Back
2012 (3) Supreme 81
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Ramnaresh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.166-167 of 2010
Decided on : 28-2-2012
Evidence of sole eyewitness-Conviction on the basis of-It is permissible for the Court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness- But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if evidence tendered by such a witness is credible, reliable, in tune with the case of the prosecution and inspires implicit confidence- It is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused- The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court (Para 14)
Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Section 313 –Scope and ambit of- It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is upon the Court. - One of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of the Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires- But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow- Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction- Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law (Para 22)
Death sentence -Principles governing imposition of - Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be a sufficient reason for the imposition of death penalty without reference to the other factors and attendant circumstances- Most of the heinous crimes under the IPC are punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment- That by itself does not suggest that in all such offences, penalty of death alone should be awarded-In such cases awarding of life imprisonment would be a rule, while ‘death’ would be the exception- The term ‘rarest of rare’ case itself suggests that it has to be an exceptional case- The life of a particular individual cannot be taken away except according to the procedure established by law and that is the constitutional mandate (Paras 36, 37)
Sentence-Imposition of in offence of rape and murder-In view of age of accused, possibility of death of deceased occurring accidently and the possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they could not be termed as ‘social menace’- It could not be held with certainty that case fell in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases- On appreciation of the evidence on record and facts and circumstances of case, sentence of death commuted to that for life imprisonment -Appeals partly allowed (Paras 49, 50)
Facts of the Case :
Accused persons four in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for committing rape on prosecuterix and thereafter committing her murder by strangulating her. Trial Court convicted accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.
B. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
A. The Court held that PW6, the sole eyewitness at the time of occurrence had been serving in the house of PW1, for a number of years prior to the date of incident. There existed no motive for him to commit the crime. Statement of PW6, clearly narrated how the offence was committed by the accused .There was Nothing abnormal and inconsistent in testimony of PW6 . Statement of PW6 was fully corroborated by medical evidence .Delay in lodging FIR was sufficiently explained. Cumulative effect of the oral/documentary and expert evidence was that prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.Accused were righty held guilty of committing the offence under Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 IPC.
B. However In view of age of accused, possibility of death of deceased occurring accidently and the possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they could not be termed as ‘social menace’. It could not be held with certainty that case fell in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. On appreciation of the evidence on record and facts and circumstances of case, sentence of death was commuted to that for life imprisonment .Appeals were partly allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key legal points derived from the provided document:
The credibility and reliability of a sole eyewitness are crucial for establishing guilt. The witness’s testimony must be confidence-inspiring, credible, and free from suspicion, and should be corroborated by other evidence to sustain a conviction (!) (!) .
The statement of a sole eyewitness can form the basis for a conviction if it is trustworthy and consistent with medical and other evidence, and if the court finds no reason to doubt its veracity (!) (!) .
The obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is primarily on the court, aimed at providing the accused an opportunity to explain circumstances and present a defense. Failure to do so may lead to adverse legal consequences, but if the accused exercises this opportunity, their statement can be used against them (!) (!) .
The imposition of the death penalty is governed by principles that emphasize its exceptional nature. It should only be awarded in the “rarest of rare” cases, where the crime is heinous, brutal, and involves extreme culpability, with special reasons recorded for such a sentence (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The sentencing process requires a careful balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Factors such as the brutality of the crime, the manner of commission, the offender’s age, potential for reform, and the circumstances of the offense are to be weighed before deciding on the appropriate punishment (!) (!) .
Life imprisonment is generally the rule, and death is considered an exception, to be imposed only when the case is truly among the “rarest of rare” and when the circumstances demand such a severe penalty (!) (!) (!) .
The court must record specific and special reasons when awarding death sentences, ensuring that the decision is well-reasoned and justified by the facts and circumstances of the case (!) (!) .
The nature, manner, and circumstances of the crime, along with the offender’s background, are essential considerations in determining whether the case qualifies as “rarest of rare” for the imposition of capital punishment (!) (!) .
Reformation potential and the accused’s age are relevant mitigating factors but are not automatically determinative. The court must consider the totality of circumstances, including the possibility of future rehabilitation (!) (!) .
The judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised carefully, with a balanced approach that considers both the severity of the crime and the personal circumstances of the offender, ensuring justice and societal interests are served (!) (!) .
Evidence, including medical reports and forensic findings, must be thoroughly examined, but inconclusive or weak forensic evidence alone does not automatically lead to acquittal; it must be considered alongside other substantive evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The conduct and circumstances under which the crime was committed, including any provocation, mental state, and the degree of brutality, are significant factors influencing the severity of punishment (!) (!) (!) .
The court’s primary aim is to deliver a just punishment, which may include life imprisonment or death, based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors, with a clear emphasis on the principles of proportionality and the “rarest of rare” doctrine (!) (!) (!) .
The decision to impose the death penalty must be based on a careful, case-specific analysis, and the reasons for such a sentence must be explicitly recorded to ensure transparency and legal soundness (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further elaboration or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The present appeals are directed against the concurrent judgments of conviction and award of capital punishment. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, convicted the four accused (the appellants herein), for offences under Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced them vide judgment and order of sentence dated 20th November, 2007 as follows:
Offences Punishment/Sentence
302/34 IPC Award of capital sentence and ordered that they be hanged till death.
376(2)(g) IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- each. In case of default in the payment of fine, each accused to further undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment of one month each.
449 IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 24th July, 2009 confirmed the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge giving rise to the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia, but primarily, has raised the following challenges to the judgments under appeal:
(1) That the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
(2) That the sole witness, PW6, Dhaniram is not a credible witness and, in fact, he himself falls within the realm of suspicion as being an accused. Number of other witnesses including, PW2, Sunita, PW5, Bela Bai, and PW10, Kamlesh, turned hostile in the court. This clearly is indicative of false implication of the accused.
(3) That there are variations and serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which have been relied upon by the courts, while convicting the accused.
(4) Furthermore, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Therefore, the conviction of the accused is unsustainable. The contention is that the linking evidence is missing in the present case. The incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution does not connect the appellants with the commission of crime.
(5) The High Court has erred in law in relying upon the statement of the witnesses which are not reliable. The courts are expected to examine statements of such witnesses and/or sole witness cautiously. The learned Trial Court as well as the High Court has failed to apply these settled principles correctly to the facts of the present case.
(6) FSL report does not clearly state or link the appellants with the commission of the crime.
For these reasons and grounds, the appellant claims acquittal.
4. Before we proceed to discuss the merits or otherwise of the above contentions, it will be necessary for us to state the case of the prosecution and the evidence on record. Rajkumari (the deceased) was residing at Village Gullidand, Police Station Marwahi, with her husband Indrajeet and two infant children. On 8th August, 2006, her husband had gone to the house of his father at Rajnagar. Rajkumari was at her residence with her children. On 9th August, 2006, Rajkumari had called Dhaniram, their domestic servant, to sleep in their house in the night. It was the day of Raksha Bandhan. Anita (PW3), Savita (PW2) and Bela Bai (PW5), neighbours of Rajkumari, visited her house to view television in the night. At about 9 o’clock, they went back to their houses after viewing television. Ranjeet Kewat, is the brother of Indrajeet and brother-in-law of Rajkumari. He had a house near the house of Indrajeet. Vishwanath, Amar Singh, Kamlesh and Ramnaresh, who used to reside at the house of Ranjeet came to his house, sat there for some time and then went away. At about 11.30 p.m., they are stated to have again come to the house of Ranjeet and consumed alcohol. Thereafter, at about 12 o’clock in the night, when Rajkumari had gone to sleep in her room and the servant, Dhaniram, was watching television in the verandah, the accused per
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
