Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, JJ.
The State of Telangana, Rep. by Asst Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Division, Rep. by Public Prosecutor - Complainant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Dharne, S/o. Kashiram Dharne - Accused
Referred Trial No. 1 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. details of evidence regarding the victim and body. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. appellant's denial and trial process. (Para 11) |
| 4. arguments challenging the prosecution's case. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. defense claims about evidence inconsistencies. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. court's rationale for finding appellant guilty. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. witness testimonies about the events. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. further witness evidence on the timeline. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. prosecution's collection of evidence and impact. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. post-mortem findings and implications for guilt. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. considerations for sentencing and appeals. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 12. discussion on the nature of crime and punishment. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 13. impact of crime on societal perceptions. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 14. legal precedents on death penalty. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 15. court's final thoughts on sentencing. (Para 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 16. concerns regarding societal safety. (Para 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 17. emphasis on justice against heinous acts. (Para 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 18. judge's agreement and reasons for judgment. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79) |
| 19. final agreement on upholding sentence. (Para 80 , 81 , 82) |
| 20. further clarifications on sentencing norms. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87) |
| 21. judge's detailed analysis of aggravating factors. (Para 88 , 89 , 90 , 91) |
| 22. conclusion on the death penalty justification. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95) |
| 23. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 96 , 97) |
JUDGMENT :
Sambasivarao Naidu, J
This referred trial arose with the letter received from Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 19.02.2021, whereunder he sought confirmation of death sentence imposed in a sessions case vide S.C.No.592 of 2018 against the sole accused. Since the accused also filed an appeal, challenging the said Judgment, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel to whom the criminal appeal was referred by the legal-aid committee, together and disposing them under this Judgment.
2. Before discussing the grounds under which the appellant / accused sought for setting aside the Judgment, his conviction and sentence and also the letter from trial Court, it is just required to examine the contents of charge sheet filed against the appellant, charges framed against him, details of the evidence as well as arguments advanced by prosecution and defense.
3. The appellant herein has been prosecuted by the State, through police, Narsingi, with an allegation that he kidnapped a girl of five (5) years, committed rape on her and killed her. Thereby committed the offences under Section 363 , 366, 376(A), 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short 'IPC') and under Section 5 (l)(m) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').
4. The following is the case of prosecution in brief:
PW l Smt. Ambika Mishra and PW2 Mr. Saradi Prasanna Mishra is wife and husband and hails from Ender Village of Odissa State. They have got two(2) children, a girl aged about five(5) years and a boy aged about two(2) years. They, in search of their livelihood, migrated to Hyderabad and were working with Arya Mithra Constructions, Alkapuri, Hyderabad.
5. The appellant hails from Kalimati Village of Madhya Pradesh and he too came to this State for eking livelihood and was working for the same construction company.
6. The prosecution has alleged that on 12.12.2017 at about 12:00 in the noon, the appellant took the daughter of PWs 1 and 2 who (hereinafter be referred as 'SM') on the pretext of giving chocolate towards a kirana shop. Later, he alone returned to the labour camp where all these workers were provided accommodation. When PW 1 enquired him about her daughter, the appellant told her that he left SM at labour camp and she might be playing somewhere. PW 1 and h
The court affirmed that the extreme brutality of the crime warrants the death penalty, emphasizing its classification as a rarest of rare case due to the specific circumstances surrounding the kidnap....
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
(1) Constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against arrest and detention, do not expand into a c....
(1) Evidence is only to be weighed and not to be counted – It is essentially, for prosecution to decide as to how many witnesses are to be examined to establish its case on any particular point.(2) D....
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
Death sentence – Brutality of a crime cannot be only criterion for determining whether a case falls under “rarest of the rare” category.
Circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' principle, can suffice for conviction in rape and murder cases yet demands rigorous scrutiny for reliability.
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
