Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
S.K. Gangele, Rohit Arya, JJ.
Yogendra and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Reference Capital No. 01-2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 883-2014
Decided On : 12-12-2014
Criminal Reference - Capital Punishment - Sections 302, 326(k), 460 of IPC - The court confirmed the capital punishment awarded to the accused Yogendra alias Jogendra Singh for the offences punishable under sections 302, 326(k) (Three counts), and 460 of IPC. The accused was charged for causing acid burn injuries to the deceased and other witnesses. The court discussed the evidence, including dying declarations, medical reports, and witness testimonies, and affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged for causing acid burn injuries to the deceased and other witnesses. The deceased was married and had an evil eye on her by the accused. The accused sneaked into the room of the deceased and threw acid on her, resulting in her death and injuries to other witnesses. The prosecution presented evidence including dying declarations, medical reports, and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the charges based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including dying declarations, medical reports, and witness testimonies. The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the guilt of the accused in causing acid burn injuries to the deceased and other witnesses, the validity of the dying declarations, and the appropriateness of the death penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the dying declarations, medical reports, and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the severity of the crime, the lack of possibility of reform in the accused, and the impact of the crime on the victims in affirming the death penalty.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused and answering the Criminal Reference accordingly. The court also ordered compensation for the victims of the acid attack as per the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Vs. Union of India.
S.K. Gangele, J.
1. The learned Trial Judge [Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena (MP)] has forwarded this Criminal Reference to this Court in terms of the provisions of Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the capital punishment awarded to the accused Yogendra alias Jogendra Singh vide his judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24th July, 2014, delivered in Sessions Trial No.388/2013, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 326(k)(Three counts), and 460 of IPC and awarding him capital punishment of death sentence, life sentence on three counts and fine of Rs.25,000/- each, and ten years' RI and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations, respectively.
2. The accused has also filed Criminal Appeal No.883/2014 assailing impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.
3. Both these cases are clubbed, heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
4. The accused is charged for commission of offence of death of Shrimati Ruby (deceased) by causing acid burn injuries to her as also charged for causing acid burn injuries to other witnesses namely Chandrakala (PW 3), Janu alias Janvi Prasad (PW 4) and Raju (PW 7) in the night intervening 21st and 22nd July, 2013.
5. The prosecution case, as unfolded, is that the deceased was married to one Sanju Gupta and had two issues from the wedlock. Accused had an evil eye on her. Since husband of the deceased used to harass the deceased on account of suspicion, she came to live with her maternal uncle. Accused used to pressurise Dataram (PW 8) father of the deceased for summoning the deceased at Porsa and threatened him with dire consequences in the event of non fulfillment of his demand. Two days before the incident, deceased alongwith Janu Rawat (PW 4), and Raju (PW 7) came to her father's house. In the fateful night, the deceased and the family members had their meal and went to their respective rooms. Since it was summer, the doors of the rooms were kept open. Bulbs were lighting in the room and the court yard. Around 1.30 mid night, the accused sneaked inside the room of the deceased and asked her that since she does not want to live with him, he will not leave her for any other person. Hearing this, Dataram (PW 8) father of the deceased woke up. He saw the accused throwing acid on the deceased. Deceased started shouting, whereupon other family members assembled at the place and tried to save the deceased. The accused also threw acid on them and fled away from the spot. Deceased received acid burn injuries all over her body while other witnesses also sustained burn injuries by acid.
6. Dataram (PW 8) took the deceased Ruby (when she was alive), and injured Chandrakala, Janu and Raju in a rickshaw to the Police Station, Porsa where a report of the incident (Ex.P/8) was lodged. On the basis of the report, a criminal case at Crime No.242/2013 for commission of the offence under sections 450, 307 and 324 IPC had been registered against the accused.
7. Injured persons were sent to Community Health Centre, Porsa at 2.40 in the night, where they had been medically examined by Dr.S.N. Mewafaros. Since the deceased sustained about 90% acid burn injuries he referred her alongwith other injured persons to the District Hospital, Morena for further treatment. Mansingh Pawak (PW 10) recorded the dying declarations of deceased Ruby and injured witness Janu at the instance of In charge police station, Porsa at Community Health Centre Porsa and sent it to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambah.
8. Deceased Ruby succumbed to the acid burn injuries at District Hospital, Morena.
9. After the death of the deceased, the Police registered the case under section 302 IPC. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. A team of doctors comprising Dr.Anand Goyal (PW 11),Dr.Anupama Garg and Dr.Yogesh Tiwari conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased. The Investigating Officer Hitendrasingh Rathore (PW 12) recorded statements
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
