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

2020 Supreme(All) 524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Mouni – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Reference No. 4 of 2019, Capital Cases No. 6 of 2019
Decided On : 14-05-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Saghir Ahmad.

Point of Law:
When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. For instance (i) when the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in view to roast him alive in the house, (ii) when the victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or cruelty in order to bring about his or her death, (iii) when the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his body is dismembered in a fiendish manner.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 302, 201, 376(f) – POCSO Act – Sections 5, 6, 42 – Offence of Murder – Conviction of – Appeal has been filed by appellant against impugned judgment passed in Special Sessions Trial by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court trial court had convicted appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded death sentence along with fine and in default of fine one year additional imprisonment, under Section 376(f) IPC for life imprisonment along with fine and in default of fine six months additional imprisonment, under Section 363 IPC for seven years imprisonment along with fine and in default of fine three months additional imprisonment, under Section 201 IPC for three years imprisonment along with fine and in default of fine two months additional imprisonment and for offences under Section 5(n) read with Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act for 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine and in default of fine six months additional imprisonment – Held, Court is of view that trial court was not justified in awarding death sentence and sentence of life imprisonment could have been sufficient in circumstances of case – Conviction under section 376(2)(f) IPC and under section 5(n) read with 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act is upheld but separate punishment under section 5(n) read with 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act is not sustainable in view of section 42 of POCSO Act and is set aside – Conviction and sentence of accused for offence under section 363 and section 201 IPC is not sustainable under law and is set aside and consequently, he is acquitted from the said charge – Court modify death sentence awarded for the offence under section 302 IPC to accused into life imprisonment with direction that life imprisonment shall continue for whole span of natural life of accused and could not be less than 25 years rigorous imprisonment without remission – Criminal Appeal Disposed of. (Paras 64, 65, 66, 67)

Facts of the Case:

Accused Mouni himself lodged an oral report on 24/25.11.2017 at about 02:30 AM in the mid night with the allegation that on 24.11.2017, he and his daughter (victim) aged about 7 years, Jeete aged about 9 years were sleeping on the cot in his hut. At about 02:30 AM in the mid night, he got awakened and found that the victim was not on the cot and she was missing. He tried to search her in the surroundings but he could not trace her. The victim was wearing a red trouser and red sweater.

Finding of the Court:

Court is of view that trial court was not justified in awarding death sentence and sentence of life imprisonment could have been sufficient in circumstances of case – Conviction under section 376(2)(f) IPC and under section 5(n) read with 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act is upheld but separate punishment under section 5(n) read with 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act is not sustainable in view of section 42 of POCSO Act and is set aside – Conviction and sentence of accused for offence under section 363 and section 201 IPC is not sustainable under law and is set aside and consequently, he is acquitted from the said charge – Court modify death sentence awarded for the offence under section 302 IPC to accused into life imprisonment with direction that life imprisonment shall continue for whole span of natural life of accused and could not be less than 25 years rigorous imprisonment without remission.

Result: Criminal Appeal Disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Saghir Ahmad, Senior Advocate/Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri. Ajit Ray, learned AGA for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Mouni against the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2019, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 624 of 2018, by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Agra, arising out of Case Crime No. 605 of 2017, under Sections 363, 302, 201, 376(f) IPC and Section 5(n) read with Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra by which the learned trial court had convicted the appellant Mouni for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded death sentence along with fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and in default of fine one year additional imprisonment, under Section 376(f) IPC for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine six months additional imprisonment, under Section 363 IPC for seven years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of fine three months additional imprisonment, under Section 201 IPC for three years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine two months additional imprisonment and for the offences under Section 5(n) read with Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act for 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine six months additional imprisonment.

3. The Special Judge after convicting and sentencing the appellant for death sentence has submitted the record to this Court for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 Cr.P.C. which has been registered as Reference No. 6 of 2019.

4. The appeal and the reference both are being decided simultaneously as both relate to the same impugned judgment.

5. Briefly, the prosecution case is that accused Mouni himself lodged an oral report on 24/25.11.2017 at about 02:30 AM in the mid night with the allegation that on 24.11.2017, he and his daughter (victim) aged about 7 years, Jeete aged about 9 years were sleeping on the cot in his hut. At about 02:30 AM in the mid night, he got awakened and found that the victim was not on the cot and she was missing. He tried to search her in the surroundings but he could not trace her. The victim was wearing a red trouser and red sweater. Having failed to trace out her, he went to the police station and orally reported the matter and on that basis, the offence against unknown person was registered under Section 363 IPC. SSI Suneel Kumar started the investigation, the police tried to search out the missing child and in the night at about 03:00 AM, she was found in the naked condition in the courtyard of the building of Government Model School. She was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead. Thereafter a written report was given by the accused Mouni to the Police Station Etmadpur stating that he was living in a hut near the Government Modal School. On 24.11.2019, when he, his daughter and his son were sleeping in the night on cot, at about 2:30 AM in the night he got awakened and found that his daughter is not there on the cot and was missing. He tried to search her and thereafter, he informed about the incident in the police station in the night itself. He and police of the local police station were searching his daughter in the Government Model School building and there in the courtyard, they found the victim in naked condition and her innerwear (Baniyan) was lying closer to her. There were mark of injuries on her body and bleeding was present in her private part. She was taken to the emergency of the S.N. Hospital, where she was declared dead. He suspects that some unknown person killed her after committing rape.

6. On the basis of this written report an addition of Sections 302, 201, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act were made and the investigation was started. The inquest report of the dead-body was prepared, dead-body was sealed and after preparing the necessary papers, the dead-body

                        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