Veerendra

CASE BRIEF
Jurisdiction
Nationalities
  • Indian
Case Title
Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Age at Offence
25
Age Group at Offence
Adult (18 to 59)
Gender
Male
Religious Group at Offence
Hindu
Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group
  • Socio-economic Status
Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF)
India
Contributing TRP Partner
  • The Square Circle Clinic (India)
Latest Country's Death Penalty Status
  • Retentionist
Case Current Status
Closed: Commuted
Year when sentenced to Death Row
2010s: 2014
Method of Execution
Hanging
Nature of Offences for Death Penalty
  • Sexual Violence: Rape
  • Murder: Single Victim
Expert Evidence
  • Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
  • Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology
Case Background (300 words max)

The accused was convicted for the rape and murder of his 8 year old niece. The key circumstances against the accused are: Recovery evidence (victim’s body and clothes), post-mortem report (suggesting rape, and asphyxiation as cause of death), last seen witness (victim last seen with accused, thereafter found dead), chance witness (saw the accused leave the scene of crime, and forensic evidence (semen and blood present on accused and victim’s clothes). The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death 2014, and the High Court confirmed the same in 14.07.2016. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years in 13.05.2022.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)
  1.    Though semen and blood was found on the accused and deceased’s clothes, the forensic report was inconclusive and did not connect the accused to the blood and semen found (no DNA analysis was conducted). 

  2.    Date of Birth of the Victim was not proved by producing school records. 

  3.    The last seen witness testimonies may not be relied upon as they did not inform the police at the first instance. 

  4.    Testimony of the chance witness may not be considered as his statement was taken at a belated stage. Defence also argued that the testimony of chance witnesses is not creditworthy. 

  5.    The witness examined for seizure and recovery memos was the grandfather of the deceased, the defence argued that the witness being related to the deceased should discredit the testimony.
Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

While upholding the conviction and commuting the sentence, the Supreme Court held the following:

  1.    Failure to conduct DNA analysis alone cannot be permitted to decide the fate of trial for the offence of rape, other material on record must be weighed to arrive at a conclusion.

  2.    Despite thorough cross examination of the grandfather who was the witness for seizure and recovery memos, nothing was elicited to discredit him. Hence, his relation to the deceased alone cannot discredit his testimony. 

  3.    Defining a witness as “chance witness” alone does not discredit his testimony.

  4.    Maternal grandparents of the deceased had stated the victim’s age to be 7-8 years, and the father of the deceased had deposed of the victim studying in Class 1 of a government school. Even the autopsy done reported the age of the deceased to be 8.

  5.    Since the accused had no criminal antecedents, hails from a poor socio-economics backgrounds, and was only 25 years old at the time of commission, the Court found no reason to rule out the possibility of reform.
Legal Representation Received
  • Second Appeal: Pro bono
  • Appeal: Unknown
  • Pre-trial: Unknown
  • Trial: Unknown
Legislation Related to the Offence(s)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 43, 53A, 161, 313, 318, and 354(3) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 6 and 106 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 120B, 201, 300, 302, 304, 341, 364, 364A, 376, and 376A Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) - Sections 3, 5, and 6

Judicial Precedents

Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra; Tahsildar Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh; Pudhu Raja and Ors. vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police; State of Haryana vs. Bhagirath and Ors.; Mayur Panabhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat; State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors.; Sunil vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana; Mohd. Arif and Ors. vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Ors.; Nizam and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan; State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram; In Re: Naina Mohamed; Arabindra Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal; Pattu Rajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu; Dalip Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab; Khurshid Ahmed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir; Sukhar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.; Govindaraju vs. State and Ors.; Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa; Md. Mannan vs. State of Bihar; State of West Bengal vs. Dipak Halder and Ors.; Kansa Behera vs. State of Orissa; R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra; Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra; Swami Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka; Union of India (UOI) vs. V. Sriharan and Ors.

Language of Case Materials
  • English