2019 Supreme(SC) 1101

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Ishwari Lal Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1416-1417, 1418-1419 of 2017, 298-299, 300-301 of 2018, 1522 of 2019, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7947 of 2017
Decided On : 03-10-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, but if same is corroborated by other evidence on record, same can be accepted.
(2) Common intention must exist prior to commission of act in a point of time.
(3) Normal punishment for offence under Section 302 IPC is life imprisonment but in a case where incident is of “rarest of rare cases” death sentence is to be imposed.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364/34 read with 120B, Sections 302/34 read with 120B and 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 366 – Kidnapping, murder and conspiracy – Screening of evidence – Common intention – Death sentence – For the purpose of sacrifice to God, child was kidnapped and murdered in a gruesome manner – It is consistently deposed by independent witnesses that when they entered house of main accused, they have confessed that they have committed murder of deceased child for the purpose of sacrifice – There is nothing on record to show that such confessions are caused by inducement, threat or promise – When such confessions are corroborated by other evidence on record, trial court as well as High Court, rightly relied on such confessions – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, but if same is corroborated by other evidence on record, same can be accepted – To prove charge of kidnapping and conspiracy, there is no acceptable evidence on record – Common intention must exist prior to commission of act in a point of time – There is no acceptable evidence against all others to prove their guilt that they have committed offence with common intention – In view of evidence on record prosecution has proved guilt of main accused for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC – Common intention is to be restricted only to main accused but same cannot be applied to others. (Paras 16 and 17)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364/34 read with 120B, Sections 302/34 read with 120B and 201 – Kidnapping, murder and conspiracy – Screening of evidence – Common intention – Death sentence – Normal punishment for offence under Section 302 IPC is life imprisonment but in a case where incident is of “rarest of rare cases” death sentence is to be imposed – Only special facts and circumstances will warrant passing of death sentence and a just balance has to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, before option is exercised – Factors like, age of accused, possibility of reformation, gravity of offence etc. are also to be kept in mind – In this case, main accused have committed murder of two year old child as a sacrifice to God – They were having three minor children at that time – In spite of same, they committed murder of deceased, a child of two years of age brutally – Having regard to age of accused, they were not possessed of basic humanness, they completely lacked psyche or mindset which can be amenable for any reformation – It is a planned murder committed by two appellants – This is a case of “rarest of rare cases” where death sentence imposed by trial court was rightly confirmed by High Court – Death sentence imposed on main accused for offence under Section 302/34 IPC affirmed – Conviction and sentence of other appellants set aside. (Paras 21, 22, 23 and 24)

Facts of the case:

Appellants were charged for offence under Sections 364/34 read with 120B; 302/34 read with 120B and 201, Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment dated 27.03.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.61 of 2011, Sessions Judge, Durg, has convicted and sentenced the appellants. For the offence under Sections 364/34 read with 120B, IPC they were convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. For the offence under Sections 302/34 read with 120B, IPC death penalty was imposed with a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of which, they were sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. For the offence under Section 201, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each was imposed, in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Findings of Court:

Having regard to gruesome nature of murder, Trial Court has imposed the punishment of death for offence under Sections 302/34 read with 120B IPC but on appeal High Court has modified sentence to that of imprisonment for life without any remission or parole. Considering the gruesome nature of murder sentence imposed by the High Court is to be confirmed.

Result : Criminal Appeal Partly allowed.