The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, commuted the death sentence awarded to Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiya for the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a four-year-old child in Gujarat. The Court modified the sentence to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission, emphasizing the circumstantial evidence, the Evidence Act, and the presumptions under the POCSO Act.
The bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Aravind Kumar delivered the verdict in Criminal Appeal Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019, arising from a Gujarat High Court judgment that upheld the death penalty for the appellant.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on April 13, 2016, in Piludara village, Bharuch District, Gujarat. The appellant, Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiya, enticed the four-year-old victim under the pretext of buying ice cream. Hours later, the child’s body was discovered near the acacia bushes close to a lake. The postmortem report revealed the child had been subjected to penetrative sexual assault and died due to asphyxia by throttling.
The Trial Court awarded the death penalty, which the Gujarat High Court affirmed on April 3, 2019. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the findings and sentence.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court primarily addressed the following legal questions:
1. Reliability of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was strong enough to convict the accused.
2. Presumptions Under POCSO Act: The application of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which place the burden on the accused to prove innocence once foundational facts are established.
3. Balance of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: Whether the crime fell into the “rarest of rare” category warranting capital punishment.
Court’s Observations
The judgment meticulously examined the chain of circumstances and underscored the relevance of the Evidence Act and POCSO provisions.
1. Last Seen Evidence:
Witnesses, including the child’s aunt (PW-10 Jyotsnaben) and a local shopkeeper (PW-11 Manoj Kumar Parmar), testified that the accused was last seen with the victim.
“When a child of tender age is taken under the pretext of buying ice cream, the accused’s silence regarding what happened thereafter speaks volumes,” the Court observed.
2. Presumptions Under POCSO:
The Court invoked Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, holding that foundational facts of aggravated sexual assault had been proven.
“Once the injuries and circumstances are established, the presumption of culpability under POCSO shifts the burden onto the accused. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption,” the bench stated.
3. Medical Evidence:
The postmortem report (PW-8) highlighted severe injuries to the perianal region, consistent with penetrative assault. Additionally, the accused’s medical examination revealed injuries to his genitals, corroborating the assault.
4. Recovery of Evidence and Conduct:
Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the accused’s conduct in leading the police to the hidden clothes of the victim was deemed admissible evidence.
5. Matching of Blood Group:
Forensic reports revealed that the semen samples matched the blood group of the accused, further linking him to the crime.
Sentence Modified: Death to 25 Years RI
While upholding the conviction under Sections 302, 364, and 377 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, the Court revisited the appropriateness of the death penalty.
The bench cited the mitigating factors, including the appellant’s age (24 years at the time of the incident), lack of criminal antecedents, socio-economic background, and reports suggesting intellectual disability.
“The case does not foreclose the possibility of reformation. Imposing a life sentence without remission for 25 years balances justice for the victim and society while giving the convict a chance for reformation,” the Court stated.
Relying on principles laid down in Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) and Nawas Alias Mulanavas v. State of Kerala (2024), the Court concluded:
“A sentence of 25 years without remission ensures the punishment is proportionate and does not undermine public confidence in the justice system.”
Case Details
Case Title: Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiya v. State of Gujarat
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019
Judgment Date: December 17, 2024
Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Aravind Kumar
Counsel:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Ms. Uttara Babbar (Pro Bono)
State of Gujarat: Advocate Ms. Swati Ghildiyal
