TATTU LODHI@ PANCHAM LODHI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 561, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 561 
TATTU LODHI@ PANCHAM LODHI 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 292-293of2014) 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND ABHAY 
MANOHAR SAPRE JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.363, 364, 376(2)(j}/511 and 201 -
Kidnapping and attempt to commit rape of minor girl followed by 
her murder -
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and 
death sentence - Held: In view of evidence of witnesses, medical 
evidence and recovery of incriminating material, no reason to 
inlerfere with the funding of courts below that appellant kidnapped 
the victim and after subjecting her to sexual abuse throttled her to 
death - The chain of circumstance was complete - Medical evidence 
further showed that the victim was subjected to rape - Trial court 
erred in convicling appellant onZv for attempted rape - As regards 
sentencing, the facts do not make out a rarest of rare case, therefore, 
dealh sentence is not confirmed - Appellant is inflicted with 
imprisonmenl for l!fe wilh further direction tha1 he shall no/ be 
released from prison till he completes ac!Ual period of 25 years of 
imprisonment - Se11tence/Sen1encing. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. On a careful consideration of the evidence of 
shopkeeper (PW-7) from where the victim bought "Gutka" for 
the accused and the evidence of complainant and other witnesses 
along with medical evidence, seizure report and report from the 
forensic science laboratory confirming the presence
of huinan 
blood on the gunny bag, bed-sheet and bed-cover which were 
seized from the house of accused, there is no good reason to 
interfere with the findings of the trial court cl nly confirmed by the 
High Court that the appellant-accused kiclnappccl the victim and 
"after subjecting her to sexual abuse, throttled her to death. The 
first submission on behalf of the appellant that the chain of 
circumstantial evidence is not complete ancl docs not prove the 
guilt of accused is found to be without any substance. [Para 3] 
[564-A-C] 
561 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
562 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
2. The post-mortem report, besides showing injuries on 
the neck and face showed several bruise marks on the abdomen 
as well as an injury on the left side of the vagina. The internal 
examination clearly records thus: " .... in the reproductive organ 
the hymen membrane was ruptured. Mild bleeding and 
inflammation were found .... " In view of said findings recorded in 
the post-mortem report of the seven year old victim duly proved 
by the doctor (PW-9), there was no justification not to hold the 
accused guilty of rape simply because PW-9 in his oral deposition 
made a casual statement that there was attempt to commit rape 
on the deceased before her death. [Para 4) (564-A-C) 
3. The facts of this case do not make out a "rarest of rare" 
case so as to confirm the death sentence of the appellant. The 
death penalty is therefore not confirmed. The occurrence is of 
the year 2011 when the appellant was about 27 years old. 
Considering the fact that the deceased, a helpless child fell victim 
of the crime oflust at the hands of the appellant and there may be 
probabilities of such crime being repeated in case the appellant 
is allowed to come out of the prison on completing usual period 
of imprisonment for life which is taken to be 14 years for certain 
purposes, the appellant should be inflicted with imprisonment 
for life with a further direction that he shall not be released from 
prison till he
completes actual period of25 years of imprisonment. 
[Paras 9, 101 [567-C-GI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 292-293 of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2013 of the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Reference No. 3of2013 and 
Criminal Appeal No. 711 of2013. 
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rukhsana Choudhary, Ms. 
Shampa Nath, Ms. Vandana Gogna, Ms, Vasav Ananthavraman & Ms. 
Annan ya, Ad vs. for the appellant. 
Sunny Choudhary, Mishra Saurabh & Abhilash Attri, Advs. for 
the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. The appellant, charge-sheeted 
for offences under Section 366(A), 363, 364, 376(2)(t)/5 I land 201 of
TATTU LODHI@ PANCHAM LODHI v. STATE OF MADHYA 
PRADESH [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
the Indian Penal Code (for brevity '!PC') was tried by the Twelfth 
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 324 of2011. 
He was found guilty of committing the murder of a minor girl, aged 
about seven years and also of kidnapping and attempt to commit rape on 
her and for destruction of evidence relating to the crime. The trial court 
awarded punishment of death under Section 302 !PC, RI for life and a 
fine ofRs.1,000/-with default stipulation for offence under Section 364 
!PC, RI for seven years with similar fine.for offence under Section 363 
!PC, RI for seven years with similar fine for offence under Section 
376(2)(f)/5 l 1 !PC and R1 for seven years with similar fine for offence 
under Section 201 !PC. All the punishments of imprisonment were 
directed to run concurrently. By the impugned judgment the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh agreed with the findings of the trial court and 
answered the criminal reference in affirmative, confirming the death 
sentence and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant. 
2. Learned senior advocate for the appellant, Ms. Meenakshi 
Arora initially made an attempt to challenge the conviction of the appellant 
itself by pointing out absence of any eye-witness of the incident and 
dependence of the entire prosecution case on circumstantia 1 evidence 
alone. Learned counsel for the State countered the cha! lenge to conviction 
by
submitting that in Jaw there is no hurdle in securing conviction purely 
on circumstantial evidence. On facts, he highlighted that the trial court 
considered the entire evidence on record fairly and in detail and found 
the following five circumstances proved against the accused: 
(i) The accused asked the victim soon before the incident to 
purchase and bring "Gutka" for him and after sometime she 
became untraceable. 
563 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(ii) Victim was last seen alive with the accused 
F 
(iii) The accused avoided to hand over the keys of his house for 
the search of victim. 
(iv) Recovery and seizure of victim's dead body in a gunny bag 
from the house of the accused. 
(v) Seizure of blood-stained clothes including bed sheet from the 
G 
house of accused pursuant to his memorandum statement. 
3. In view of submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that 
the chain of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not 
complete, we have examined the relevant evidence and also the 
discussion thereof made by the trial court in detail from paragraphs 15 to 
H
564 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
32 of its judgment and similar exercise by the High Com1. On a careful 
consideration of the evidence of shopkeeker Anil Kumar Jain (PW-7) 
from where the victim bought "Gutka" for the accused and the evidence 
of complainant Gappu @ Kshirsagar, Hemraj, Ram Kumar, Sitaram, 
Maharaj Singh along with medical evidence, seizure report and report 
from the forensic science laboratory confirming the presence of human 
blood on the gunny bag, bed-sheet and bed-cover which were seized 
from the house of accused, we find no good reason to interfere with the 
findings of the trial comi duly confirmed by the High Court that the 
appellant-accused kidnapped the victim and after subjecting her to sexual 
abuse, throttled her to death. The first submission on behalfofthe appellant 
that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and does not 
prove the guilt of accused is found to be without any substance. We 
have no hesitation in confirming the conviction. 
4. Since there was no appeal before the High Court from the side 
of the State or the complainant nor there is any such appeal in th is Court, 
We have confirmed the conviction as made by the trial court but we 
have no hesitation in indicating our disapproval of the error committed 
by the trial court in convicting the accused only for the attempted rape. 
The post-mortem report, besides showing injuries on the neck and face 
showed several bruise marks
on the left and right side of the abdomen 
as well as an injury on the left side of the vagina. The internal examination 
clearly records thus: " .................... in the reproductive organ the 
hymen membrane was ruptured. Mild bleeding and inflammation were 
found. Vagina was congested and one finger cou Id be inserted. White 
discharge was coming out of vagina." In view of aforesaid findings 
recorded in the post-mortem report of the seven year old victim duly 
proved by Dr. Khare (PW-9), there was no justification not to hold the 
accused guilty of rape simply because PW-9 in his oral deposition made 
a casual statement that there was attempt to commit rape on the deceased 
before her death. It may only be noticed that the Doctor confirmed that 
the death of the deceased was caused by asphyxia from choking out the 
throat by strangulation of the neck and all the injuries were ante mortem 
in nature. It may also be noted here that the post-mo1iem report (Ex. P-
13) was prepared and signed not only by Dr. Rakesh Khare (PW-9) but 
also by his colleague Dr. Ashish Raj who had also participated in the 
autopsy of the. deceased. 
5. Be that as it may, we have now to consider the next plea 
advanced on behalf of the appellant that the facts of the case do not
TATTU LODHI@ PANCHAM LODHI v. STATE OF MADHYA 
PRADESH [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
make the crime to be "rarest of rare" and hence in such a case the Courts 
below should not have awarded the death sentence. In support of the 
aforesaid plea, learned senior counsel has submitted that at the time of 
occurrence accused was aged only about twenty seven years and there 
was no material to negate the chance of accused being reformed on account 
of sentence of imprisonment and gaining further maturity. On the basis of 
injuries which can be associated with rape, learned senior counsel submitted 
that no doubt it was a heinous offence as the victim was only seven years 
old but there were neither any broken bones nor.brutal tearing etc. to make 
out a case of extreme brutality. Learned senior counsel referred to the 
statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure to point out that since sometime back the accused was living 
alone as his wife had deserted him and he also admitted that there was only 
one case under Section 354 IPC pending against him. Reference was also 
made to memorandum statement of the accused recorded by the police in 
presence of some witnesses to show that as per such statement the accused 
killed the deceased because of loud cries by her. According to learned 
counsel the murder was in a state of panic and not a premeditated act and 
therefore, the appellant deserves a lenient punishment, anything other than 
death. 
6.
