High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Prakash Shrivastava, Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
KARAN SINGH - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. - RESPONDENT
Cri. Appeal No. 262 of 2002
Decided On : 30-06-2021
Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal - 374(2) - Offences under section 363, 366, 376 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the offenses under section 363, 366, 376 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentencing of life imprisonment. The court also analyzed the provisions of section 53, 45, 432, 433, and 433-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, and the interpretation of life imprisonment and the power of remission.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offenses under section 363, 366, 376 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for abducting and raping minors. The prosecution presented evidence including statements from the victims, medical examinations, and witness testimonies. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. It also addressed the issue of the actual duration of life imprisonment and the power of remission, directing the competent authority of the State Government to consider the release of the appellant in accordance with law by granting the benefit of remission.
Issues: The issues included the appellant's challenge to the conviction, the nature of the case, the duration of life imprisonment, and the power of remission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of section 53, 45, 432, 433, and 433-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire remaining life of the convict unless remission is granted by the appropriate government.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant and directed the competent authority of the State Government to consider the release of the appellant in accordance with law by granting the benefit of remission.
JUDGMENT PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J. – By this appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, appellant has challenged the judgment dated 25th of January, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Asdhta, District Sehore in Session Trial No. 19/2001 convicting the appellant for offence under section 363, 366, 376 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution story is that the appellant is son of Kamla Bai’s Uncle and was residing in her house for last two months. On Wednesday, Kamla Bai had gone out of the house to work as a labour and the appellant was in the house with the children. In the evening when Kamla Bai came back, she found that her son Babu aged about 5 years, daughter Akeela Bai aged about 8 years and Sarju Bai aged about 10 years were missing. She had lodged the missing report on 14-9-2000 vide Exhibit P/23 in Police Chowki, Mehatwada, Police Station, Jawar and had expressed the suspicion that the appellant had taken those children. The children were recovered from the custody of the appellant on 13-11-2000. On inquiry, Akeela Bai and Sarju Bai had disclosed that the appellant used to commit rape upon them. The statements of Sarju Bai, Babu, Kamla Bai and Shankarlal were recorded by the police on 14-11-2000. The appellant was arrested and medical examination of the appellant and Sarju Bai and Akeela Bai was done. The clothes and semen slides were also seized. After investigation, challan was filed. Appellant had abjured the guilt and the trial had taken place. During the trial, Abdul Hamid Qureshi (PW/16) had produced the record of Central Jail, Bhopal and proved the earlier conviction of the appellant under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the fact that the appellant had earlier remained in custody in Central Jail, Bhopal from 30-6-1991 to 12-6-2000.
3. The trial Court after appreciating the occular as well as the documentary evidence had found that the offences against the appellant were proved and; accordingly’ convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely implicated in the matter and that the appellant had already remained for a sufficient period in custody after completing 14 years and; therefore, now he should be released.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal and has submitted that having regard to the nature of the case and the material available, no ground for interference is made out.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Akeela Bai (PW/7) is a minor aged about 10-12 years and she in her Court statement has deposed that the appellant had come to her house and had taken her on the pretext of going to her mother. She has also stated that the appellant has taken Sarju Bai her cousin sister and Babu her brother along with her and had kept all three of them in Buddleia Forest and had committed rape upon her and Sarju Bai. She has given the clear description of the commission of rape by the appellant. She has also disclosed that the appellant had kept them in Media, Deria and other forests and used to commit rape of and on. She has also stated that the appellant used to beat them in case of any resistance. Similar is the statement of Sarju Bai (PW/8) who had also given the description of commission of rape upon her in her Court statement. The statements of Akeela Bai (PW/7) and Sarju Bai (PW/8) and further corroborated it the statement of PW/9 Babu who was the eye-witness of the entire incident. Dr. (Smt.) Archna Soni (PW/3) had examined Sarju Bai and had found swelling on her private parts and also found hymen missing and expressed the possibility of sexual intercourse. As per the X-Ray report (Ex.P/3), she has disclosed the age of Sarju Bai to be around 10-12 years. Smt. Malti Arya (PW/6) had medically examined Akeela Bai and has found old ruptured hymen and
Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Maru Ram vs. Union of India and others
Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire remaining life of the convict unless remission is granted by the appropriate government.
A sentence for imprisonment of life will run for the entire life of the convict unless the remission is granted in accordance with law, and the power to grant remission lies with the State Government....
Point of Law : Section 433 and 434 of the Cr.P.C. enjoins a duty upon the State Government as well as Central Government to commute the sentences as mentioned in the said section.
(1) Kidnapping and rape of girl child – When a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years which may extend upto life imprisonment is imposed, convict is also liable to suffer a senten....
Conviction upheld based on reliable testimony and corroborating DNA evidence, with the court emphasizing the necessity of addressing both merits of conviction and appropriateness of sentencing in app....
The main legal point established is the applicability of life imprisonment for the remainder of life in cases of heinous crimes, as upheld by the court in this judgment.
Life sentence – A special category of sentence, instead of death, can be substituted by punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and that category can be put beyond applic....
The court modified the life imprisonment sentence to 18 years for rape, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating circumstances alongside the severity of the crime.
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.