SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 149

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
Rajkumar - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1419-1420 of 2013
Decided On : 25-02-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
Evidence of child witness can be accepted if reliable and inspiring confidence.
Non explanation of incriminating circumstances put to accused leads to adverse inference against the accused.
Rarest of rare case – discussed.
Expeditious investigation and conclusion of judicial proceedings commended.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Evidence – Child witness – Reliable and inspiring confidence – Rightly accepted by the courts below. (Para 10)

       (2011) 4 SCC 786; AIR 2001 SC 482 – Relied upon

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Appellant simply bald statement that he had been implicated because of pressure from police – Not giving any reason for the same – Courts below rightly drew adverse inference. (Para 12)

       AIR 2012 SC 1357; AIR 2013 SC 912; AIR 2013 SC 3150 – Relied upon

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Death sentence – Rarest of rare case – Appellant committing a heinous crime of raped and murder of an innocent, helpless and defenceless minor girl who was in his custody – However it does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases – Death sentence set aside – Imprisonment for life, for a minimum of 35 years without remission imposed – Sentence subject to clemency power of Executive. (Para 21)

       (2012) 1 SCC 10; AIR 2000 SC 2988; (2012) 5 SCC 766; AIR 2013 SC 3395; (2008) 4 SCC 434; AIR 1996 SC 2800; (1994) 2 SCC 220; AIR 2002 SC 70; AIR 2013 SC 3622; AIR 2008 SC 3040 – Relied upon

       (d) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – Investigation and judicial proceedings concluded in less than 8 months – Highly commended by Supreme Court. (Para 21)

       

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant is alleged to have raped and killed daughter of a person, with whom he was on visiting terms, while the host couple were away irrigating their fields in the night.

       He was convicted u/s 302, 376, 450 and sentenced to death u/s 302 and varying sentences for other offences.

       High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

       Finding of the Court:

       Conviction is justified but the appellant does not deserve death sentence.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.6.2013 passed in Criminal Reference No. 01 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur affirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC’) as well as confirming the death sentence awarded for the offence under Section 302 IPC by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 5.2.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2013.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals as per the prosecution are that:

A. On 26.12.2012, the appellant, aged 32 years, came to the house of his neighbour Iknis Jojo (PW.1) and stayed with his four children as Iknis Jojo (PW.1) and his wife Albisiya had gone to irrigate agricultural fields in the night. The appellant was on visiting terms with the family and the children used to call him “Mama” i.e. maternal uncle. On the said night, he had taken liquor and meals in the complainant’s house and when retiring for the night, the appellant asked the prosecutrix Gounjhi, aged 14 years not to sleep with her three siblings i.e. Sushma, Sanchit and Aric, rather to sleep at some distance from them. Around midnight, he raped prosecutrix Gounjhi. While committing rape, he caused some grievous injuries and consequently she died. The incident was witnessed by Sanchit (PW.2), brother of the prosecutrix, however, out of fear, he could not raise any hue and cry. After committing the crime, the appellant left the place of occurrence. In the morning, Iknis Jojo (PW.1) alongwith his wife Albisiya came from their fields and found the children sleeping. They woke them up and also tried to wake the prosecutrix when they realised that she was dead. Sanchit (PW.2) narrated the incident that had occurred in the night.

B. Iknis Jojo (PW.1) immediately went to the police station and lodged the complaint, on the basis of which Crime No. 294 of 2012 was registered for the offence under Sections 302 and 450 IPC. Shri K.S. Thakur, Inspector of Police, Police Station: Nainpur, District Mandla, Madhya Pradesh started the investigation. He came to the spot, recovered the dead body, prepared the Panchnama, also recovered the blackish brown colour purse and clothes lying near the place of occurrence. Some coins and a small packet of tobacoo were also recovered. Some hair were found lying near the dead body of the prosecutrix and one sky blue coloured shawl was also recovered from the place of occurrence which had blood stains and some other kind of stains at various places. The earth of that place having some fluid material thereon was also recovered. The investigating officer prepared the site plan in presence of the witnesses and dead body of the prosecutrix was sent for postmortem and the appellant was arrested.

C. Dr. Surendra Barkare (PW.6) alongwith lady Dr. (Smt.) Prahba Pipre (PW.7) conducted the postmortem of the prosecutrix and submitted the report. As per the postmortem report, rape had been committed upon the deceased and, thus, Sections 376 and 511 IPC were also added in the case.

D. After taking permission from the Judicial Magistrate, the specimen blood of the appellant was obtained to conduct his DNA finger printing which was sent for analysis to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. All the materials sent for chemical analysis were analysed and the report was submitted and on the basis of which the chargesheet was filed and the appellant was put to trial. Appellant denied his involvement in the offence, thus trial commenced.

E. Dr. Surendra Barkare (PW.6) deposed and proved the postmortem report and deposed that the prosecutrix died of asphyxia as a result of strangulation and her death was homicidal in nature.

F. Iknis Jojo (PW.1), father of the deceased, deposed while giving the version as mentioned in the FIR and admitted that the appellant used to come to













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top