On 19 October, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of 25-year-old Naveen Gadke, who was awarded the death penalty for the rape and murder of a three-month-old girl. The apex court remitted the matter for a “de novo (new) trial” and mentioned that he was not given a “proper opportunity” to present his case. The trial made waves at the time after it was completed in a record 23 days from the date of the crime.
The accused, who is a homeless man, was the subject of an appeal being heard by a bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra. The petition was filed against a Madhya Pradesh Court ruling from December 2018 that upheld the verdict and the death penalty. A bench presided over by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi at the time approved his request for special leave in March 2019 and temporarily postponed the Indore court’s decision.
“We are of the considered view that the trial court conducted the trial in a hurried manner without giving the accused a proper opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the high court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for de novo trial according to proper opportunity for the appellant to defend himself,” proclaimed the bench led by Justice Gavai after reserving the judgement.
The court added, “The trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Indore, are directed to provide assistance of a senior counsel to the appellant to contest the trial on his behalf.” Senior Advocate BH Marlapalle, who represented the plaintiff in the appeal, contended that the trial was rushed because of the intense media attention on the issue before both the top and the high court.
“It was impossible for the accused himself to produce the authors of the DNA reports in one day because the experts are government servants and could not have attended the court at the request of an accused in jail. The trial court treated the accused as if he was carrying a magic wand which is available to produce highly qualified experts, who are government servants, on a phone call. There was no opportunity, in the real sense, for the appellant to cross-examine the experts.”
The court then emphasised the value of a fair trial by citing other rulings. It further clarified the idea of ‘judicial calm’ in relation to fair trials and fervently defended adherence to the ideal in letter and spirit.
The highest court added that because the offender’s two experts were government employees and could not have attended the court at his request, it was not possible for him to produce both of them during the trial, authors of reports like DNA and FSL, in a single day. “The trial court treated the accused as if he is carrying a magic wand which is available to produce highly qualified experts, who are government servants, on a phone call. There was no opportunity, in the real sense, for the appellant to cross-examine the experts”, the court noted.
Background of the case
Following a 23-day trial in May 2018, a sessions court in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, sentenced Naveen Gadke to death for the rape and murder of a three-month-old girl. Naveen Gadke was given the death penalty after being deemed culpable for multiple violations under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). Special Public Prosecutor Akram Sheikh pointed out the seriousness of the crime and pleaded with the court to consider it as one of the “rarest of the rare” cases.
In April of that year, a 3-month-old infant, who was sleeping on the street beside her parents, was abducted from the area outside Indore’s famous Rajwada Fort. Her body was later discovered in an adjacent building’s basement, covered with blood. After the unfortunate event, a number of people were questioned on the same day and Naveen Gadke was taken into custody. The police completed their investigation in seven days and following a quick hearing, the trial court delivered its verdict on 12th May. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Indore bench subsequently upheld the lower court’s decision.
“The rape of an infant is nothing but a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the holy body of a girl child and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed. It was not committed by the accused under any mental stress or emotional disturbance and it is difficult to comprehend that he would not commit such acts and would be reformed and rehabilitated. The act of the appellant or accused meets the test of ‘rarest of the rare case’,” asserted the bench of Justice PK Jaiswal and Justice SK Awasthi and confirmed the death sentence.
