The Chhattisgarh High Court, while hearing a reference under Section 366 CrPC along with connected criminal appeals, held that in awarding a death sentence, courts must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances specific to each accused, rather than relying solely on the nature of the offence. The judgment was delivered in CRREF No. 1 of 2025: State of Chhattisgarh v. Santram Manjhwar & Others by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru.
Background
On January 29, 2021, deceased persons ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’—a man, his 16-year-old daughter, and his 4-year-old granddaughter—were allegedly abducted, the minor was raped, and all three were murdered. The case was registered at Lemru Police Station, District Korba. The accused persons were Santram Manjhwar, Abdul Jabbar @ Vikki, Anil Kumar Sarthi, Pardeshi Das, Anand Das, and Umashankar Yadav.
The trial court, vide judgment dated 15.01.2025 in Special Case (POCSO) No. 28/2021, convicted them under multiple offences including Sections 302/149 IPC (three counts), 376(DA)/149 IPC, 376(A)/149 IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 120B IPC, Section 148 IPC, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act. Five were sentenced to death; Umashankar Yadav was sentenced to life imprisonment without remission. The reference for confirmation of death sentence and criminal appeals were heard together.
Arguments
Appearing for the appellants, Ms. Sharmila Singhai and Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede submitted:
“The action taken by the police is not proved by the statements of the prosecution witnesses.”
“There is no eye witness to the incident. The chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete.”
“No crime has been committed by the appellants and they have been roped in this case on the basis of suspicion.”
Regarding the death sentence, it was submitted:
“The present would not fall under the rarest of the rare case and the death penalty awarded to them by the learned trial Court deserves to be interfered with.”
Reliance was placed on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, and other decisions.
Deputy Advocate General Mr. Shashank Thakur, appearing for the State, argued:
“The appellants have committed murder of three persons deceased ‘A’, deceased ‘B’ and deceased ‘C’ out of which deceased ‘B’ was a minor aged about 16 years and deceased ‘C’ was a girl child aged about 4 years.”
“Deceased ‘B was not only murdered, but before her death, she was brutally murdered. The appellants even did not spare the little girl child of 4 years who was slammed on a stone and done to death.”
Court’s Analysis
The High Court affirmed that the deaths were homicidal:
“The postmortem report clearly indicates that the death was homicidal.”
It confirmed that the deceased ‘B’ was a minor:
“The date of birth of the victim was 11.04.2005… as on the date of incident i.e. 29.01.2021, the age of the victim was 15 years 9 months and 18 days.”
The caste status of the victims was also noted:
“It is an admitted position that the deceased belonged to Hill Korwa caste which is Scheduled Tribe category which is apparent from Ex.P-8, P-9 and P-10.”
The Court recorded that:
“The disclosure made by the appellants in their memorandum (Ex.P-13 to P-18) corroborates with the prosecution story and on the basis of disclosure, incriminating evidence have been found.”
“Human blood has also been found on the seized articles, finger print of the appellant-Anil Sarthi was found on the steel glass used for consuming alcohol, DNA report also confirms commission of rape by the appellant-Santram Manjhwar.”
On Sentencing
The High Court observed that death penalty requires compliance with Section 354(3) CrPC:
“In the case of sentence of death, the judgment shall state the special reasons for such sentence.”
Quoting Manoj v. State of MP, the Court noted:
“Sentencing must be determined not only by the nature of the offence, but also by the characteristics of the offender.”
The Court emphasized:
“The goal of reformation is ideal, and what society must strive towards… but what is lacking is a concrete framework that can measure and evaluate it.”
“The trial court was required to hold a separate hearing on sentence and record evidence relevant to sentencing, including any mitigating factors. This requirement was not complied with.”
Decision
The Court upheld the conviction of all accused. However, it refrained from confirming the death sentences at this stage, stating:
“We hereby affirm the conviction… Now, the question is whether the case is covered under the ‘rarest of the rare case’ and the death sentence awarded to the appellants is justified.”
The Court directed the trial court to collect mitigating evidence in line with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Manoj and other precedents, including psychological assessments, socio-economic reports, and jail conduct records. The matter will be reconsidered after such reports are submitted.
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Santram Manjhwar & Others
Case Numbers: CRREF No. 1 of 2025; CRA Nos. 357/2025, 574/2025
