Case Name: SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYA V. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2345-2346/2024@SLP Nos. 9015-9016/2019
Date: 17th December,2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Ghavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, Samghubhai Raisangbhai Padhiya, is alleged and convicted of the heinous crimes of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a four-year-old child, convicted under Sections 302, 364, and 377 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The child, Rohit, was taken away by the appellant deceitfully under the pretex of ice cream purchasing but was later discovered to have been murdered. The trial court has, thus, imposed the death sentence on the appellant, a sentence that was confirmed by the Gujarat High Court. The appellant has therefore approached the Supreme Court in appeal.
The act of kidnapping of the child was committed by the appellant on April 13, 2016, around a temple in Gujarat’s Bharuch district. The victim was last seen with the appellant by such eyewitnesses as his aunt (PW-10) and a local shopkeeper (PW-11). The corpse of the child was discovered exposed to nature near the lake, showing indications of sexual assault and throttling. Medical examination of the appellant shows injury to his genitals linking him to the crime. Other contents of circumstantial evidence such as witnesses’ testimonies and forensic analysis consist of incriminating instances against this applicant.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
Whether the death sentence imposed on the appellant is for the “rarest of rare” case and whether it is sufficient to confirm the conviction under the IPC and POCSO Act.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 302, IPC: This section outlines the consequences for murder, stipulating that those found guilty of willfully taking another individual’s life may face capital punishment, life imprisonment, and a financial penalty.
- Section 364, IPC: This provision is kidnapping with a view of committing murder. A punishment of life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years, with the imposition of a fine at the discretion of the court.
- Section 377, IPC: This section deals with unlawful offences, meaning the voluntary sexual acts not in accordance with nature. Conviction may result in life imprisonment or a varying term of punishment of up to ten years, along with a fine.
- Section 4, POCSO Act: This provision penalizes penetrative sexual assault against minors. Sentences consist of a minimum term of seven years’ imprisonment that could extend to life imprisonment alongside the imposition of fines.
- Section 6, POCSO Act: The law provides stringent penalties for aggravated cases of penetrative sexual assault on children. Offenders may receive rigorous sentences ranging from twenty years’ imprisonment up to potential life sentences or even death according to circumstances and imposed fines.
- Sections 29 and 30, POCSO Act: Section 29 establishes an assumption of guilt for accused individuals in specified crimes unless contradicted by evidence. In contrast, Section 30 asserts that proof of culpable mental state is presumed in certain cases; therefore, the onus rests on the accused to disprove this assertion.
ARGUMENTS
Arguments of the Appellant
The appellant asserted that the evidence put forward by the prosecution was primarily circumstantial and did not sufficiently prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was claimed that there were significant gaps in the chain of evidence, especially concerning how the victim’s clothing was uncovered and retrieved. The defense expressed skepticism about the authenticity of the discovery panchnama, raising concerns that it may have been altered or created after investigators had already identified the crime scene.
Moreover, the counsel for the appellant sought to plead socio-economic disadvantages and the fact that his intellectual disability is of a mitigating nature. Arguments were made that some punishment would be excessive and unjust because the appellant had no prior criminal history and had a chance to rehabilitate himself. The defense counsel added that there were procedural shortcomings regarding the forensic evidence, particularly drawing attention to the fact that no DNA testing was done, which made the case weak for the prosecution.
Arguments of the Respondent
According to the State, the cumulative circumstantial evidence created an unbroken chain adequately demonstrating the appellant’s guilt. There were eye-witness reports from individuals like PW-10 and PW-11 indicating that he was seen with the victim shortly before her death. Harsh postmortem and forensic reports had shown injuries to the appellant’s genitalia that further pointed towards sexual assault.
The prosecutor also accentuated the monstrosity and grievousness of the offense in order to urge that the only logical sentence is the death penalty under what they termed “rarest of the rare” circumstances. The State said that the behavior of the appellant showed a very clear lack of remorse, in the circumstances when he melted into falsehoods during the ongoing investigations and failed to furnish any acceptable rationale for his actions-this merely gave the State a strong basis for contending that he was guilty of the crime.
ANALYSIS
Following a comprehensive examination of the circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony provided by PW-10 and PW-11. Shortly before the incident occurred, these witnesses observed him in close proximity to the scene. The prosecution case was also further strengthened through medical and forensic evidence, including autopsy results and blood samples matching the victim’s.
Besides, the appellant’s testimony suspicious, and that he gave no. And with no credible explanation for his actions made the matter against him harder. The court did recognize intangible mitigating factors such as his poor socio-economic background and the low level of his intelligence, but these were in the court’s view insufficient in offsetting the weight of the evidence pointing toward his guilt. In an effort to symbolize a balance between justice and chances for rehabilitation, a considered sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment would be imposed without the possibility of parole.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 364, and 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, it modified the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission due to its determination that although this case is indeed severe, it does not fit within what is referred to as “the rarest of rare” category.
CONCLUSION
The ruling of the Court brings forward an important constitutional duty to strike a balance between the demands of justice and the required norm of civilization. It thus denounced all acts of sexual violence against and exploitation of children while refraining from imposing the death penalty, reflecting some concern for rehabilitation possibilities of the appellant. This judgment also reinforces both the objectives of proportionality in sentencing and customary norms applied to instances that epitomize a “rarest of rarities.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY MADHAV SAXENA
