Court upholds guilt on circumstantial and electronic evidence but commutes death penalty citing improper application of "rarest of rare" doctrine
In a landmark judgment delivered on May 1, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench) confirmed the conviction of Shankar Nishad for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 25-year-old Scheduled Tribe woman. The accused had been originally sentenced to death by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the High Court, while affirming the conviction under Sections 364 (kidnapping with intent to murder), 376 (rape), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of the accused’s natural life.
The case involved the disappearance of the victim on August 14, 2022, after she left her native village to return to work. The prosecution established a strong chain of circumstantial evidence beginning with reliable eyewitness testimonies that the accused was last seen with the victim on her Scooty near Bhadri Chowk. This was corroborated by CCTV footage showing the accused taking the victim to a secluded forest area at Palgada Ghat and returning alone shortly thereafter. Call Detail Records (CDRs) and mobile location data further reinforced the accused’s presence at the scene.
Crucially, the accused’s own memorandum statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act led to the recovery of the victim’s body, concealed in a forested area. Medical evidence, including post-mortem reports and forensic analyses, conclusively established the homicidal nature of death by ligature strangulation, accompanied by injuries consistent with forceful restraint and sexual assault. Although no direct genital injuries or DNA profiling conclusively proved sexual intercourse, the court held that the totality of evidence and surrounding circumstances sufficed to prove the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court carefully examined the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting full compliance with statutory requirements including proper seizure, preservation, and certification of CCTV footage and CDRs. The court rejected defense claims of evidentiary infirmities, finding no break in the chain of custody or tampering.
While the trial court imposed the death penalty, the High Court undertook a thorough reappraisal of sentencing principles under the "rarest of rare" doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. It found that the trial court failed to adequately balance aggravating factors against mitigating circumstances, such as the accused’s youth, lack of prior criminal record, and absence of evidence of irreformability. The High Court emphasized the constitutional mandate that death is an exceptional punishment and that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment must be unquestionably foreclosed before imposing capital punishment.
Citing precedents including Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka and recent Supreme Court rulings, the court held that the case, though heinous and brutal, did not meet the stringent threshold for death penalty. Accordingly, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without remission. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural safeguards, proper evidentiary standards for electronic records, and a nuanced approach to sentencing in capital cases.
The court’s order directs transmission of the judgment to the jail authorities and trial court for execution and further action, while informing the accused of the right to appeal to the Supreme Court with legal assistance.
Bottom line:-
Conviction for kidnapping, rape, and murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial and electronic evidence; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment due to failure to apply "rarest of rare" doctrine properly.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 364, 376, 302, 201 IPC; Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 366 and 407 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
