MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT INDORE
S.C. Sharma, Shailendra Shukla, JJ.
State Of M.P. : Honey @ Kakku - Appellant
Versus
Honey @ Kakku : State Of M.P. - Respondent
CRRFC. No. 12 of 2019 and CRA. No. 8818 of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details of appellant (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's plea and arguments against conviction (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. questions for consideration in appeal (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. evidence regarding age of deceased (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. appellant's involvement in the crime (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. identification of the deceased (Para 18 , 20) |
| 7. recovery of incriminating evidence (Para 22 , 28 , 30) |
| 8. dna evidence linking appellant to crime (Para 38 , 46 , 48) |
| 9. application of legal precedents in sentencing (Para 50 , 52 , 54 , 56) |
| 10. final sentencing considerations and judgement summary (Para 64 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
JUDGMENT
Shailendra Shukla, J. - The present reference and appeal arise out of judgment dated 30.9.2019, pronounced in Special Case No. 2147/2018 by the 15th A.S.J. and Special Judge, Indore whereby, appellant Honey @ Kakku has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 376AB, 302, 201, 376A of IPC and under Section 5 (n) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. The accused has not been sentenced separately under Section 5 (n) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act which provides for sentencing under the provisions of IPC, if such provision provides for stiffer sentence and therefore was sentenced under Section 376AB in place of Section 5 (n) read with Section (6) of POCSO Act. Ultimately, the appellant has been sentenced under various provisions as under :-
| Provision of IPC | Sentence |
| Section 363 IPC | 5 years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI. |
| Section 366 of IPC | 7 years RI with fine of Rs.3000/-. In default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI. |
| Section 376 AB of IPC | Life Imprisonment till natural death with fine of Rs.4000/-. In default of payment of fine 3 months additional RI. |
| Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.4000/-. In default of payment of fine 3 months additional RI. | |
| Section 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.4000/-. In default of payment of fine 3 months additional RI. |
| 201 of IPC | 3 years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI. |
| 376A of IPC | Capital punishment with fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine 4 months additional RI. |
2. The prosecution story in short was that on 25.10.2018 Ashu (PW2) had left his daughter 'A' aged about 4 years to the coaching classes run by Anamika (PW7) at Sudama Nagar, Indore at about 5.00 PM and when he came back to fetch his daughter he was told by Anamika (PW7) that appellant Honey has already taken his daughter half hour back. Ashu (PW2) came back and he along with his wife Nitika (PW1) searched for their daughter but when they could not find her, a missing person report Ex.P/2 and FIR Ex.P/1 were lodged. The FIR was registered as Crime No.539/2018 under Section 363 of IPC. Next day, ie., 26.10.2018 witness Premnath (PW12) discovered body of a girl child at a spot where Premnath (PW12) had gone to relieve himself. Premnath (PW12) gave an intimation, in M.G. Road Police Station which is Ex.P/24. Police arrived at the spot and prepared spot map Ex.P/25. The body of the girl child was found in naked condition. Its hands and legs were visible but trunk was covered with stones. Merg was registered. On receiving such information, the scientific officer Dr. B.L. Mandloi (PW30) arrived at the spot along with photographer and prepared a report Ex.P/70 and photographs of the spot and the deceased were taken. The identification proceedings were initiated and the father Ashu (PW2) identified the body as that of his daughter. The identification memo was drawn and a panel of doctors performed postmortem in order to determine the cause of death. As per their report, the death was on account of culpable homicide and the gi
Ashok Debbarma vs. State of Tripura
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Mukesh & another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Mukesh & Anr. vs. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Munna Kumar Upadhyay @ Munna Upadhyay vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Nagraj vs. State of (Tamil Nadu)
Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King-Emperor
Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod vs. State of Gujarat
Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariya vs. State of Maharashtra
Shankar Kisan Rao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) (5) SCC 546
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.
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.