Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Petitioner
Versus
Sonu @ Sohan Lal S/o Satpal - Respondent
D.B. Murder Reference No. 1 of 2013 & D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2013
Decided On : 25-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Bora, Mr. Nishant Bora, Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, Mr. Rakesh Matoria
The Court held that a confessional statement is admissible in evidence if it is made voluntarily and without coercion or threat.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - MURDER - CONFESSION - SECTION 164 CRPC - PROCEDURE - SECTION 281 CRPC - EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 27 - CONFESSION - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - SECTION 376 IPC - RAPE - DEATH SENTENCE - CONFIRMATION - RAREST OF RARE CASE - SECTION 4 OF THE RAJASTHAN POLICE ACT, 2007 - SECTION 154 CRPC - FIR - SECTION 161 CRPC - STATEMENT OF WITNESSES - SECTION 313 CRPC - STATEMENT OF ACCUSED - SECTION 281 CRPC - PROCEDURE FOR RECORDING CONFESSION - SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - CONFESSION - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - SECTION 376 IPC - RAPE - DEATH SENTENCE - CONFIRMATION - RAREST OF RARE CASE - SECTION 4 OF THE RAJASTHAN POLICE ACT, 2007 - SECTION 154 CRPC - FIR - SECTION 161 CRPC - STATEMENT OF WITNESSES - SECTION 313 CRPC - STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted for the offences of murder and rape under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), respectively. The trial court sentenced him to death for the murder and life imprisonment for the rape. The accused-appellant challenged the conviction and sentence in an appeal, and the State filed a reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court heard both the appeal and the reference together.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was having an illicit relationship with the deceased and that he had committed rape and murder. The Court also held that the confessional statement of the accused-appellant was admissible in evidence and that it corroborated the circumstantial evidence against him. However, the Court found that the case did not fall within the category of the rarest of rare cases and, therefore, declined to confirm the death sentence. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant for both offences but reduced the sentence for murder to life imprisonment.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was guilty of murder and rape. 2. Whether the confessional statement of the accused-appellant was admissible in evidence. 3. Whether the case fell within the category of the rarest of rare cases and, therefore, warranted the imposition of the death sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was guilty of murder and rape. The Court relied on the following evidence: (a) the testimony of the deceased's brother, who saw the accused-appellant taking the deceased away on the day of the incident; (b) the testimony of the landlord of the house where the accused-appellant was living, who found the deceased's body in the house; (c) the testimony of the investigating officer, who recovered the murder weapon from the accused-appellant; and (d) the confessional statement of the accused-appellant. 2. The Court held that the confessional statement of the accused-appellant was admissible in evidence. The Court found that the statement was made voluntarily and that the accused-appellant was not coerced or threatened into making it. 3. The Court held that the case did not fall within the category of the rarest of rare cases and, therefore, did not warrant the imposition of the death sentence. The Court noted that the accused-appellant had no prior criminal record and that he had expressed remorse for his actions.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal of the accused-appellant. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant for both offences but reduced the sentence for murder to life imprisonment. The Court also rejected the State's reference for confirmation of the death sentence.
G.K. Vyas, J.
The Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Prohibition) Cases, Sri Ganganagar, made death reference for confirmation of capital sentence passed vide judgment dated 10.01.2013 in Session Case No.15/2010, whereby accused, Sonu @ Sohanlal, was convicted for offences under Section 302 and 376 IPC and following sentence was passed against accused appellant-Sonu @ Sohanlal:-
302 of IPC - Capital punishment.
376 of IPC - Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment.
2. The accused appellant, Sonu @ Sohanlal, preferred appeal against the judgment dated 10.01.2013 passed by learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Prohibition) Cases, Sri Ganganagar, in Session Case No.15/2010, whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC and death sentence is passed against him for commission of offence u/s 302 and sentence for imprisonment for life has been imposed against him for committing offence u/s 376 of IPC.
3. In the death reference made by the Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Prohibition) Cases, Sri Ganganagar, and in the appeal filed by the accused appellant, the judgment dated 10.01.2013 is under challenge, therefore, we are deciding both the case by this common judgment.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.05.2010 at 03.15 PM the complainant PW.1- Mangilal, submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) stating therein that he is resident of Ward No.19 of Sadulsahar. Before two years, Sonu Kumar @ Sohan Lal, resident of Karanpur, came at Sadulsahar for employment and he was employed at the shop of one Laxmichand, since then he is residing in Sadulsahar. According to complainant, Sonu Kumar became friend of him and used to visit his house and due to good relations he was treating him as brother. As per allegations of the complainant, when accused Sonu used to visit his residence, he (accused) developed illicit relations with his sister, Shalu. When above fact came to the knowledge of the complainant, then he raised objections and instructed Sonu Kumar not to keep relations with his sister, but Sonu Kumar did not stop his activities of illicit relation with his sister, Shalu. On 17.05.2010 when complainant’s mother and sister Manju and brother-in-law, Dharampal went Padampur for exploring relation for the marriage of Shalu, the complainant and his brother, Kishan, both left the house for some work in the market. When all the family members went out of the home, the sister of complainant, Shalu, and Smt. Pinki, wife of his younger brother remained in the house. According to complainant, accused Sonu Kumar called Shalu at 12 O’clock in the forenoon when she was at home and took her in his rented house situated in Ward No.16 of Sadulsahar. The complainant made allegations that Sonu @ Sohanlal committed murder of his sister in his house while inflicting injuries by sharp edged weapon ‘Gandasa’. On that day, at about 01.30 PM, when complainant came back to his house for taking meal, wife of his younger brother Pinki informed that Shalu was called by Sonu Kumar and Shalu went out from house with Sonu Kumar.
5. Upon receiving such information, complainant made search of his sister, Shalu, and according to him one Puranram S/o Gyarsa Ram met him and informed that he has seen his sister and Sonu Kumar at 12 O’clock near the school. The complainant further stated that after getting such information another witness, namely, Sahabram S/o Sukhpal, who was going to his house for taking meal, informed in the way that I have seen Sonu Kumar and one girl when they were going on foot towards Ward No.15. After receiving the aforesaid information, the complainant went to the rented house of Sonu Kumar (accused) and saw that room was closed from outside. The allegation of the complainant is that he made search from outside the roo
