SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Shatrughna Baban Meshram – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 763-764 of 2016
Decided On : 02-11-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sequential detailed narration of crime and evidence (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. testimonies of witnesses confirm the crime context (Para 8 , 10) |
| 3. analysis of evidence supporting conviction (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. arguments for and against death penalty (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. judicial reasoning and final judgment on the sentence (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. These appeals by Special Leave challenge the common judgment and order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the High Court [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur] in Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2015 and Criminal Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2015 affirming the judgment and order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Trial Court [The Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal] in Special Case (POCSO Act) [The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012] No. 11 of 2013 and confirming the Death Sentence awarded to the Appellant on two counts i.e. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and under Section 376A of IPC.
2. The victim in the present case was a girl of two and half years of age and the First Information Report was lodged at 09.25 p.m. on 11.02.2013 by her father with Parwa Police Station, Yavatmal as under:-
“By coming to the Police Station, I lodge an oral report that since one year I am residing with my family at Zatala. I have two daughters and one son. The victim, aged 2 years is my daughter No. 2. I reside in the neighbourhood of my father-in-law.
This day 11.02.2013, as there was a programme of Mahaprasad in Duttatraya Temple in the village I had gone there for taking meals at about 7.00 p.m. After taking meals I returned home at about 7.30 p.m. At that time I did not see my daughter Miss XXX [The identity of the victim is not being disclosed] at home. Therefore, I asked my father-in-law as to where was my daughter. On it, he told me “Shatrughna Baban Meshram, aged 21 years, resident of Zatala has taken away your daughter XXX [The identity of the victim is not being disclosed] from me saying that he would reach her to you.” But Shatrughna did not bring my daughter to me. So I searched my daughter in the village. I saw my daughter XXX [The identity of the victim is not being disclosed] and Shatrughna Meshram lying in the new, under construction, building of Anganwadi. There was no pant on the person of my daughter. It was lying beside. Her face was bitten and private parts were swollen. I came out with my daughter. In the meantime, Baban Sambhaji Meshram, aged 50 years also came there. He took Shatrughna to his house. I along with father-in-law and Vitthal Ghodam took my daughter in an auto from the village to Dr. Jaffar Siddiqui from Kurli. The doctor examined her and declared her dead. So we returned home.
Shatrughna Meshram took my daughter XXX [The identity of the victim is not being disclosed] in the building of Anganwadi, committed rape on her inhumanly in solitude, bit her on face and lips and committed her murder.”
3. As stated in the FIR, the victim was taken to PW-6 Dr. Md. Jaffar Siddiqui for medical attention but she was already dead and there were marks of bites on her body. After registration of crime, the inquest (Exh.15) was conducted which recorded “Black and bluish coloured (contusion) marks are visible on both the cheeks and an injury is visible on the left cheek. Similarly, both the lips are bitten. An injury measuring 2 Cms. x 3 Cms. X 1 Cms. is visible on the chin.” It also recorded that there were bite marks on the chest and stomach of the victim apart from signs of forcible sexual assault.
4. Soon after the registration of crime, PW-13 A.P.I. Pankaj Vanjari (Police Station In-charge) caused arrest of the Appellant vide Exh.23 and conducted spot panchnama
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.