1999 JTR(SC) 404
1999 2 AICLR 289 ; 1999 AIR(SC) 1699 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 1325 ; 1999 38 AllCriC 773 ; 1999 AllLJ 1262 ; 1999 2 BBCJ(SC) 76 ; 1999 2 CCR(SC) 81 ; 1999 CriLR 277 ; 1999 3 Crimes(SC) 1 ; 1999 CrLJ 2523 ; 1999 1 EastCrC(SC) 1245 ; 1999 2 EastCrC(SC) 172 ; 1999 3 JT 121 ; 1999 2 RCR(Cri) 485 ; 1999 2 Scale 622 ; 1999 4 SCC 108 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 491 ; 1999 KHC 1141 ; 1999 4 Supreme 121
1999(4) Supreme 121
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Kumudi Lal -Appellant
versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1998
Decided on 31-3-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : N.P. Midha, A.K. Pandey, Ms. Asha Pathak, Bharat Sangal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Vishwajit Singh and A.S. Pundir, Advocates.
Important Point
Where evidence showed that victim was not initially unwilling for sexual intercourse but when accused started intercourse raised shoutings and accused to prevent her shouting tied her salwar around her neck which resulted in strangulation causing her death, though the accused cannot be exonerated from the offence of rape and murder, extreme penalty of death sentence was not warranted.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.366
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.376, S.302
(A) The appellant was convicted under Section 376 (rape) and Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Section 3(ii)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The offence under Section 302 IPC attracted the death penalty, which was subsequently modified. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony to establish the commission of rape and murder, invoking these statutory provisions to secure conviction and assess the severity of the sentence under the framework of these laws.
(B) Key legal principles include the evaluation of eyewitness credibility, the distinction between adequate and extreme punishment, the requirement of careful appreciation of circumstantial evidence in rape and murder cases, and the judicial discretion to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment where facts do not sufficiently justify the extreme penalty.
Facts of the case:
On a specified date, a young girl went to a field to ease herself. The appellant attacked, committed rape, and strangled her to death using her Salwar. Two eyewitnesses, the victim's father and another person, saw the act, chased the appellant, and reported the incident. Both courts below accepted the eyewitness evidence and convicted the appellant, imposing a death sentence for murder.
Findings of Court:
Both the trial court and high court found the eyewitnesses reliable and confirmed the commission of rape and murder. However, the high court's reasoning for the death sentence was scrutinized. The apex court found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the victim was taken by surprise, was physically helpless, or was a weak person, and noted that the victim's resistance and the timing of her cries suggested possible initial consent or unwillingness only at a later stage. The death sentence was therefore not warranted.
Issues:
Whether the eyewitness evidence reliably establishes rape and murder; whether the high court correctly applied the death penalty in view of the evidentiary details; and whether the sentence should be confirmed or mitigated to life imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that while the appellant was guilty of rape and murder, the high court failed to properly consider evidentiary nuances indicating lack of premeditation or extreme brutality, leading to a disproportionate death sentence. The evidence did not meet the threshold required for imposing the death penalty, necessitating its reduction to life imprisonment.
Result:
The appeal is allowed partly. Convictions under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and Section 3(ii)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are upheld. The death sentence is set aside and replaced with imprisonment for life, with all sentences to run concurrently.
(A) The appellant was convicted under Section 376 (rape) and Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Section 3(ii)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The offence under Section 302 IPC attracted the death penalty, which was subsequently modified. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony to establish the commission of rape and murder, invoking these statutory provisions to secure conviction and assess the severity of the sentence under the framework of these laws.
(B) Key legal principles include the evaluation of eyewitness credibility, the distinction between adequate and extreme punishment, the requirement of careful appreciation of circumstantial evidence in rape and murder cases, and the judicial discretion to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment where facts do not sufficiently justify the extreme penalty.
Facts of the case:
On a specified date, a young girl went to a field to ease herself. The appellant attacked, committed rape, and strangled her to death using her Salwar. Two eyewitnesses, the victim's father and another person, saw the act, chased the appellant, and reported the incident. Both courts below accepted the eyewitness evidence and convicted the appellant, imposing a death sentence for murder.
Findings of Court:
Both the trial court and high court found the eyewitnesses reliable and confirmed the commission of rape and murder. However, the high court's reasoning for the death sentence was scrutinized. The apex court found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the victim was taken by surprise, was physically helpless, or was a weak person, and noted that the victim's resistance and the timing of her cries suggested possible initial consent or unwillingness only at a later stage. The death sentence was therefore not warranted.
Issues:
Whether the eyewitness evidence reliably establishes rape and murder; whether the high court correctly applied the death penalty in view of the evidentiary details; and whether the sentence should be confirmed or mitigated to life imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that while the appellant was guilty of rape and murder, the high court failed to properly consider evidentiary nuances indicating lack of premeditation or extreme brutality, leading to a disproportionate death sentence. The evidence did not meet the threshold required for imposing the death penalty, necessitating its reduction to life imprisonment.
