IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Sameer Jain, JJ.
Harendra - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Capital Cases No. - 12 of 2021 With Reference No.09 of 2021
Decided On : 08-07-2022
Indian penal code, 1860 – Sections, 363, 376, 302, 201, 376 AB – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 313 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 42, 6, 2 (I)(d), 5(m), 3 – Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault –Punishment for kidnapping – Punishment for sexual assault – Punishment for murder – Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age – Power to examine the accused – Examination of witnesses by police – As trial court awarded death penalty to appellant under Sections 302 IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 AB IPC, it has sent a reference for confirmation of death penalty, which has been registered as Reference – Held, In present case, no doubt offence committed by appellant was henious in nature and manner in which it was committed shows depravity but at same time it is noticed that appellant is a young man with no criminal antecedents and there is nothing on record to rule out possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation, in our view, therefore, it would be just and proper to award him life imprisonment instead of death sentence – Accordingly, court commute death penalty awarded by trial court to life imprisonment – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sameer Jain, J.
1. Harendra (the appellant) was convicted under Sections 302, 201, 376-AB IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act) vide judgment and order dated 14.7.2021 and 15.7.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial No. 625 of 2021 and has been awarded following punishment :
2. Under Section 201 IPC, seven years R.I. with a fine of Rs. Twenty Thousand, and in default four months simple imprisonment; and
3. Under Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 AB IPC, death penalty.
All sentences to run concurrently.
2. As the trial court awarded death penalty to the appellant (Harendra) under Sections 302 IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 AB IPC, it has sent a reference for confirmation of death penalty, which has been registered as Reference No.9 of 2021.
3. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has submitted his appeal from Jail, which has been forwarded by the Superintendent of Jail, Bulandshahar vide letter dated 21.7.2021. This appeal has been registered as Capital Cases No.12 of 2021. The appellant has prayed that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court be set aside and that he be acquitted of all the charges.
4. Considering the nature of the crime, we are not disclosing the name of the victim, members of her family as well of the witnesses of that area (locality) and, therefore, wherever required, they have been described by their witness number.
5. To represent the appellant, who could not engage a private counsel, Sri Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Advocate has been appointed as Amicus Curiae by the High Court, Legal Aid Services Committee.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS :
6. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.2.2021 at about 18.46 hours (6.46 PM) PW-1 lodged a First Information Report against the appellant under Section 363 IPC at Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar vide Case Crime No. 104 of 2021. As per the First Information Report, on 25.2.2021, at about 4.00 PM, the daughters of PW-1, namely, PW-4, aged about 15 years, and the deceased, aged about 12 years, went along with their mother (PW-2) to fertilize their field. In the meantime, the deceased went to the house of Ram Niwas (father of appellant) to have water. When she did not return, her mother (PW-2) sent PW4 to look for her but she (PW-4) could not find the deceased in the house of Ram Niwas though she noticed the door of the house of Ram Niwas bolted from inside. PW-2 thought that the deceased must have gone back home. But when PW-2 returned from the field after about an hour, she did not find her daughter i.e. the deceased at home. When PW-1 returned back, PW-2 narrated the entire incident to him. Immediately whereafter, PW-1 went to the house of Ram Niwas but did not find his daughter (deceased) there. By alleging that from that very day the son of Ram Niwas, namely, Harendra (appellant), is also missing, FIR was lodged by PW-1 expressing suspicion against Harendra (the appellant) that he has vanished with his daughter (deceased).
7. On 2.3.2021, an application (Ext.Ka-2) was submitted by PW-1 stating therein that on 28.2.2021 he lodged a report against Harendra (the appellant) son of Ram Niwas under Section 363 IPC at Police Station Anoopshahar on suspicion whereas, on 2.3.2021 when PW-1 along with Rajni Sadhwi, Bhola Chaudhari, Vishnu Chaudhari, Rajveer, Veerpal entered the house of Ram Niwas in search of the deceased, they found soil near the latrine freshly laid. When he stepped on it, his foot sank. Suspecting something amiss the soil was dug/removed with “a spade”. They then discovered dead body of the deceased lying there. By stating as above and by claiming that the body of the deceased is lying at the spot, prayer was made for appropriate acti
Sarad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 773
Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat
D.K.Basu Vs. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 416
Rammi alias Rameshar Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649
Sudam alias Rahul Kaniram Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 388
Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka
Shatrughan Baban Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra
Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 (2) SCC 684
Court emphasized the application of circumstantial evidence principles where all links confirmed the appellant's guilt in the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a minor, upholding a death sent....
(1) Kidnapping and murder of child – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – If accused is last seen with deceased and particularly in a case of this nature when time gap between last seen stage a....
Circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' principle, can suffice for conviction in rape and murder cases yet demands rigorous scrutiny for reliability.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
(1) Evidence is only to be weighed and not to be counted – It is essentially, for prosecution to decide as to how many witnesses are to be examined to establish its case on any particular point.(2) D....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.