Every Saint Has A Past, Every Sinner Has A Future Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Raped, Killed A Minor Girl

CASE TITLE
Mohd Firoz vs State of Madhya Pradesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT
19 April 2022

CORAM
The Hon’ble Justices: Mr. UU Lalit, Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat and Mrs. Bela M. Trivedi

PARTIES
Appellant- Mohd. Firoz
Respondent- State of Madhya Pradesh

SUBJECT

Death penalty sentenced to a man convicted of raping and killing a 4-year-old girl, was commuted to life imprisonment of 20 years.

OVERVIEW

• The present appeal was filed by the Appellant Bibi Sidhika, who was the mother of the accused Mohd. Firoz. The appeal challenged the legality of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Madhya Pradesh. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellant expired and was replaced by her son.

Case of the prosecution on 17.04.2013 before the Trial Court

• The accused deceitfully took the victim a four-year-old girl after he was rejected an accommodation by the mother of the victim. The girl was raped by the accused and blood oozed from her mouth and nostrils. Thevictim died due to a deficiency of oxygen in the brain, caused by the choking.
• An FIR was filed against the accused for the offenses under Section 363 and 366 of IPC. The appellant-accused was arrested. The accused was charged for the offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and 302 of IPC and under section 5(i), 5(m) & Section 6 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Sessions Court convicted the accused for the offenses charged against him and awarded death sentence for the offence under Section 302.
• The reference for the confirmation of the death sentence to the accused was made by the Sessions Court to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The accused Mohd. Firoz also filed an appeal before the High Court. The Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence awarded to him. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant appealed before the Supreme Court.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

The court stated that the entire case of the prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to the recognition of evidence in cases of circumstantial evidence in the prosecution’s case is very well settled. The five golden principles laid down by the Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [1984 (4) SCC 116], are worth mentioning:-

1. The circumstances should be established completely from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn.
2. The facts established, should be consistent with the speculation of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other opinion except the guilty of the accused.
3. The circumstances should be of an irrefutable nature and tendency.
4. The circumstances should eliminate every possible theory except the one to be proved.
5. There must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for the innocence of the accused.
6. In case of Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 10 SCC 623] the Court dealt with the doctrine of “last seen together” in the light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.It does not shift the burden of the prosecution on the accused, nor requires the accused to furnish an explanation with regard to the facts which are especially within his knowledge. The prosecution propounded the theory of “last seen together.”

• Following the above ratio, in the case of Surajdeo Mahto vs. The State of Bihar, it was held, “the last seen theory is applied where the time interval between the point of when the accused and the deceased were last seen together, and when the victim is found dead, is so minute that the possibility of any other person other than the accused being the perpetrator of crime becomes impossible.
• In this case, it was duly proved that the appellant-accused had taken the victim with him. Neither any explanation was offered by the appellant nor any concrete defence was taken during the cross-examination of the witnesses.
• An issue regarding a fair trial was also raised, stating that the trial was not conducted in fair manner, that is enshrined not only in Article 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India, but also in Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As laid down in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248], free and fair trial is an essential element of Article 21. The court stated that there is nothing in the particular case to suggest that the due procedure was not followed or that the appellant-accused were deprived of their legal aid or legal assistance.

CONCLUSION

• The Court held that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant-accused for the offences. and the Order of conviction was upheld by the High Court; and was also affirmed by the Supreme Court.
• The trial court imposed various sentences for the other offences, including the death penalty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, which was confirmed by the High Court. In case of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684], the formula of “rarest of rare cases” for imposing the death sentence was held. Considering the fact that the accused had not consciously caused any injury leading to the death of the victim, the Court deems proper to commute the sentence of death penalty to the life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302.Since, Section 376A was also applicable, the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s life would have been an appropriate sentence, however, the Court stated a quote by Oscar Wilde “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”.
• The appeal was allowed.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement