SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Raj) 854

Supreme Court
Honble K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Sunil - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1119-1120 of 1998
Decided On : November 29, 2000

Advocates Appeared:
T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate with K.C. Kaushik and D.S. Mehra, Advocates, for Appellant K.V. Sreekumar, Advocate, for Respondents

Headnote:(a) Penal Code, Sec. 376, 377 and Sec. 304 Part II – Rape committed on an infant of four years old – Two accused violently molested and beastly ravished the infant who died – They cannot claim that they were not having knowledge that their act were likely to cause death – Accused convicted for offence u/Sec. 304 Part II and Sec. 376, 377 IPC – Sentenced for life imprisonment. (Para 23)(b) Evidence Act, Sec. 27 and Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 156 read with Sec. 100 – Recovery effected pursuant to information supplied by accused u/Sec. 27 of Evidence Act – Seizure memo not attested by independent witness – Court cannot start with presumption that Police records were untrustworthy – If no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law that the document so prepared by Police Officer must be treated as tainted and recovery evidence unreliable. (Para 21)

       

Honble THOMAS, J.–Two sex maniacs libidinously ravaged a tiny female tot like wild beasts and finished her off. Police after investigation found that the two respondents herein are those two friends. A Sessions Court upheld the said police version as correct. He sentenced one of them to death penalty and the other to life imprisonment, but a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi declined to believe the police version as true and consequently the two respondents were acquitted. This appeal by the State is by special leave.

(2). The little girl was Anuradha and she was aged only four. She was fondly taken away from her mothers house on the forenoon of 5.9.1992. Her dead body was taken up by her mother on the same night from the house of first accused Sunil. When the doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body he described the dimensions of the imprints left in the infantile body reflecting a horrible sexual molestation inflicted on the child. Next day the police arrested the two accused (A1-Sunil and A2-Ramesh) and after completing the investigation charge-sheeted both of them for offences under Sections 364, 376, 377 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial the Sessions Court convicted both of them under all the aforesaid counts and sentenced A2 Ramesh to death and A1 Sunil to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder and awarded lesser sentences for the remaining counts.

(3). Details of the prosecution case are the following :

Anuradhas mother Sharda (PW10) was known to A1 Sunil and his mother (Giano Devi). Sharda had stayed in the house of Giano Devi for a few days and their acquaintance became closer. Sharda was working in a tube-light manufacturing factory during those days. As she needed a place to live in, Giano Devi arranged a small hutment (Jhuggi) with the help of another lady (PW8 Tara) who was residing close-by. On the occurrence day Sharda went to the factory for work leaving her child Anuradha in the custody of PW8-Tara. At about 11 A.M. Sunil visited them and expressed to PW8-Tara that he would take the child and her clothes as well as some domestic utensils to PW10. Though PW-8 suggested that this should be done only if Sharda permits, A1-Sunil took the child and her clothes and the utensils from his house during a short time when PW8-Tara had gone out to fetch milk. When she came home in the night she learnt from PW8-Tara that her child was taken away by Sunil. So she went to Sunils house. It was about 9.00 P.M. then. To her dismay she found her little child lying completely nude next to A2-Ramesh, on the second floor of the house, who was then deep in his sleep. Then Sunil, who was found in an inebriated mood, hurled a remark that ``I have dispatched Anuradha to heaven. She felt concerned as to what would have happened to the child. It was then she realised that her child was breathless. PW10-Sharda then took the child to the hospital, but the doctor who examined her pronounced her dead.

(4). PW1-Dr. Basant Lal conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the child at 12.00 noon on 7.9.1992. In his opinion the child would have died about 36 to 48 hours prior to the autopsy. He gave full details in his post-mortem report about the features noticed by him on the dead body. The corpse was full of abrasions and contusions. The prominent among them were counted by the doctor as 25 in number and he described the status and dimensions of all of them. Among them, oval fashioned multiple abrasions on the left cheek appeared to him as marks of bitting. Both the upper and lower lips of the child were bruised violently. Marks of violent handling of both the thighs, lower abdomen and pubic region are also described by the doctor. The vaginal orifice is described by the doctor in his report as follows :

``Labia majora and minora swollen and reddish blue in colour. Vaginal orifice dilated and blood is coming out of it. Right labia minora showing tears 1.6 x 0.1 cm. and on left side labia minora sho































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top