The Jharkhand High Court stated that in situations where a statute specifies the death penalty as a possible punishment, the court must postpone any further proceedings related to the sentencing after explicitly informing the accused of their right to present evidence regarding mitigating circumstances. The court expressed strong reservations about the hurried nature of the trial, which lasted only seven days, in a POCSO court.
Brief Facts:
The accused were charged for kidnapping a 6 year old girl, committing rape upon her and leaving her dead at informant’s doorstep. Relying upon DNA reports, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet and trial judge after considering the evidence, convicted the accused on six counts, including abduction, sexual assault, murder and concealing evidence. In order to contest the conviction recorded against them under sections 366/34, 376-DB/34, 376-A/34, 302/34, and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the sentence imposed thereon, separately on each count with the exception of section 376-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused had filed a Criminal Appeal (DB).
Observations of the Court:
The Hon'ble Court relying upon Miranda v. Arizona : 384 US 436, opined that in every case where the stature provides death penalty the Court must adjourn “futher” hearing on sentence after clearly informing the accused that he has a right to produce material(s) on mitigating circumstance(s). The division bench of the Hon’ble Court added that, In all other cases, where the convict does not intend to lead any evidence and is satisfied with an opportunity for an oral hearing the trial Judge shall pass a sentence on him according to law. However, the trial Judge should make an endorsement and record in the proceedings of the Court as well as in the order of sentence that the convict was informed about his right and offered an opportunity to lead further evidence, oral as well as documentary.
The Court stressed that a thorough examination of sections 15, 18, and 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 makes it clear that a child who is accused of a serious crime and is older than 16 may receive a life sentence if it is determined that they have the mental and physical capacity to comprehend and carry out the crime. The trial judge had hurriedly handled the proceedings, the court pointed out. Questions concerning the judge's compliance with their statutory obligations were raised by the Court's observation that the prosecution's witnesses, including intimate companions of the victim, were cross-examined, questioned, and then released in a single day. In addition, the prosecution's request to introduce new evidence under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted without delay, and the defense had no objections.
The Court also noted that these additional witnesses testified on the same day, and their testimony was used to submit important papers such the postmortem report, DNA reports, arrest memo, seizure list, transit remand, and inquest report. The prosecution then ended its presentation of evidence, questioning six additional prosecution witnesses through a second petition under section 311 CrPC. Later that day, the accused was questioned under section 313 CrPC, and the matter was postponed for arguments. Given the gravity of the violation and the probable harshness of the sentence, the Court voiced major concerns about the trial judge's actions, finding them to be unfair and failing to provide the legal aid attorney enough time to mount a solid defense.
After going over the prosecution witnesses' testimony, the court concluded that the legal aid attorney was not well-prepared for the trial and had not had enough time to go over the case files. The prosecution witnesses were only asked a few questions during cross-examination before being shut off. The Court also observed that the witnesses were rapidly introduced and questioned in spite of the fact that they had given vital evidence, including postmortem reports and DNA. Notably, neither the methods employed for DNA profiling nor the sealing or possible manipulation of the samples were investigated.
The Court noted that there was an implied challenge to the trial's fairness, implying that the trial judge's methods were not transparent or fair, and that due process of law was not applied.
The Court made it clear that it could not ignore the fact that many people accused of major crimes are illiterate. This emphasizes the necessity for a rigorous and relevant interpretation of section 235(2), the Court believes.
The judicial claimed that strict adherence to this sub-section guarantees protection against arbitrary sentencing and improves the credibility of judicial procedures relating to sentencing. Section 235(2) of the Code functions as a safeguard against the arbitrary application of the death sentence. The Court further stressed that failure to comply with the requirement should be seen as incurable rather than as a trivial irregularity. The convict's right to a fair trial regarding punishment must be properly upheld, and there should be no leaning toward the prosecution's side.
The decision of the Court:
The court ruled that the POCSO Act Case trial was tainted by the violations that occurred during it, and as a result, the conviction verdict and sentencing order of March 3, 2020, were both revoked. The Court rejected the Death Reference and denied the reference under section 366 CrPC as a consequence. In addition, the Court granted the Criminal Appeal (DB) and reinstated the POCSO Act Case with its initial documentation.
Case Title: State through informant Sadhu Rai vs Mithu Rai and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Case No.: Death Reference No. 02 of 2020
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Pankaj Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Kumar Vibhav, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Mr. Ritesh Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
