Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAJENDRA MENON, ROHIT ARYA, JJ.
In Reference – Petitioner
Versus
Kamlesh @ Ghanti – Respondent
Cri. Ref. No. 01 of 2013, Cri. Appeal No. 624 of 2013
Decided On : 11-10-2013
RAPE AND MURDER - Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Child Protection Act - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for offences under sections 376-A, 302, 201, 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 4 of the Child Protection Act. The court analyzes the evidence, including witness testimonies, forensic reports, and post-mortem findings, to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court concludes that the circumstantial evidence is complete and conclusive, pointing to the appellant's guilt. The judgment also addresses the legal principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of DNA reports without expert examination.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, forensic reports, and post-mortem findings to establish the guilt of the appellant. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentencing, arguing that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient and raised objections regarding the investigation process and the admissibility of DNA reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the circumstantial evidence to be complete and conclusive, pointing to the appellant's guilt. The court rejected the appellant's objections, stating that they were minor and hyper-technical in nature and did not undermine the prosecution's case. The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, concluding that the crime was cruel, diabolic, and brutal, and fell under the 'rarest of rare' category warranting the imposition of the death penalty.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, objections raised regarding the investigation process and the admissibility of DNA reports, and the consideration of the 'rarest of rare' test for imposing the death penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes the legal principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of DNA reports without expert examination, and the application of the 'rarest of rare' test for imposing the death penalty.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, answering the reference in the affirmative and confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJENDRA MENON, J.
1. The Sessions Judge, Datia by the impugned judgment dated 22-7-2013, in Sessions Trial No. 85/2013, has sentenced the appellant to death for committing the offence of rape and murder of a 7 year old girl and has referred the matter under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant has been convicted for offences under sections 376-A, 302, 201, 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to death; death and fine of Rs. 5,000/- five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- respectively. In addition, appellant has also been convicted under section 4 of the Child Protection Act, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. Challenging the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, appellant Kamlesh @ Ghanti has also filed an appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Since the Reference and the Appeal arise out of the same judgment, both are being decided by this common judgment.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Gulzar Singh, father of the child in question, is resident of village Dongarpur. He has a kirana (grocery) shop in his house. It is alleged that on 18-4-2013, at about 7.00 in the evening, accused Kamlesh @ Ghanti came to the shop and purchased ‘bindol’ (packet of beedi) and gutka. The accused was staying with his cousin and her husband Ramsewak Kushwaha in the same village. He was known to the family of Gulzar Singh. The family of Gulzar Singh consisted of his wife, son aged about 14 years and his minor daughter, aged seven years. It is stated that near the house, there is a Chabootra. At about 7 P.M. on the day in question i.e. 18-4-2013, the child was playing on the Chabootra, her mother was sitting nearby and the father and son were in the shop when accused Kamlesh @ Ghanti came to the shop, purchased bindol and gutka. While returning he went to the child and told her that the jwar procession in connection with Navratri festival is going on in the village and if she was interested, he could take her. It is stated that the child was tempted to go with him for seeing the festive procession. The parents did not object to the same, as the child was known to the appellant and used to call him ‘Mamaji’ (uncle). Accordingly, it is said that the appellant picked up the child in his arms and went towards the handpump, on his way to the village where the procession was to pass by. Thereafter, it is said that father of the child PW-1 Gulzar Singh also went to see the procession. When he returned back to the house after about two hours, he was informed by his wife that the girl child has not returned after seeing the procession. It is alleged that Gulzar Singh, father of the child, went in search of his child to the village. However, as he did not see the child or appellant Kamlesh @ Ghanti, he came back to his house after about two hours. He anticipated that the child will be dropped back by the appellant. However, they did not come in the night. Next day, early in the morning around 6.00 A.M. Badri Kushwaha - resident of the village, came to the house of Gulzar Singh and informed that dead body of the child is lying in the agricultural field of Badri Kushwaha. On hearing this they rushed to the field, where they saw the dead body of the child lying, blood was oozing out of her mouth, nose and her kurti and undergarment were drenched with blood. Immediately, Gulzar Singh recognized his daughter and informed the authorities of Police Station Goraghat on phone (mobile). Immediately, thereafter, the police authorities came to the spot, the Panchnama of the dead body was prepared, all the required formalities were completed and based on the statement of the witnesses, the appellant was arrested and put to trial.
5. The clothes worn by the appellant and the child in question were seized and sent for
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
