Authored By: Adrija Dey
Heritage Law College
Introduction:
The first person to be judicially executed for murder in India in the twenty-first century was Dhananjay Chatterjee (August 14, 1965 – August 14, 2004). On August 14, 2004, the hanging was carried out in Kolkata’s Alipore Jail. In 1990, he was charged with the rape and murder of an 18-year-old schoolgirl named Hetal Parekh. Dhananjay Chatterjee was given the death penalty, fourteen years after the convection.
Facts of the case:
1.Hetal Parekh, an 18-year-old student, was tragically raped and murdered in her flat, No. 3-A, located on the third floor of ‘Anand Apartment.’ The accused was put on trial for both rape and murder, as well as for an offense under Section 380 IPC, for stealing a wristwatch from the flat. The defendant, Dhananjoy, worked as one of the security guards assigned to monitor the ‘Anand Apartment’ building by M/s. Security and Investigating Bureau, owned by Mr. Shyam Karmakar.
2.On March 2, 1990, Hetal (now deceased) informed her mother Yashmoti Parekh that the appellant had been bothering her while she travelled to and from school and had suggested that she go with him to the cinema to watch a film that day. Yashmoti subsequently shared her daughter’s experience with her husband, Nagardas Parekh, who then reported the appellant’s behaviour to Shyam Karmakar and asked him to replace the appellant.
3.Upon the request of Shyam Karmakar, who visited Nagardas at his flat regarding the matter, he submitted a written complaint as well. As a result, the appellant was transferred, and a transfer order assigning him to ‘Paras Apartment’ was issued by Shyam. Bijoy Thapa, a security guard at Paras Apartment, was then assigned to his previous position at Anand Apartment. This transfer was scheduled to take effect on March 5, 1990.
4.The deceased’s father, Nagardas Parekh, and his brother, Bhawesh Parekh, departed for their separate places of business and college early on March 5, 1990, in accordance with their regular schedule. As was his custom, Bhawesh returned to the apartment at around 11.30 a.m. and, after eating, went to his father’s workplace. After being examined at around 1 p.m., the deceased went back to her apartment.
5.The deceased’s mother, Yashmoti, used to go to Laxmi Narayan Mandir every day between five and five thirty. As is customary, she departed for the Temple at approximately 5:20 p.m. on the day of the event. The deceased Hetal was by herself in the apartment at that moment. Shortly after the deceased’s mother, Yashmoti, went for the Temple, the appellant contacted Dasarath Murmu, another security guard on duty at the time, and informed him that he was heading to Flat No. 3-A to call his office. After using the elevator to get to the aforementioned apartment, the appellant committed the claimed offenses.
6.At approximately 6:05 p.m., Yashmoti came back from the Temple. Upon arriving at her apartment, she pressed the doorbell multiple times, but there was no answer and no one came to the door. She shouted for help, which drew the attention of several neighbours. They also rang the bell and knocked on the door, but still, there was no response. Eventually, the neighbours, along with their servant and the liftman, forced the door open, and as she entered the apartment with some of her neighbours, she discovered that the door to her bedroom was ajar.
7.Yashmoti discovered Hetal lying on the floor, unresponsive. After examining the body, the doctor declared her dead. Following this, her father contacted the Bhawanipore Police Station by telephone. Upon receiving the call, sub-inspector Gurupada Som, who was the acting duty officer, quickly arrived at the scene along with several other police officers, recorded the FIR based on Yashmoti Parekh’s statement, the mother of the deceased, and initiated the investigation.
8.The sessions Judge in this case relying upon circumstantial evidence found the accused guilty and therefore, sentenced him to death. The appeal of Dhananjoy Chatterjee for proving his innocence was also rejected by the Calcutta High court and thereafter by the Supreme Court.
Legal issues:
1.Whether The appellant was the assailant who had raped and murdered The defenseless young girl?
2.Did the Appellant have a reason to carry out the purported offense?
3.Is this case classified as one of the extremely uncommon instances?
4.Does this case validate the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in a court of law?
Arguments:
Issue 1: Whether the appellant was the assailant who had raped and murdered the defenseless young girl?