Ms. Arora, learned senior counsel for the appellant placed reliance 
upon judgment in the case of Swamy S/muftlmumda(2) v. State of 
Kamatakll1 to underscore that although Swamy Shraddananda's conviction 
under Sections 302 and 201 of the !PC was affirmed with a finding that 
. the crime was a cold blooded murder yet this Court was not convinced to 
confinn the sentence of death even after discussing the diabolical crime in 
which a wealthy married woman fell in trap, divorced her husband married 
the accused and suffered death at his hands only for lust of her huge 
property. The dead body was found buried under the tloor of her residential 
house, obviously to conceal the ghastly crime. In such a crime, while 
mulling over the vexed issue of adequate sentence in lieu of death sentence, 
this Court held that the Court had the power to substitute death by 
imprisonment for life and also to direct that the convict would not be 
released from prison for the rest of his life. A Constitution Bench judgment 
in the case of U11io11 of Imlitt v. V. Srilumm alias M11ruga11 & Ors. 2 has 
also been cited to show that judgment in the case of Swamy Shraddananda 
(2) (supra) has been approved and followed. In paragraphs 89 and 90 of 
this judgment it was explained that life imprisonment means the whole life 
1 (2008) 13 sec 767 
2 (2016)7SCC I 
565 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
566 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 
span of the person convicted and therefore in the facts ofa case while not 
confirming death penalty, this Court may. while exercising its power to 
impose the punishment of! ife imprisonment, specify the period upto which 
the sentence of life must remain intact so as to be proportionate to the 
nature of the crime committed. 
7. The submissions advanced on behalf of the State will be 
considered hereinafter, but keeping in mind all the submissions, it is clear 
that there is no opposition to the contention advanced by learned senior 
counsel for the appellant on the basis of Swamy Shraddananda(2) 
(supra) and the Constitution Bench Judgment in Sriharan (supra). In 
that view of the matter and even otherwise we are in respectful 
agreement with the views expressed in those judgments. The judicial 
innovation of bridging the gap between death sentence on the one extreme 
and only 14 years of actual imprisonment in the name of life imprisonment 
on the other, in our view serves a laudable purpose as explained in those 
judgments and does not violate any positive mandate oflaw in the Indian 
Penal Code or in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, for doing 
complete justice in any case, this court can definitely follow the law laid 
down in the aforesaid judgments even by virtue of Article 142 of the 
Constitution oflndia. The innovative approach reflected in the aforesaid 
judgments, on the one hand helps
the convict in getting rid of death 
penalty in appropriate cases. on the other it takes care of genuine 
concerns of the victim including the society by ensuring that life 
imprisonment shall actually mean imprisonment for whole of the natural 
life or to a lesser extent as indicated by the court in the light of facts of 
a particular case. Since there is no party who is actually a looser on 
account of such an approach in appropriate cases, we feel no hesitation 
in accepting the submissions advanced by the appellant. Hence the law 
is reiterated that in appropriate cases where this court is hesitant in 
maintaining death sentence, it may order that the convict shall undergo 
imprisonment for whole of natural life or to a lesser extent as may be 
specified. 
8. Learned counsel for the State has made a strong attempt to 
suppo1i the death sentence. According to him the judgments in the case 
of R((jemlr" Pralluulr"o W((s1tik v. State of Mafutr((s/itr{l3 and 
Slw11kar Kisa11r"o Klwde v. State of Maharashtra4 catalogue the 
relevant factors which should be looked for and examined for awarding 
or confirming death sentence. He highlighted factors such as brutality, 
'(2012) 4 sec 37 
, (2013) s sec 546
TATTU LODHI@ PANCHAM LODHI v. STATE OF MADHYA 
PRADESH [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
helplessness of the victim, unprovoked and pre-meditated attack as well 
as societal concern in respect of a particular brutal or heinous crime. 
According to him the facts of the case showed brutality, helplessness of 
the victim as well as unprovoked and pre-meditated design to assault. 
Learned counsel for the State also referred to some other cases where 
death penalty had been confirmed by this Court on the basis of peculiar 
facts of those cases. Since there are large number of judgments either 
confirming death sentence or commuting the same into life imprisonment, 
rendered on the basis of peculiar facts of those cases, it would not be of 
any real help to consider those judgments for deciding the issue as to 
whether in the facts of the present case death sentence should be 
confirmed or commuted. 
9. Having considered the rival submissions as well as judgments 
relied upon, we are of the considered view that the facts of this case do 
not make out a "rarest of rare" case so as to confirm the death sentence 
of the appellant. The death penalty is therefore not confirmed. The 
question as to what would be the appropriate period out of imprisonment 
for the whole natural life that the appellant must spend in prison is not an 
easy one to be answered. As per submissions of learned counsel for the 
appellant in total an actual period of 20 years behind the bars would 
serve the ends of
justice in the present case. Contra, learned State counsel 
has argued for whole of natural life. 
10. The occurrence is of the year 2011 when the appellant was 
said to be about 27 years old. Considering the fact that the deceased, a 
helpless child fell victim of the crime oflust at the hands of the appellant 
and there may be probabilities of such crime being repeated in case the 
appellant is allowed to come out of the prison on completing usual period 
of imprisonment for life which is taken to be 14 years for certain purposes, 
we are of the view that the appel !ant should be inflicted with imprisonment 
for life with a further direction that he shall not be released from prison 
till he completes actual period of25 years of imprisonment. With this 
modification in the sentence, the appeals of the appellant are dismissed. 
Devika Gujra\ 
Appeals dismissed. 
567 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G