LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Nand Kishore v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 58Decided 18 Jan 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2019
Justice S.A. Bobde · Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Background

An 8-year-old girl went missing after attending a village fair in Madhya Pradesh in February 2013; her headless, mutilated body was later found nearby. Based largely on circumstantial evidence, including witnesses who had seen the accused with the child shortly before she disappeared and identified him in a test identification parade, the trial court convicted the appellant, then a 50-year-old man, of kidnapping, rape and murder, and sentenced him to death as a "rarest of rare" case; the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed both the conviction and the death sentence. The appellant challenged his conviction and, in the alternative, argued the death sentence was imposed without properly weighing mitigating factors such as his background, lack of criminal history, and the fact he had no legal representation until the day charges were framed.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence, the "last seen" testimony, eyewitness identification, and forensic/medical evidence, fully supported the trial court's findings of guilt. On sentencing, however, the Court held that the case did not meet the strict "rarest of rare" threshold required for a death sentence, distinguishing it from more aggravated cases like the Nirbhaya gang-rape case (which involved conspiracy, multiple accused and additional violent conduct). Drawing on precedents that substituted death sentences with long fixed-term life imprisonment in similar child rape-murder cases, the Court modified the sentence from death to life imprisonment with an actual 25 years in prison without any benefit of remission, while keeping the conviction itself intact.

Lesson Learnt

Even in horrific crimes, the Supreme Court draws a firm legal line between crimes that are heinous and crimes that meet the much narrower "rarest of rare" standard required for the death penalty: courts must weigh an offender's personal circumstances and possibility of reform, not just the brutality of the act, before confirming a death sentence.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case