Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. K. Gangele, Rohit Arya, JJ.
State Of M. P. – Petitioner
Versus
Yogendra Alias Jogendra Singh – Respondent
Cri. Ref. Capital No. 01 of 2014 and Cri. Appeal No. 883 of 2014
Decided On : 12-12-2014
Capital Punishment - Criminal Reference - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 366, 302, 326(k), 460 of Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the evidence, including dying declarations, medical reports, and witness testimonies, to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the rarest of rare doctrine and relevant legal principles from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases to confirm the death penalty imposed on the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with causing acid burn injuries to the deceased and other witnesses. The prosecution presented evidence including dying declarations, medical reports, and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court also confirmed the death penalty imposed on the accused, considering the rarest of rare doctrine and relevant legal principles.
Issues: The main issue was to establish the guilt of the accused for causing acid burn injuries to the deceased and other witnesses, and to determine whether the death penalty was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence, including dying declarations, medical reports, and witness testimonies, to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the rarest of rare doctrine and relevant legal principles from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases to confirm the death penalty imposed on the accused.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the death penalty imposed on the accused and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.
JUDGMENT :
S. K. Gangele, J.
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 Indian Penal Code 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-fulfilment of his demand. Two days before the incident, deceased along with 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 Indian Penal Code 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 along with 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 Indian Penal Code. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. 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 Off
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
