2015 (1) TMI 1384 - SC - Indian Laws

Rape - Prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence as no ocular account of the incident has been presented to the Court - whether the appellant was a juvnile on the date of commitment of offence? - entitlement for juvenile justice - non-availability of officially maintained record regarding his date of birth - estimation of age of appellant on the basis of medical opinion - Held that - the appellant was responsible for the offence of rape and murder of the hapless baby-Kamala who appears to have been picked up from the place where she was sleeping with other children and taken at a distance only to be raped and eventually killed. The trial Court in the light of the evidence on record and careful analysis undertaken by it correctly came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of murder of the deceased. There is no reason whatsoever for us to interfere with that finding. Juvenile Justice - case of appellant is also that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the commission of offence hence entitled to the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 - Held that - Since the appellant did not have any documentary evidence like a school or other certificate referred to under the Act mentioned above this Court had directed the Principal Government Medical College Jodhpur to constitute a Board of Doctors for medical examination including radiological examination of the appellant to determine the age of the appellant as in April 1998 when the offence in question was committed. The appellant is reported to be a deaf and dumb. He was never admitted to any school. There is therefore no officially maintained record regarding his date of birth. Determination of his age on the date of the commission of the offence is therefore possible only by reference to the medical opinion obtained from the duly constituted Medical Board in terms of Rule 12(3) (b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 - The medical opinion given by the duly constituted Board comprising Professors of Anatomy Radiodiagnosis and Forensic Medicine has determined his age to be about 33 years on the date of the examination. The Board has not been able to give the exact age of the appellant on medical examination no matter advances made in that field. That being so in terms of Rule 12 (3) (b) the appellant may even be entitled to benefit of fixing his age on the lower side within a margin of one year in case the Court considers it necessary to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case. Taking his age as 34 years on the date of the examination he would have been 18 years 2 months and 7 days on the date of the occurrence but such an estimate would be only an estimate and the appellant may be entitled to additional benefit of one year in terms of lowering his age by one year in terms of Rule 12 (3)(b) which would then bring him to be 17 years and 2 months old therefore a juvenile. No matter the offence committed by him is heinous and but for the protection available to him under the Act the appellant may have deserved the severest punishment permissible under law - The fact that the appellant has been in jail for nearly 14 years is the only cold comfort for us to let out of jail one who has been found guilty of rape and murder of an innocent young child. This appeal succeeds but only in part and to the extent that while the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 302 and 376 of IPC is affirmed the sentence awarded to him shall stand set aside with a direction that the appellant shall be set free from prison unless required in connection with any other case - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing under Sections 376 and 302 IPC.
2. Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
3. Determination of appellant's age and claim of juvenility.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing under Sections 376 and 302 IPC:
The appellant was convicted for the offences of rape and murder under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. He was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for rape and life imprisonment for murder, with fines and default sentences to run concurrently. The conviction and sentencing were upheld by the High Court, and the present appeal challenges the same.

2. Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence:
The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Key witnesses, such as Ota Ram (PW-4) and Maga Ram (PW-5), testified that the appellant was present at the "Jaagran" where the victim, Kamala, was also present. Kamala was found missing the next morning and her dead body was discovered with signs of rape and head injuries. The post-mortem report by Dr. Omprakash Kuldeep (PW-18) confirmed the homicidal nature of Kamala's death and injuries consistent with rape. The investigation led to the seizure of blood-stained clothes of the appellant, which matched the blood group of the deceased. Additionally, the appellant had injuries on his private parts, for which he offered no explanation. The court found these circumstances formed a complete chain leading to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the offences.

3. Determination of Appellant's Age and Claim of Juvenility:
The appellant claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offence, seeking protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The court directed a medical examination to determine his age. The Medical Board estimated his age to be between 30 to 36 years at the time of examination, placing his age at about 33 years. This implied that he was around 17 years and 2 months old at the time of the offence, thus qualifying as a juvenile. The court considered the medical opinion and statutory provisions, ultimately declaring the appellant a juvenile at the time of the offence despite the heinous nature of the crime.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partially successful. While the conviction under Sections 376 and 302 IPC was affirmed, the sentence was set aside due to the appellant's juvenile status at the time of the offence. The appellant was ordered to be released from prison unless required for any other case.