Court and State must ensure fair opportunity of defending in case of offence involving death penalty - Supreme Court
The Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India
comparising of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and
High Court of Judicature at Madras
thereby acquitting the Appellant, Dashwant from all charges stating that both
the courts glossed over the infirmities and loopholes in the case of the
prosecution. The Hon’ble Court overturned the confirmation of death sentence by
trial Court and affirmation by High Court. (Dashwanth Versus State Of
Tamil Nadu)
The trial Court convicted the accused appellants under
Sections 363, 366, 354-B, 302 and 201 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 8 read with
Section 7 and Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The trial Court had
The trial Court vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, dated 19th February, 2028 convicted the accused-appellant
and sentenced him to death penalty.
Fact of the case is that a seven year old daughter of the
complainant was found missing on 5th February,2017 at about 7.15 PM.
The helpless father of the child filed a complaint at around 10 PM on same day.
Appellant was suspected and arrested on 8th February, 2017 based on
the CCTV footage. On 8th February charred body of the child victim
was recovered in furtherance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant
and was identified as that of the complainant’s daughter. The missing person
case was converted to a crime report. The appellant identified the
blue-coloured travel bag, undergarments worn by the victim and two cold drink bottles.
The jeans pant and t-shirt allegedly worn by the appellant
at the time of the commission of the offence were recovered from the flat alongwith
earrings and anklets of the victim.
The trial Court framed charges against the appellant to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The trial Court after hearing public counsel and upon
analysing oral and documentary evidence on record found the appellant guilty
and sentenced him to death.
After being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court
by way of appeal and the Court too confirmed the order of death sentence
awarded by the trial Court. Therefore the appellant filed the present appeal before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the hope of Justice.
The top Court analysed the failure of prosecution to prove
the following circumstances –
I. Last seen theory;
II. suspicious movement of the appellant
captured in the video footage of the CCTV camera;
III. Confessional/disclosure statement made by
the appellant leading to the incrimination discoveries/recoveries; and
IV. FSL reports establishing the DNA profiling
comparison.
These are the entire edifice of the prosecution case on
which the conviction of the appellant was based.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal in the
top Court in hope of overturning death sentence awarded by the trial Court and
High Court.
SUBMISSIONS
The learned counsel for appellant vehemently and fervently
contended that entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and there
are improbable stories and loopholes. Therefore learned counsel for appellant implored
the Court to accept the appeals and set aside the conviction and acquit him of
the charges on the following grounds :-
1. the evidence of the material prosecution
witness is flimsy
2. the conduct of the witnesses is highly
suspicious which makes their testimony doubtful and unworthy of credence
3. witness of the last seen theory together
circumstances is highly unnatural. He never divulged the fact that victim was
seen playing with the appellant, to the father of the victim or to the police
officer who had reached the area soon after the victim was reported missing
4. the counsel submitted had there been iota
of truth that victim was seen playing with accused, then in the natural course
of event, P-W-3 would have immediately disclosed the fact to the parents of the
victim, and an immediate attempt would have been made to search the second
floor of the building including the flat of the appellant.
5. recoveries allegedly made at the instance
of the appellant were planted and fabricated. The appellant was kept in illegal
custody and made to sign blank papers and recoveries were planted to provide
padding to the false prosecution narrative.
6. it was also submitted that the entire set
of incriminating circumstances and recovered articles have been subsequently
planted by the police officials for oblique motives
7. the police officer having failed to
mention the presence of blue bag with undergarments of the victim in the
memorandum and failed to prove the disclosure statements, made the recoveries
insignificance.
8. the discovery of the body cannot be
treated as having been made in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the
appellant because the body of the victim was discovered much prior to the
disclosure statement
9. there was a failure of fair trial as the
appellant was hardly given any opportunity to defend himself. The entire
procedure of the trial court, from framing of charges to recording of evidence
of the prosecution witnesses was hasty and vitiated and testamounts to denial
of fair trial. The trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the appellant
without providing the relied upon documents to him as mandated by Section 207
of Cr.PC.