Prosecution’s Arguments :
The prosecution argued based on circumstantial evidence that the appellant was responsible for raping the deceased. The appellant had a pattern of following and harassing the deceased whenever she returned from or left for school. She reported this behaviour to her parents, which led to a transfer order for the appellant to move to Paras apartment. Furthermore, he used the lift to access the deceased’s apartment, as confirmed by the testimony of the lift guard. Additionally, his semen was discovered in the vagina of the deceased. A cream-colored button from the appellant’s shirt was also discovered at the scene of the incident, and it was later determined through investigation that it was indeed from the appellant’s shirt. Additionally, following this incident, the appellant fled, and despite numerous police raids, he was never located. Months later, he was apprehended from his uncle’s home, where he was hiding behind grass straws. Additionally, his pants and shirt from the time of the incident were found in the appellant’s home. Additionally, the deceased’s watch, which had been taken from her apartment at the time of the incident, was found in his home. The attorneys solely relied on the evidence gathered from the crime scene and one of the primary points made throughout the proceedings was that the appellant had a history of taunting the deceased.
Appellant’s Arguments:
The appellant’s attorney contended that the appellant visited a movie theatre shortly after finishing his work at Anand’s apartment, watched the film, bought some fruits, and then hurried back to his village to attend his brother’s thread ceremony. He was not present at the scene of the incident when it happened.
Issue 2: Did the appellant have a reason to carry out the purported offence?
Prosecution’s Arguments:
According to the prosecution’s attorney, the deceased was being teased by the appellant when she used to go to or return from school, which shows that the appellant had motivation to commit the alleged crime. On several occasions, most recently on 2.3, she had brought it to her mother’s attention. 1990. Yashmoti shared the complaints with her husband, Nagardas. Based on Nagardas’ testimony, it appears that on 2.3, he learned of the appellant’s misconduct from his wife. In 1990, he called a few other apartment residents to inform them of the same. According to their depositions, Mahendra Chauhatia and Harish Vakharia were contacted by Nagardas, who informed them that the appellant had been making fun of his daughter and that he had recommended that another security guard be assigned in his place. Both of them concurred. In cross-examination, the new security guard’s testimony has been completely uncontested. Following consultation with the appellant’s employer, Nagardas, he met with him at his apartment on 3.3, according to Karmakar’s statement. In 1990, after learning that the appellant had been making fun of his daughter, he testified that Nagardas instructed him to substitute a different security guard for the appellant and even gave him a written complaint.
Appellant’s Arguments:
The defendant’s attorney contended that the delay in the complaint seizure and transfer order was a factor on 29.6.1990, indicative of the fact that both the documents were created later as an afterthought.
Issue 3: Is this case classified as one of the extremely uncommon instances?
Prosecution’s Arguments:
This case was classified as the “rarest of the rare cases” since the security guard, whose job it was to protect, had brutally and severely murdered the deceased. The appellant must thus be given the death penalty.
Appellent’s Arguments:
According to the appellant’s attorney, the case does not qualify as one of the “rarest of the rare cases” because crimes of this nature are now widely recognized, and the perpetrators of the majority of these crimes are not given the death penalty.
Issue 4: Does this case validate the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in a court of law?
Brief analysis of the arguments:
Circumstantial evidence is also referred to as indirect evidence under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. A proof of a fact that tends to establish whether something is true or not is derived from events or circumstances surrounding the fact in question rather than from direct observation of the fact itself. It relates to a number of facts other than the specific fact that is sought to be proved. Usually, there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence for the theory. This type of evidence is crucial since almost all criminals take care to avoid producing direct evidence and attempt to avoid proving their criminal intent. Thus, circumstantial evidence is used by the prosecution to establish mens rea. According to the well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence, every single incriminating circumstance must be amply supported by credible evidence, and the circumstances must be derived from a sequence of events that allow for the safe deduction of the accused’s guilt and preclude the possibility of any other hypothesis.
