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

2022 Supreme(J&K) 206

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
RAJNESH OSWAL AND RAJESH SEKHRI, JJ.
Mohd. Rashid - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K - Respondent
CRA No.23 of 2014 (O&M) c/w CONF No.11 of 2014
Decided on 31-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Y.E. Tak, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG

Headnote:

(A) Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Sections 302, 363 and 376 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 101 and 106 – Kidnapping, rape and murder – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis other than that of guilt of accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with guilt of accused, but also should be inconsistent with his innocence – “Last seen theory” is one of vital links in chain of circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is drawn and once theory of last seen is proved by prosecution, burden shifts on accused to explain as to cause of death of deceased – However, conviction of accused cannot be based solely on theory of last seen together – It only provides additional link in chain of circumstances against accused – If time gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and deceased is found dead, is long, it would be highly unsafe to sustain conviction on theory of last seen together – Medical evidence also gives credence to prosecution version that deceased before being throttled to death was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse – There were marks of violence all over body of deceased – Prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard on account of negligence on part of investigating agency – Impugned judgment of conviction recorded by trial court upheld – Since appellant at the time of commission of offence was a juvenile in conflict with law, and has attained majority now, he is directed to be released immediately. (Paras 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 71, 74 and 75)

(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 21 and 24 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 82 – Most crimes consist of two broad elements: Mens rea and Actus reus – While mens rea refers to a guilty mind, actus reus literally means guilty act and refers to an overt act in furtherance of a crime – In order to constitute criminal behaviour, Actus reus must be preceded by mens rea and both must occur simultaneously – Juvenile Justice legislations do not prohibit determination of guilt of a juvenile, however, they prohibit sentencing of juvenile to imprisonment as a punishment or in default of payment of fine or in default of security – Convicted juvenile also does not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to conviction of offence under such law. (Paras 38 and 71 )

Important Points – (1) Conviction of accused cannot be based solely on theory of last seen together – It only provides additional link in chain of circumstances against accused.

(2) In order to constitute criminal behaviour, Actus reus must be preceded by mens rea and both must occur simultaneously.

JUDGMENT

RAJESH SEKHRI, J.

1. This judgment shall put to quietus the present appeal handing fire for the last more than eight years as also the consequent ordeal of a juvenile in conflict with law incarcerated for about seventeen years.

2. The challenge in this appeal, in terms of Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt., 1989 (for short, Cr.P.C), has been thrown to the judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2014 and the order of sentence dated 27.03.2014, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in File No. 16/Sessions titled State v. Mohd. Rashid alais Abdul Rashid, vide which appellant has been sentenced to death for offence under Section 302 of Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (for short, RPC), rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 376 RPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 363 RPC. On default in the payment of fine, he is also ordered to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and simple imprisonment for four months respectively. The substantive sentences under Sections 376 & 363 RPC were ordered to run concurrently but would cease to have effect in case the sentence of death for conviction under Section 302 RPC is confirmed by this Court and the convict is executed.

3. Since the controversy, at hand, lies in a narrow compass, the facts in detail need not be traversed. However, as the factual matrix of the prosecution story would unfurl, on 28.08.2005, on the basis of source information, that an unidentified dead body of a young girl of about 12/13 years of age, lying near Kachhi Chawni crossing, outside Government Girls High School, Jammu had been taken by some passersby to the Government Medical College and Hospital Jammu, the Police agency swung into action and since the deceased had died under suspicious circumstances, inquest proceedings, under Section 174 Cr.P.C., were initiated to ascertain the cause of death. The deceased was identified by her brother, namely, Mujaffar Ahmad (PW-2). After autopsy, the dead body was handed over to the parents of the deceased and last rites of the deceased were performed in her native village at ‘Magam’in Kashmir.

4. On 10.09.2005, Abdul Rehman (PW-1), father of the deceased lodged a written report (EXT-P1) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu which was forwarded to Police Station Pacca Danga Jammu alleging, inter alia, that he was a resident of Anantnag but for the last 15 years, he was putting up in a rented accommodation, in House No. 35 at Rani Talab Jammu along with his son, Mujaffar Ahmed (PW-2) and the daughter (the victim). In the month of August, he went to his ancestral village Magam for cutting of grass, leaving behind both of his kids at Jammu. According to the complainant, on 28.08.2005, at about 8:00 P.M. the accused, who happens to be his nephew, taking advantage of his absence, visited his house at Jammu and enticed away his daughter, whose dead body was later identified by his son on 29.08.2005 in the hospital at Jammu. His son (PW-2) telephonically informed him and he rushed to Jammu. It was also alleged by the complainant that accused had earlier misbehaved with the deceased on a couple of occasions and on the complaint of the deceased he scolded the accused, slapped him and asked him not to visit their room. It was further stated by the complainant that after the post-mortem on 30.08.2005 by a Medical Board, the dead body was handed over to him. He took the dead body to his native village and performed the last rites of his daughter and since he was in shock and disturbed over the death of his daughter, he could not approach the police in time.

5. On the basis of this complaint of PW-1, FIR No.144 of 2005 came to be registered against the appellant-accused for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 302 and 376 RPC and investigation was assigned to Mohd. Showkat-Sub Inspector (P

              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