2016 Supreme(SC) 1490
RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C.PANT, UDAY UMESH LALIT
Kamlesh @ Ghanti – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Sahana Manjesh, Mr. Himanshu, Mr. Nishant, Ms. Tripti, Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Ms. Srishti Govil, Ms. Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam, Mr. Arunava Mukherjee and Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. C.D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Ms. Sylona Mohapatra and Mr. Udit, Advocates.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Kamlesh @ Ghanti vs. State of M.P.:
- Case Details: The Supreme Court of India decided Criminal Appeal Nos. 1720-1721 of 2014 on 21-09-2016, involving Appellant Kamlesh @ Ghanti and Respondent State of M.P. (!)
- Core Holding: The Court held that the DNA report, when read with circumstantial evidence, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, confirming the conviction under Sections 376A, 302, 201, 363, and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. (!)
- DNA Report Validity: Although the appellant argued that the DNA expert report (Ex.P/33) raised doubts about the profiling and that the expert was not examined, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the expert further. The Court concluded that the report itself, combined with other evidence, was sufficient to prove guilt. (!)
- Sentencing Issue: The appellant challenged the death sentence, citing mitigating factors such as the accused's young age (26 years), lack of prior criminal history, conduct in custody, and social-economic background. (!)
- Court's View on Sentencing: The Court noted that while the offences were brutal, the presence of mitigating circumstances in similar cases often warrants commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment. The Court determined that the imposition of the extreme penalty (death) was not justified in this specific instance. (!)
- Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The death sentence was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of the accused-appellant's natural life. (!)
- Statutory Reference: The judgment relied on Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code (as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013), which prescribes rigorous imprisonment for life or death as the punishment for the offence committed. (!)
ORDER :
Though limited notice on the question of sentence was issued by this Court by order dated 09.12.2013, Shri Anand Grover, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has urged that in the peculiar facts of the case the Court should travel beyond the terms of the notice issued and should examine the legality of the conviction of the accused-appellant on merits. To substantiate the aforesaid contention, Shri Grover has drawn our attention to the report of the DNA expert (Ex.P/33) and has submitted that a reading of the said report would go to show some amount of doubt with regard to the DNA profiling in respect of some of the genetic markers as mentioned in the said report.
2. Shri Grover has therefore contended that the DNA report does not fully establish the culpability of the accused and leaves room for some doubt in the matter.
3. Incidentally in the present case the expert who had submitted the report was not examined and the report was taken into evidence on the strength of Section 293 Cr.P.C. In the present case the expert was not examined and no request for such examination was made either before the learned trial court or the High Court or even in the memo of appeal before
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