Judgement:
Supreme court on issue 1:
The prosecution has conclusively established each of the aforementioned circumstances that it has relied upon. They are all specific, conclusive, and inexorably lead to the conclusion that the appellant was the only one responsible for Hetal’s rape and subsequent murder. All of the facts that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt are incompatible with the appellant’s innocence and only support the theory that he is guilty. Nothing has been brought up during the arguments or even during the cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses as to why any of them should have wrongly accused the appellant of such a horrible crime. Therefore, the court upholds the appellant’s conviction for the offenses under Sections 302, 376, and 380 of the IPC, fully concurring with the trial court and the High Court that the prosecution has proven the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supreme court on issue 2:
The appellant’s submission was deemed without merit by the Supreme Court. In the cross-examination, Nagardas who delivered the transfer order to the appellant and filed a written complaint with Shyam Karmakar were not contested. The reason behind the late seizure of the documents was not even questioned by the investigating officer. In any case, the documents were seized on 29.6.1990 would not prove that the documents were either fabricated or an afterthought, given that the appellant had only been arrested a few weeks prior. Therefore, his transfer from “Anand Apartment” to “Paras Apartment” on the grounds that he had teased the deceased gave him ample justification to not only sate his lust and punish the deceased girl for turning down his offer, but also to exact revenge on his employer for the complaint that led to his transfer from Anand Apartment to Paras Apartment. The appellant’s character was impacted by his transfer because of his inappropriate behaviour with the deceased, which seems to have given him the immediate motivation to commit the crime in retaliation and possibly even to erase any evidence that he had raped the deceased. Consequently, the court believes that the prosecution has successfully demonstrated that the appellant had a motive to commit the crime.
Supreme court on issue 3:
According to the court, the severity of the offense, the criminal’s actions, and the victim’s vulnerability and lack of protection must all be taken into consideration when determining the appropriate punishment in a particular case. The way the courts address society’s demand for justice against the offenders is by imposing the proper punishment. Given the medical evidence and the condition of the deceased’s body, it is clear that an 18-year-old schoolgirl was the victim of a most heinous form of rape and murder. In addition to being savage and inhuman, the crime was a complete and utterly vicious act of rape followed by cold-blooded murder, which was an insult to the human dignity of the community. Our judicial consciousness has been shocked by the crime’s brutality. The case has neither mitigating nor extenuating circumstances. The appellant’s sentences for offenses under Sections 376 and 380 IPC, as well as the instructions pertaining to them, are also confirmed by the lower courts because, should the appellant be executed, those sentences would only be of academic interest. Due to its failure, this appeal is being dismissed.
Supreme court on issue 4:
The prosecution has conclusively established each of the aforementioned circumstances that it has relied upon. They are all specific, conclusive, and inexorably lead to the conclusion that the appellant was the only one responsible for Hetal’s rape and subsequent murder. All of the facts that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt are incompatible with the appellant’s innocence and only support the theory that he is guilty. The prosecution’s witnesses have fared well in the cross-examination test, and their credibility and dependability have not been in any way undermined. As was previously mentioned, every circumstance that the prosecution has established is specific and conclusive. They are completely at odds with the appellant’s innocence and only support the theory that he is guilty. Therefore, we uphold the appellant’s conviction for the offenses under Sections 302, 376, and 380 IPC because we fully concur with the trial court and the High Court that the prosecution has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Critical analysis and conclusion:
In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly violent crime against women has made the criminal sentencing by the courts a subject of concern. Disparities are acknowledged to exist today. Some criminals receive extremely severe sentences, while many receive wildly disparate sentences for essentially the same offense, and an alarmingly high number even escape punishment. This encourages the criminal and ultimately undermines justice by undermining the credibility of the system. Although it is impossible to establish a clear-cut formula for imposing a sentence, the goal of sentencing should be to ensure that the crime is not left unpunished and that the victim and society as a whole are satisfied that justice has been served. In the absence of specific legislation, judges must weigh a number of factors when imposing sentences. Once they have done so and have taken a comprehensive view of the case, they will impose the sentence they believe is appropriate. It is impossible to overlook aggravating factors, and mitigating circumstances must also be taken into account. 15. We believe that the severity of the offense, the criminal’s actions, and the victim’s defenseless and unprotected condition must all be taken into consideration when determining the appropriate punishment in a particular case. The way the courts address society’s demand for justice against the offenders is by imposing the proper punishment. Justice requires that punishment be meted out by the courts.
Reference (s):
1.https://blog.ipleaders.in/case-dhananjoy-chatterjee-noteworthy-lesson-judiciary/
2.https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-dhananjoy-chaterjee-v-state-of-west-bengal/
3.https://pudr.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Dhananjay-Report.pdf
6.https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/dhananjoy-chatterjee-rape-murder-case-14-years-innocent-or-guilty
