NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

COMMON LAW METHOD

TRIMESTER-I

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

PROF. (DR.) GHAYUR ALAM ASHHAB KHAN

2019BALLB56

AN ANALYSIS OF

Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik ....Petitioner

versus

State of Maharashtra ....Respondent

Page 1 of 10
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take a moment to truly appreciate the amount of support and assistance
given to me by my Common Law Method teacher, Prof. (Dr.) Ghayur Alam. I would also
like to thank NLIU’s library, Gyanmandir, for its incredible treasure trove of resources
and research material that I have used in my project. I would like to end by thanking my
parents for their precious guidance and unwavering support.

I acknowledge that without their help this project would not have been seen its
completion.

~Ashhab Khan

2019BALLB56

Page 2 of 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page No.

1. Details of Judgement…………………………………………………………...4
2. Opinions………………………………………………………………………...5
3. Concrete Facts…………………………………………………………………..6
4. Material Facts…………………………………………………………………...7
5. Arguments of behalf of appellant……………………………………………….8
6. Concrete Judgment……………………………………………………………...9
7. Ratio Decidendi…………………………………………………………………10

Page 3 of 10
 Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik1 ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra ....Respondent

Decided on 12.12.2018

BY J. MADAN B. LOKUR, J. S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J. DEEPAK GUPTA

FULL BENCH

1
https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/26107/26107_2012_Judgement_12-Dec-2018.pdf

Page 4 of 10
OPINIONS

NUMBER OF OPINIONS: 1

UNANIMOUS OPINION

JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR GAVE UNANIMOUS OPINION ON BEHALF OF

JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER AND JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Page 5 of 10
CONCRETE FACTS

1. Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik, the appellant was pronounced guilty for rape and
murder of a 3 year old girl.
2. The offence was committed on night of 2-3 March of 2007.
3. On the grounds of circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution, Appellant was
sentenced for offences punishable Under Sections 376(2)(f), 377 and 302 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC) by Sessions Judge, by a judgment dated 6/9/2008.
4. Thereafter, Sessions Judge passed an order on 10/9/2008 awarding sentence of
death to Appellant.
5. Sessions Judge concluded that any other option of punishment was undeniably
ruled out and only sentence that could be given to the Appellant was of death
penalty.
6. Appellant preferred an appeal against his conviction and punishment before
Bombay High Court. It was taken up for consideration and conviction was upheld
and death penalty granted to the Appellant was affirmed by High Court by a
judgment and order dated 26/3/2009.
7. High Court confirmed death penalty imposed upon Appellant for offence
punishable Under Section 302 of Penal Code.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the decision given by High Court, Appellant favored appeals
in Supreme Court. These appeals were dismissed by a judgment and order dated
29/2/2012.
9. Review Petitions were then filed by Appellant which were dismissed.
10. In current appeal, a curative petition was not filed by Appellant and therefore,
review petitions were restored by an order dated 24/3/2015 and that was how they
came up for consideration after more than 3 ½ years.

Page 6 of 10
MATERIAL FACTS

1. Appellant was held guilty for rape and murder of a 3 year old girl.
2. Appellant was convicted for offences punishable Under Sections 376(2)(f), 377
and 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) by Sessions Judge.
3. Sessions Judge passed an order awarding capital punishment to Appellant.
4. Appellant preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence before Bombay
High Court.
5. High Court confirmed sentence of death imposed upon Appellant.
6. Appellant preferred appeals in Supreme Court. They were dismissed.
7. Review Petitions were then filed by Appellant which were again dismissed.
8. Curative petition had not been filed by Appellant and therefore in view of
decision of Constitution Bench, review petitions were restored by an order and
had come up for consideration after a gap of more than 3 ½ years.

Page 7 of 10
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APELLANT

1. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and hence, the death sentence
should ordinarily not be awarded.

2. The probability of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant was not considered
either by the Trial Court or by the High Court or even by this Court despite several
decisions mandating such a consideration and that there is a probability that the
appellant can be reformed and rehabilitated.

3. Vital DNA evidence was not placed before the Trial Court or taken into consideration
contrary to the provisions of Section 53-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(‘Cr.P.C’)13 and Section 164-A of the Cr.P.C.

4. The reference to the past history of the appellant was not affirmed.

Page 8 of 10
CONCRETE JUDGEMENT

The court held that it would be more appropriate looking to the crimes committed by the
appellant and the material on record including his overall personality and subsequent events, to
commute the sentence of death awarded to the appellant but also directed that he should not
be released from custody for the rest of his normal life.

Page 9 of 10
RATIO DECIDENDI

With the help of above stated material facts,

The Supreme Court of India held that:

1. Failure to produce material evidence should lead to a presumption against the

prosecution and in the favour of the appellant as the basis for sentencing.
2. Trial court was wrong for taking into account two similar cases against the
appellant which as per law it could not consider.
3. Taking into consideration the crimes committed by the appellant and also the facts
on record including his overall character and subsequent events, to commute the
capital punishment given to the appellant.

Page 10 of 10