Coimbatore Siblings Case:
Manoharan V. State by Inspector of Police (2019 SCC Online 951 )
INTRODUCTION
The
Supreme Court dismissed the "Review Petition" brought by Manoharan,
the Appellant-Accused, whose death penalty had been affirmed only a few months
ago, on the grounds that "dissent of one judge does not place a limit for
upholding the penalty." It should be mentioned that in August 2019, the
Supreme Court (2:1) found the accused guilty of gang rape of a 10-year-old
girl, as well as killing her and her brother, and sentenced him to death.One
issue that must be remembered is that while "Justice Rohinton Fali
Nariman" and "Justice Surya Kant" sustained the death penalty in
favour of the accused, "Justice Sanjiv Khanna" had a different
opinion and was against sustaining Manoharan's death sentence.
FACTS
1.
One of the defendants, Mohanakrishnan, took a car without the owner's
permission and kidnapped two children as they were going for school outside the
temper.
2.
The two abducted children were a seven-year-old boy and a ten-year-old girl,
respectively.
3.
The kidnapper drove the children to the gas station and picked up the appellant
at 9:30 a.m.
4.
The youngsters were transported to the secluded region known as Golaswamy
Temple Hills, where the female was raped.
5.
Attempts were made to murder the children by giving them deadly cow excrement
mixed with milk in the hopes that the accused would be able to rid themselves
of them. However, this approach failed, and the children did not benefit.
6. The accused then threw the kids into the Parambikulam Project Canal and
escaped.
7.
On the canal, school bags were observed floating. With the use of information
supplied, one of the accused, Mohankrishnan, was apprehended by the police on
the same evening of the day.
8.
The girl's body was discovered in the canal the next day. After a few days, the
appellant was apprehended, and the boy's body was discovered.
9.
Mohankrishnan was subsequently killed in a shootout.
ISSUE
1.
Whether the case falls in the category of “rarest of rare” in
allowing the death sentence
2.
What is the voluntary nature of the confession made?
LEGAL BACKGROUND
The
prosecution called 49 witnesses in Trial Court, including all individuals who
observed the abduction, purchase of milk, purchase of dangerous substance, and
purchase of cow dung, as well as all those who saw the children in the care of
the accused person at various locations.The prosecution further constructed the
"last seen hypothesis," claiming that "the petitioner gave a
confessional statement under section 164 of the CrPC."
The
Madras High Court overturned the trial court's convictions under sections 120B
and 364A of the Indian Penal Code, but upheld the penalties imposed under
sections 307, 308 r/w 34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
RATIO
The
conviction of the appellant was affirmed by the court (2 judges). According to
the court, this is a "rarest of rare" situation in which "the
death sentence is the only option." J. Khanna disagreed, claiming that the
test sentence should not be imposed because of the "test of mitigating and
aggravating factors established in the Bachan Singh case."
THE CASE DECISION
The
"review petitions were rejected" because the Appellant Accused,
together with the dead person, perpetrated "sexual assault on a
10-year-old girl and cold-blooded murder of both underage children in the most
terrible manner" imaginable, and so there is no compelling reason to
reconsider the case.
CONCLUSION
Even
after a landmark judgement and punishment india still testifies to a number of
rape and murder cases against children.In this case judgement was in [2:1]so
review petition was filed and held that dissent of one judge does not hold the
death penalty.The accused done rape and murdered of 10 year girl and her
brother .It was heinous crime against the society and for setup a example
judges gave death penalty.
As
in this the crime was done to a minor girl so that review petition was
dismissed and there was no ground for reviewing the petitio
0 Comments