SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 161

2012 (4) SCC 107
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. K. PATNAIK & SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
AMIT - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1905 of 2011
Decided on : 23-02-2012.

IMPORTANT POINTS
A near relative of the victim is not necessarily an interested witness.
TI parade is not necessary when accused is known to the witness.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Interested witness – A near relative of the victim, grandmother in this case, is not necessarily an interested witness. (Para 6)

       (1981) 2 SCC 752; (2010) 11 SCC 129; (2011) 10 SCC 158 – Relied upon

       (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – TI parade – Not necessary when accused is known to the witness. (Para 7)

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Appellant young man – Chances of reformation cannot be ruled out – No antecedents – No evidence to suggest tendency to repeat the crime – Sentence modified to imprisonment for full life subject to remission or commutation. (Para 12)

       (2010) SCC 58; (2011) 2 SCC 764 – Relied upon

       (2005) 3 SCC 114; (2008) 11 SCC 113 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       Amit the appellant took away daughter of his neighbour Radhey Shyam, Monika aged 3 years, on the pretext that he would give biscuits to her but neither the girl nor the appellant returned.

       Appellant was charged, tried and convicted under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302 and 201, IPC and was sentenced to death u/s 302 with other sentences.

       The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in conviction. However, sentence needs modification.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J.-This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 29.07.2009 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.7361 of 2007 and in Reference No.26 of 2007 confirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') as well as the sentences of imprisonments and death awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

2. The facts very briefly are that on 19.03.2005, one Radhey Shyam lodged a First Information Report (for short `FIR') at the Daurala Police Station in District Meerut at 21:15 hours alleging that while his mother Manno and wife Shakuntala were present at house, his neighbour Amit, the appellant herein, took away his daughter Monika, aged 3 years, from his house on the pretext that he would give biscuits to her but neither his daughter nor the appellant returned and when at about 5.00 p.m. the appellant came back to his house, he inquired about the whereabouts of Monika, but the appellant did not reply and ran away. Crime No.90 of 2005 for the offence under Section 364, IPC, was registered. The appellant was apprehended on 20.03.2005 near the Pawli Khas Railway Station, Modipuram, P. S. Daurala in District Meerut and his shirt, which bore blood-stains on its right arm, was taken off from his person. On the statement of the appellant, the dead body of Monika kept in a plastic bag was recovered from the wheat field in the out skirts of village Palhara in the presence of Radhey Shyam and Iqbal Singh. A pair of green colour chappals, which were blood-stained, were also recovered from the corner of a room of the house of the appellant on the statement of the appellant in presence of Radhey Shayam and Iqbal Singh. The shirt of the appellant and the chappals, frock, underwear of Monika and a back thread were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Uttar Pradesh, Agra, which confirmed presence of human blood and human sperms on some of these materials. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302 and 201, IPC, and charges were accordingly framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut, and Sessions Trial No.449 of 2005 was conducted.

3. At the trial, Radhey Shyam was examined as PW-1. His wife and mother were examined as PWs-2 and 3. Iqbal Singh, the witness to the seizures made pursuant to the statements of the appellant, was examined as PW-4. Dr. Vikrama Singh, Senior Pathologist, who carried out the post-mortem on the body of Monika, was examined as PW-5 and the Investigating Officer was examined as PW-6. In his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code (for short `Cr.P.C.'), the appellant denied having committed the offences but no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. The trial court considered the evidence, heard the arguments and found the appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302 and 201, IPC. After hearing the appellant on the question of sentence, the trial court imposed the punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 364, IPC, and a further sentence of six months if the appellant failed to pay the fine. For the offence under Section 376, IPC, the trial court also imposed the punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on failure to pay the fine, a further sentence of six months. For the offence under Section 377, IPC, the trial court also imposed the punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on failure to pay the fine, an additional sentence of six months' imprisonment. For the offence under Section 201, IPC, the trial court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and on failure to pay the fine, an additional sentence of two months' imprisonment. The trial court took the view that this is one of those rarest of rare cases in which












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top