Kidnapping And Murder Of 8Yr Old Boy: SC Commutes Death Sentence To Life Imprisonment Without Remission For 25Yrs[Read Judgment ]

A three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit has commuted the  Death Sentence of two convicts convicted for murdering an eight-year-old son of a dentist couple in Nagpur in 2014 after kidnapping him for ransom.

The Bench was hearing the Appeals filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) on 5th May, 2016 whereby the appeals filed by the appellants Rajesh Daware(A1) and Arvind Singh (A2) against their conviction for offences punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was dismissed by confirming the death sentence imposed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide its order dated 4Th February, 2016. 

Facts & Matrix Of Events:

The case revolved around the murder and kidnapping of an 8-year old boy by two Appellants, (A1 & A2).

The prosecution process was set in motion when the boy's father made an oral statement about his missing son to the police sub inspector, PS Lakadganj, Nagpur City. After inquiring about his missing sun from the watchman of their housing society, he got to know that an unknown boy aged about 20-25 years had inquired about "Yug" (the victim) from him. Sometime later, he saw that "Yug" had driven off at the back of the scooty of the Appellant(s).

Basis the aforementioned, an FIR was registered at the Police station the same evening and an offence was registered under section 363 IPc, to which Sections 364A were added, after the information of kidnapping and death was received. 

On completion of investigation, including recovery of dead body & filing of charge sheet, the trial of the Appellants was held and the trial Court examined the prosecution under various heads, after which a death sentence was awarded to the Appellant(s).

The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's judgement in an order dated May 5, 2016 whereby appeals filed by the appellants against their convictiong for offences under Section 364A, Section 34 and Section 302 were dismissed, confirming the death sentence imposed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide its order dated 4th February, 2016.

Thus the appellants came in appeal to the Supreme Court.

Findings of the Supreme Court While Upholding Conviction:

The Supreme Court analysed appeals on basis of "Evidence of last seen", "Discovery of incriminating facts", "Demand of ransom", "Motive & Conspiracy" as well as "Corroborative Evidence" basis the trial court judgement.

The top Court analysed various aspects in order to uphold the conviction of the appellants:-

Veracity Of Common Intention:

The Court held that the facts as stipulated pointed directly to a common intention of kidnapping and murder by both appellants.

"In the present appeals, the facts speak volumes about the common intention shared by both the appellants. Both the accused planned the kidnapping and executed it together.... Thus, the facts prove that both the accused had a common intention to kidnap the child" it was held.

Applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act:

The court held that the burden of prosecution to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt has been reiterated time and again. Therefore, "the prosecution has discharged the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It was then for the accused to rebut the presumption of any other intervening fact before the death of the victim"

Effect of putting of incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 313 of the Code.

"In the present case, there is overwhelming evidence that shows the victim to be in company of the accused at five different places from 16:00 hrs. to 17:30 hrs –18.00 hrs. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances which occurred thereafter till the time of the recovery of dead body.  There is no evidence to create a doubt on the prosecution version that somebody else had access to the victim before he died."

Conviction:

In the backdrop of these findings, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellants and noted that there was no reason for it to take a different view than what was taken by the Tria Court & High Court.

"Since the act of kidnapping of a child for ransom has inherent threat to cause death, therefore, the acc sed have been rightly been convicted for an offence under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC. The threat will remain a mere threat, if the victim returns unhurt. In the present case, the victim has been done to death. The threat had become a reality."

Furthermore, the Court held that the cumulative circumstances point to the motive of the accused was to take life and to become rich by not doing hard work but by demanding ransome after kidnapping a young, innocent boy of 8 years.

Sentence:

Having considered all the circumstances and facts on record, the Bench has concluded that the present case falls short of the "rarest of rare" cases where a death sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the appellants.

The Court noted,

"What is required to be examined is whether there is a possibility of rehabilitation and whether it is the rarest of the rare case where the collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of judicial power to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty."

Reiterating the principle in Swamy Shraddhananda V. State of Karnataka and Union of India V. Sriharan that the court could commute the death sentence imposed on the convict and substitute it with life imprisonment with a direction that the convict would not be released from prison for the rest of his life.

Order of the Court

The Judgment and Order passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364A read with Section 34 IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the death sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, is converted into the life imprisonment. It is further observed and directed that the life means till the end of the life with the further observation and direction that there shall not be any remission till the accused completes 25 years of imprisonment. 

Case Details

Title : Arvind Singh V. State Of Maharashtra

Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 640-641 OF 2016

Coram : Justices UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra & Hemant Gupta

Click Here To Download Judgement