P-48) and in pursuance thereof, motorcycle
bearing registration number RJ30 3M 5944 was recovered; the
bloodstains on the motorcycle were collected; the frock-like-skirt of the
deceased was recovered; the place of incident was identified; and
bloodstained soil as also control soil were collected and sealed. Further,
the Investigating Officer got the accused-appellant medically examined
for sexual potency and his blood sample was also collected. The collected
articles/samples were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory6 examination.
The Investigating Officer further collected the certificates relating to
the date of birth of the victim as also the certificates concerning her
mental and physical disablement.
6 'FSL', for short.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
759
5.6. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of
witnesses who had allegedly seen the accused-appellant taking the victim
girl on his motorcycle. Apart from other witnesses, PW-12 Ranjeet Singh,
the salesman of a liquor shop, stated that the accused-appellant came to
his shop at about 6:30 p.m. with a girl sitting on the motorcycle, purchased
a bottle of beer and also quarrelled regarding the price. As per the contents
of charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer also found, after carrying out
background verification, that the accused-appellant had been involved in
a few other criminal cases. Significantly, it was found that the said
motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ30 3M 5944 was stolen from
Nathdwara on 14.01.2013 for which, an FIR bearing No. 39 of 2013 had
already been registered at Police Station Nathdwara for offence under
Section 379 IPC.
5.7. In the post-mortem examination, the Medical Board found
varying injuries on the dead body of the victim, including those on head
and on private parts. The Medical Board opined that the cause of death
was head injury and that the deceased had been subjected to ante-mortem
rape.
5.8. After other processes of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant on 02.02.2013 and the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions. At the request of the accused-appellant, legal aid
was provided to him from the District Legal Services Authority and the
Court heard the matter for framing of charge only after appointment of
a legal aid counsel. The appellant was charged of the offences under
Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f) and 302 IPC and Section 6 POCSO. The
appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Evidence
6. In trial, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and
produced 52 documents. In view of the contentions raised and issues
involved, we may take note of the salient features of testimonies of material
witness as also relevant documentary evidence in requisite details7.
7 It may be indicated that the depositions and substantial part of the relevant documents
in the original record as also the judgment of the Trial Court are in Hindi language. One
set of translations of the depositions has been supplied by the High Court and another
set of translations has been placed on record by the respondent-State with its reply
affidavit. We have scanned through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for
the parties; and the extracts in this judgment are with reference to the translations
available on record and also, as far as feasible, near to the meaning of the text in original.
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
7. There had been several non-official witnesses, including the
parents and grandfather of the victim girl child and other persons who
had testified to the factum of kidnapping of the victim girl by the appellant
and who had also been the part of investigation proceedings.
7.1. PW-1 Kamla, mother of the deceased-child, deposed on the
basic and primary facts of this case in her examination-in-chief as under: -
"The incident is of 17.1.2013 at 6.30 p.m. I use to place my
fruits and vegetables cart outside R.K. Hospital Rajsamand and
hence, I was there. My father Madan Lal and my husband
Dharamdas were also present there. At that time accused Manoj
Pratap Singh, present in Court, came to my cart to buy fruits.
Name of my daughter is K who is 8 years old. Accused Manoj
Pratap Singh, present in the Court, gave my daughter kurkure and
chocolate on which we told him not to do so but he gave these
articles to my daughter and left. After 10-15 minutes accused
Manoj Pratap Singh again came and took my daughter on
motorcycle towards Somnath Chouraha. At that time my father
Madan Lal and husband Dharam Das followed accused but they
could not find him. Motorcycle was of sky-blue colour. I had not
seen the number of motorcycle. At that time my daughter K was
wearing a red kurta, pink colour jacket and black legging. The
colour of my daughter was fair and height 4 feet. We went to
police station.