Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 582
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
State & Another
Versus
Sanjay Kumar Valmiki & Another
Death Sentence Ref. No. 3 of 2012 Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2012 & CRL.MB. No. 1772 of 2012 Crl. M.A No. 561 of 2013
Decided On : 21-02-2014
For the Appearing parties:Richa Kapoor, APP. Inspector Bijender Singh, P.S. Maurya Enclave, Bhupesh Narula, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fundamental right of the accused to a fair trial, including the right to legal representation, and the court's duty to ensure fair trial procedures are followed.
Headnote:
Fair Trial - Criminal Procedure - [Sections 302, 363, 376(2)(f), 376, 201 IPC] - The judgment discusses the failure of the trial court to ensure fair trial procedures, including the accused's right to legal representation, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. The court sets aside the impugned judgment and orders a retrial, emphasizing the need to protect the accused's right to a fair trial and due process.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering an eight-year-old girl. The trial court displayed extraordinary haste in conducting the trial, including recording the evidence of 17 prosecution witnesses in a single day, and failed to ensure the accused was duly represented by a counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's failure to ensure fair trial procedures resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice, violating the accused's fundamental right to a fair trial. The impugned judgment convicting the accused and the consequential order on sentence awarding him capital punishment cannot be sustained in law.
Issues: The main issue was the failure of the trial court to ensure fair trial procedures, including the accused's right to legal representation, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to protect the accused's right to a fair trial and due process, setting aside the impugned judgment and ordering a retrial to ensure justice is secured.
Final Decision: The court sets aside the impugned judgment and orders a retrial, emphasizing the need to protect the accused's right to a fair trial and due process. The accused is appointed an amicus curiae for the retrial, and the entire trial court record will be placed before a different judge for the retrial process to be completed expeditiously.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. By judgment dated 11th May 2012 in Session Case No. 166 of 2011, the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi convicted Sanjay Kumar Valmiki of the offences under Sections 302, 363, 376 (2)(f), 376 and 201 IPC for kidnapping the prosecutrix/deceased ‘U’, aged about eight years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents with an intention to rape her; committed rape on her and thereafter hammered her to death with a steel rod; and then caused the disappearance of evidence of the commission of the offence by washing his clothes and the weapon of offence and concealing the body of the deceased. By an order on sentence dated 31st May 2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) sentenced Sanjay Kumar Valmiki to death for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default of the payment of the fine directed him to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for a period of three months and further directed the fine amount to be given to the family of the deceased as compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’). The accused was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (‘RI’) for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000 for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and in default of the payment of the fine, to undergo SI for a period of one month. He was sentenced to RI for life i.e. the rest of his life and a fine of Rs.10,000 for offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (f) IPC and in default of the payment of the fine, to undergo SI for two months with the clarification that he shall not be considered for a grant of remission. Finally, he was sentenced to RI for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000 for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and in default of the payment of the fine, to undergo SI for a period of 15 days.
2. Death Sentence Reference No. 3 of 2012 has been preferred by the State seeking confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused. Independently, the accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2012.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11th July 2012, the deceased prosecutrix, a female child ‘U’, aged about 8 years, was left along with her younger siblings in the park at KU Block behind the North Delhi Power Limited (‘NDPL’) office, Pitampura by her mother Sunita (PW-21) who used to do domestic work. When PW-21 returned at around 4 pm and did not find ‘U’, she informed her husband Shyam Paswan (PW-15) who then lodged a missing report with the Police Station (P.S.) at Maurya Enclave.
4. On 13th July 2011 at around 6.15 pm, information was received at the P.S. through the police control room (PCR) that the dead body of the prosecutrix was lying in the electric panel room (also called the switch gear room) at the NDPL office, KU Block, Pitampura. ASI Raju Yadav (PW-30) and the Station House Officer (‘SHO’) located the dead body which was found head down in one corner near the switch gear room with her panty pulled down to her thighs. The body was in a highly decomposed condition. PW-15 was then called up to identify the dead body. The crime team led by SI Devender (PW- 7) reached the spot and photographs of the crime scene were taken by Constable Dalbir (PW-2).
5. A child witness, Master Saroj (PW-25), aged about 10-11 years, informed his uncle Dalip Paswan (PW-14) on 14th July 2011, and then the police on the same date between 8.45 and 9 am, that he saw the accused with the deceased at the site of the crime around the time when the deceased went missing. He further stated that he had heard screams and cries of a child coming from inside the switch gear room and when he peeped inside the room he saw the accused who asked him to run away.
6. The accused was arrested at approximately 7.35 pm on 14th July 2011. He is stated to have been working as a sweeper with the NDPL. The accused is stated to have made a confessional statement during the interrogation disclosing the locat