10. he further contended that the appellant, Dashwanth was unrepresented in the trial
proceedings till later trial Court appointed a legal aid counsel to represent
the appellant. He also submitted relying to case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab(1983) that
the judgment of conviction and sentence
of death penalty was passed within one month after evidence of 30 witnesses was
completed.
11. the entire sentencing exercise was
completed by the trial Court on the same day on which the judgment of the
conviction was pronounced. Hence, the capital punishment awarded to appellant,
Dashwanth was totally vitiated since the sentencing exercise was a mere
formality and no proper opportunity was provided to the appellant.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF STATE
The Learned Counsel for State also opposed the submissions
of appellant vehemently and fervently and sought dismissal of the appeals on
the following grounds –
I. the statement of PW-3 stating that the
victim was playing with appellant is absolutely truthful and constitute
evidence in support of the circumstances of last seen together which has been
established beyond all manner of doubt. The onus would shift onto the accused
to explain the circumstances under which the child victim was found murdered
and her body burnt. The burnt body of the victim was recovered in furtherance
of the disclosure statement of the appellant.
II. the jewellery articles worn by the victim
was also recovered from the house of the appellant which give rise to the presumption
under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant failed to
offer explanation for incriminating recoveries and thus the trial Court and
High Court justified in drawing the presumption of guilt against the appellant.
After hearing submissions of both the parties and upon
perusal of the record of events and proceedings, the Court became clear right
from the stage of framing of the charges, the trial was conducted in a lopsided
manner and without due deference to the principles of fair trial because the
appellant was not represented by a
defense counsel and was only provided later.
On the above analysis, the Apex Court said the constitutional right of fair and reasonable trial afforded to the accused person to defend
himself is not illusionary and imaginary. The accused must be provided with
effective opportunity to defend himself by a counsel of his choice.
“in case where accused
is facing charges for offences which carry capital punishment, this
constitutional mandate becomes more sacrosanct, and it is the duty of the Court
as well as the State to ensure that
accused is not prejudiced or deprived of a fair opportunity of defending
himself in a case where he may be awarded death penalty” - SC says.
ANALYSIS
OF PRESENT CASE ON DIFFERENT LAW POINT
BY TOP COURT.
Shortcoming of the
criminal proceeding against accused appellant, Dashwanth as observed by the
Supreme Court –
a. The mandatory requirement of right to
defend and fair trial were totally bypassed/ violated by the trial Court while
conducting the proceedings. Hence, prejudice and denial of opportunity of
effective defense to the accused are writ large of the face of the record.
b. The manner in which the trial Court
proceeded to pass the sentencing order indicated hot haste leaving much to be
desired and would vitiate the death sentence awarded to the appellant. Neither
the trial Court nor the High Court undertook the mandatory exercise of seeking
a report of mitigating and aggravating circumstances; the psychological
examination report of the appellant and a report concerning the conduct of the
appellant in jail, before passing the order of sentence and confirming the
same.
c. The theory of last seen put forth in the
evidence of prosecution witness that he had seen the appellant is sheer
concoction, bereft of credibility because the said witness for the first time divulged
the information to the 2nd Investigation officer after more than two
months and 20 days after incident.
Therefore Supreme Court was convinced that the
circumstances of last seen has been created by Investigation Officer in order
to land credence to otherwise case of prosecution.
The Apex Court referred o golden principles as laid down
the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda vs State of Maharashtra (1984) that where a case is purely
based on circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the
chin of unbroken circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The chin of
incriminating circumstances must be complete, conclusive and should exclude
every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the appellant from all
charges and directed that he shall be released from custody forthwith.
Case: Dashwanth Versus State Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal No(S). 3633-3634 Of 2024)
Date of Judgment: October
8,2025
0 Comments