Result:
The appeal is allowed partly. Convictions under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and Section 3(ii)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are upheld. The death sentence is set aside and replaced with imprisonment for life, with all sentences to run concurrently.
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-The appellant has been convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and Section 3(ii)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC death sentence has been imposed upon him. The appellant is challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under those Sections.
2. The prosecution case was that on 7.9.95 at about 7.00 a.m. Kumari Marri, aged about 14 years had gone to ease herself in a field near her house and that while she was so doing, the appellant pounced upon her, pinned her down on the ground, committed rape and when she started resistin and raising shouts, strangulated and killed her by tieing her Salwar around her neck. It was also the prosecution case that hearing her shouts her father Mihilal (P.W. 1) and Avadh Ram (P.W. 2) who had also gone near that field for answring the call of nature, rushed to that place. It was also the prosecution case that they had seen the appellant committing rape and on seeing them the appellant got up and ran away. They had also chased the appellant but he was able to escape.
3. In order to prove its case, besides the medical other evidence the prosecution had led the evidence of Mihilal (P.W. 1), Abadh Ram (P.W. 2) who were the eye-witnesses. Believing their evidence the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and also under Section 3(ii)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As the trial Court had imposed death sentence upon the appellant for the offence of murder, it forwarded the record to the High Court for confirmation of that sentence. The appellant also filed an appeal challenging his conviction. The High Court after re-appreciating the evidence, agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed the death sentence by observing as under :
“It was he who, acting as a beast of prey, pounced upon an unprotected, helpless and physically weak young girl, and just to satisfy his sexual lust defiled her despite the best possible resistance coming from the victim. And still the innate, albeit-depraved, urge for self survival was so strong in him that he would not hesitate a bit in squezing out the last breath of the poor little duck. His disabolic, vile and wicked deed was the worst form of degraded gender crime, sparing him from the gallows would be nothing short of letting loose a sex maniac onprowl.
Succinctly put mercy to the appellant under these circumstances would be quite misplaced. It would not only slight the valient resistance put up by the deceased in protecting her honour and chastity but also an insult to the entire womenhood. We, therefore, reject the appeal in its entirety and affirm the reference for confirmation moved by the trial Court.”
4. The evidence of both the eye-witnesses discloses that Mihilal (P.W. 1) was about 150 meters away from the place of the incident. The sight plan also shows that the place where Kumari Marri had gone was in northern corner of the field of Chhedu. The father was near the South Western corner of that field. The sight plan shows the distance between the two places as 125 yards. Avadh Ram (P.W. 2) was at that time near the South East corner of the field of Chhedu at a distance of about 150 Sq. yards. Both Mihilal and Avadh Ram had reached the place of incident almost at the same time. They have stated that they had seen the appellant committing rape and that on seeing them he got up and started running away. Both of them had chased the appellant for some distance.
5. Both the Courts below have accepted their evidence as reliable and truthful. Even after close scrutiny we do not find any infirmity in their evidence which would create doubt regarding veracity of what they have stated. The High Court was, therefore, right in conforming the findings recorded by the trial Court that the appellant committed rape on Marri and also killed her.
6. But the evidence on record does not justify the reasons given by the High Court for conforming the death sentence. The evidence does not indicate that Marri was taken by surprise and that the appellant had pounced upon her and had rendered her helpless. She had completely removed her Salwar which possibly was not necessary if she had merely gone for easing herself. No human excreta was found from near the place of incident. If she was assaulted in the manner believed by the High Court then she would have raised cries earlier and not after the appellant had started raping her. The post-mortem notes show that she was average built and was thus not a physically weak young girl. Not only she had removed her Salwar but her Kurta was also rolled up to the neck and, therefore, it was stated by P.W. 1 and also the Investigating Officer that the body of Marri was nude. The evidence discloses that both P.Ws. 1 and 2 were at a short distance of 120-150 yards and would not have taken much time in reaching the place of occurrence. They would have reached before the appellant could have committed rape on anunwilling girl. The circumstances indicate that probably she was not unwilling initially to allow the appellant to have some liberty with her. The appellant not being able to resist his urge for sex went ahead in spite of her unwillingness for a sexual intercourse, offered, some resistance and started raising shouts at that stage. In order to prevent her from raising shouts the appellant tied the Salwar around her neck which resulted in strangulation and her death. We, therefore, do not consider this to be fit case in which the extreme penalty of death deserves to be imposed upon the appellant. In our opinion, the High Court was wrong in confirming the death sentence without considering all these aspects disclosed by the evidence on record.
7. We, therefore, allow this appeal partly. His conviction under Sections 376 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(ii)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the sentence imposed upon him for the offences punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(ii)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are confirmed. However, we modify the order imposing death sentence for the offence of murder and alter it to imprisonment for life. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed partly allowed.
************