SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sovaran Singh Prajapati – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 259-260 of 2019
Decided on : 04-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant killed wife and daughter (Para 2) |
| 2. post-mortem findings (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. fair trial principles (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. appeals allowed (Para 36 , 37) |
ORDER :
SANJAY KAROL, J
1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 1st October 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Capital Case No.2611 of 2017 and Reference No.05 of 2017. The impugned judgment of the High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction dated 28th February 2017, and the sentence of capital punishment imposed vide judgment dated 1st March 2017 upon the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No.377/2014, titled State v. Sovaran Singh, under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code 18601[for short ‘IPC 1860’].
FACTS AND PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS
2. Brief Facts, as allegedly set out by the prosecution, are that in the intervening night of 29th - 30th of June 2014, the appellant returned home in an inebriated state, also carrying two bottles of liquor which he then consumed along with his father. Sometime later, a quarrel ensued between them which led to the appellant slapping his father, who was, as a result, injured in his ear. Thereafter, he demanded money from his wife Mamta to procure more liquor which she denied. As such he trashed, abused and eventually killed her. He also killed his daughter Sapna who was twelve years old. Resultantly, FIR No.128 of 2014 was registered under Section 302 IPC at P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. With the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Trial Court and the appellant herein was put to trial.
3. Post-Mortem conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra (PW-3), found the following injuries on both the deceased persons, as recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment:
"1. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on right side forehead, 1 cm above eye brow, blackening present
2. Abrasion 3 cm x 4 cm just below right eye, blackening present.
3. Abrasion 5 cm x 4 cm on left side of left eye, blackening present. 4. Blood through nose and both ears.
5. Abrasion 6 cm x 3 cm on right side of neck, 1 cm below right mandible.
6. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm over anterior aspect of right shoulder, blackening present.
7. Abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm on right side of chest, 5 cm below left nipple.
8. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 3 cm on left side of vagina, exposing uterus and bladder."
5. On internal examination, right eye was black; lips were swollen and black in colour; tongue inside mouth; ecchymosis present in neck muscles; hyoid left corner fractured; weight of right lung 340 gm (Pale) and left 320 gm; both chambers of heart empty; blood present in peritonial cavity; stomach contained about 150 gm semi digested food matter; small intestine contained semi digested food particles and large intestine contained faecal matter and gases; liver was lacerated 5 cm and pale; spleen weighed 150 gm and pale; kidneys-pale, right kidney weighed 150 gm and left 130 gm, urinary bladder and urethra were ruptured. In the opinion of Doctor, about one day has passed since the death. Cause of death was due to acute haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injuries, causing internal bleeding. Postmortem report prepared by P.W. 3 is Ex. Ka. 2.
6. The same Doctor, P.W. 3 examined dead body of deceased Sapna at about 04:40 PM on 30.06.2014. According to him, deceased was aged about 12 years, 22.400 kg in weight. Rigor mortis was present; eyes and mouth closed and lips swollen.
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi)
J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka
Lalu Prasad v. State of Jharkhand
Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor
Ravasaheb v. State of Karnataka
Charan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
Arjun Marik & Ors. v. State of Bihar
Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Brijesh Kumar v. State of U.P.
M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra
Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat
The right to a fair trial includes effective legal representation; procedural irregularities in the trial process necessitate a retrial.
(1) Examination of accused – Public Prosecutor is under obligation to remain present when examination of accused is made to assist Court.(2) Right to get legal aid is a fundamental right of accused, ....
A fair trial must guarantee competent legal representation and adherence to procedural law, failure of which invalidates conviction.
Provisions of Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. gives right to any person accused of an offence before a criminal Court to be defended by a pleader of his choice. The provisions of Section 304 of the Code o....
(1) Justice is not intended to be imparted to one party of lis only.(2) Attempts to expedite process of trial should not be at expense of basic elements of fairness and opportunity to Accused on whic....
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.