2012 (3) Supreme 497
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Dr. B.S. Chauhan & Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.)
Sandeep — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Shashi Bhushan — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1651 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal Nos.1425-26 of 2011
Decided on : 11-05-2012
(2000) 8 SCC 382; (1980) 1 SCC 479; (2005) 9 SCC 283; (1999) 9 SCC 149 – Referred
(b) Criminal Trial – Examination of witnesses – Witnesses unfolding narration of events in a cogent and convincing manner – Non-examination of all cited witnesses is not fatal. (Para 24)
(1995) 7 JT 561 – Relied upon
(c) Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Alibi – Burden to prove alibi lies heavily on the person making it. (Para 27)
(2012) 1 SCC 10 – Relied upon
(d) Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 25 – Deceased giving statement to police and later dying in hospital – Admissible portion of Accused persons’ confession conforming to deceased’s statement – Rest of such statement cannot be outrightly rejected. (Paras 28 and 29)
(e) Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 25 – Confession and admission – Distinction discussed. (Paras 29 and 30)
(1994) 2 SCC 467 – Relied upon
(f) Criminal Trial – Alteration of crime – FIR originally filed u/s 307 – Later on death of the deceased altered to one u/s 302 – Delay in such alteration and sending the express report – Not fatal to prosecution case. (Para 31)
AIR 1972 SC 2679; AIR 1976 SC 2423; AIR 2001 SC 1903 – Relied upon
(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Death sentence – Life sentence is the rule, death is an exception – The case does not fall within ‘rarest of rare’ cases – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment with minimum of 30 years.
(1980) 2 SCC 684; AIR 1983 SC 957; (2008) 13 SCC 767; (2009) 6 SCC 498; (2010) 14 SCC 641; (2011) 12 SCC 56; AIR 2011 SC 2689; AIR 2010 SC 420 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1. The trial court convicted both the accused persons u/s 302/34 and 316/34. Capital sentence was awarded to both the accused.
2. High Court maintained the sentence of one accused while modified the sentence to life imprisonment in case of the other accused.
3. Both convicts have challenged their conviction and sentences in these appeals.
Finding of the Court:
No infirmity in the impugned judgment. However the death sentence needs to be modified.
JUDGMENT
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.-These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.4148/2007 along with Criminal Reference No.19/2007 by which, the High Court while accepting the Criminal Reference insofar as it related to appellant Sandeep in Criminal Appeal No.1651/2009, rejected the same insofar as it related to appellant Shashi Bhushan in Criminal Appeal Nos.1425-26/2011. In other words, while upholding the sentence of death awarded to Sandeep, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1651/2009, the Division Bench modified the sentence into one of life imprisonment insofar as it related to Shashi Bhushan, the appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.1425-26/2011.
2. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the case of the prosecution as projected before the trial Court was that on 17.11.2004 I D.N. Verma (PW- 1) along with Sub-Inspector Chander Pal Singh (PW-2), Constable Rambir Singh, Constable Sukhram, Constable Ashok Kumar and Driver Yashvir Singh were on patrolling duty; that when they reached ahead of Badsu on Khatoli Road leading towards Falut, they met Constable Rajesh Kumar and another Constable Ramavtar who informed PW-1 and other persons accompanying him that one Indica car took a turn for going towards Falut road and that they heard some screaming noise from that vehicle. PW-1, accompanied by the other personnel referred to above, proceeded towards Falut road and after a distance saw an Indica car. They stated to have seen through the focus light of the police jeep two young men trying to pull out a girl in an injured condition by opening the rear door of the car. It is stated that it was around 21.30 hours. The police jeep in which PW-1 and others were proceeding stopped ahead of the Indica car and caught hold of the two young men and also noticed a girl, with injuries all over, on whom acid was also sprinkled. The girl had also sustained injuries on the head as well as on her right cheek. On noticing the above, according to PW-1, when he questioned her, she responded by stating that her name was Jyoti and she is the daughter of one Baljeet Singh, R/o Lane No.16, House No.56, Jagatpuri, P.S. Preet Vihar, New Delhi and that her mother’s name was Varsha whose cell number was 9871020368. Inspector D.N. Verma (PW-1) stated to have gathered information from her that she developed friendship with the appellant Sandeep while she was working in a mobile shop. She also stated to have revealed that she was pregnant. According to the information gathered from Jyoti, accused Sandeep had called her on that evening and asked her to come to Laxmi Nagar market, Delhi, around 6 p.m. promising her that he will marry her at Haridwar. Believing his words, she went to Laxmi Nagar market from where she was taken in a car and that while they were moving in the vehicle, accused Sandeep asked Jyoti to get the foetus aborted at Meerut, to which she disagreed. On this, he started beating her inside the vehicle right from the point of Modinagar. She stated to have further informed PW-1 and others that she told accused Sandeep that she would reveal all facts to his family members as well as to the police and that when the vehicle in which they were travelling turned towards an isolated place near Khatoli, they tried to throw her into the sugarcane field at which point of time PW-1 and other police members reached the spot. According to her information to PW-1, accused Sandeep and Shashi Bhushan caused the injuries on her with the aid of a jack and pana (spanner) apart from cutting her with a blade and also by pouring acid on her head. PW-1 stated that on noticing the condition of the girl, he arranged for shifting her to Muzaffarnagar Government Hospital in the police jeep along with Constable Rambir Singh and the driver of the jeep. It was further stated that accused Sandeep and Shashi Bhushan, on being apprehended, also revealed their names and informed that accused Sandeep used
State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar
Somappa Vamanappa Madar & Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi v. State of Mysore
Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
Ram Kumar v. State (NCT) of Delhi
Tej Prakash v. The State of Haryana
Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab
Bheru Singh S/o Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Subhash Chander v. Krishan Lal
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka
Santosh Kumar Satishbushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra
Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.