Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (11) TMI 656 - SC - Indian Lawskidnapping and murdering two children - commission of an offence under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code - sentenced to death - High Court while upholding the judgment and conviction opined that the case cannot be said to be a rarest of rare one meriting award of death penalty - HELD THAT - A letter was received by PW-3, Kamal Kishore, on 09.06.2000 wherein a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs was demanded by way of ransom. It also bore a postal stamp. PW-3 was asked to tie a cloth of red colour on the roof of his house, which would be an indication to show that he was ready to pay the amount. The said letter was marked as Ex.PT. Thereafter specimen signature of the handwriting of both the accused were obtained under the order of Shri H.S. Grewal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who examined himself as PW-12; and the same was sent to an handwriting expert Shri Balwinder Singh Bhandal, who examined himself as PW-21. He submitted a report which was marked as Ex. PJJ, stating that the said letter was in the handwriting of Appellant No.2. The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court was the recovery of a camera from the bed-box of Appellant No. 1 as also remaining part of the dirty white cloth with which the arms of both the children were tied had been kept concealed therein. He furthermore disclosed that the deck with two speakers were also kept concealed in the same room on the Angeethi and the said house was locked by him and he had kept concealed the keys of the said house near the outer gate underneath the same bricks. His disclosure statement was recorded and thereafter recoveries were made, which was proved by the investigating officer, Inspector Nirmal Singh, PW-20. His statement were corroborated by ASI Mohinder Singh. A cello tape was also recovered which was used by the accused for pasting on the mouth and nose of both the victims and for tying the plastic envelopes which were put on the faces of both the children. Recoveries of the said articles were made pursuant to the information given by Appellant No. 1. The information given by Appellant No.1 led to discovery of some facts. Discovery of some facts on the information furnished by Appellant No.1 is a relevant fact within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, admissible in evidence and the same could have been taken into consideration as a corroborative piece of evidence to establish general trend of corroboration to the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants. It was urged that the investigation was tainted. We do not find any reason to hold so. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code might have been mentioned in some of the documents by the investigating officer, although no case thereunder was made out till the recovery of the dead bodies. But we do not find that the same was made designedly. Keeping in view the circumstantial evidences, which have been brought on records, we are satisfied that all links in the chain are complete and the evidences led by the prosecution point out only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the appellants herein. They have rightly been convicted of the offences charged against them by the learned Trial Judge. An appeal had also been preferred by the complainant for enhancing the sentence. Mr. D.K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, would appeal to us for enhancement of the sentence. We, do not think that the High Court has committed any error in opining that the case is not one of the rarest of rare cases. It is also not a case where we should exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction in converting the penalty of rigorous imprisonment for life to one of imposition of death sentence. We decline to do so. Thus, both the appeals are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Credibility of Child Witness (PW-4) 2. Reliability of Extra-Judicial Confession 3. Admissibility of Statements under Section 164 of CrPC 4. Reliability of Witness PW-11 5. Delay in Recording Statement of PW-15 6. Alleged Fabrication of Evidence by Investigating Officer 7. Circumstantial Evidence and Chain of Events 8. Recovery of Evidence and its Corroboration 9. Appropriateness of Sentence Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Credibility of Child Witness (PW-4): The appellants argued that the testimony of PW-4, a child witness, was unreliable due to the delay in his examination and his identification of the accused at the instance of PW-11. The court noted that while ordinarily the statement of PW-4 would be questionable, his testimony about seeing the children with Appellant No.1 was consistent and credible. The court found that Ex.D-1, allegedly prepared by the investigating officer, could not have been produced by the defense if it were fabricated, thus lending credibility to PW-4's testimony. 2. Reliability of Extra-Judicial Confession: The appellants contended that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and should not be relied upon without corroboration. The court held that extra-judicial confessions, if made voluntarily and proven, can be relied upon. The confessions made before PW-11, who was an advocate and community leader, were detailed and consistent. The court found no reason to disbelieve PW-11's testimony. 3. Admissibility of Statements under Section 164 of CrPC: The appellants argued that the statement of Appellant No.1's father under Section 164 of CrPC was inadmissible. The court agreed, citing precedents that such statements are not admissible in evidence. The father was not examined by the prosecution, likely due to a change in his willingness to testify against his son. 4. Reliability of Witness PW-11: The appellants questioned the credibility of PW-11, who was involved in the investigation and recovery of evidence. The court found PW-11's testimony credible, noting that he had no animosity towards the appellants and had no reason to fabricate evidence. The court distinguished this case from others where witnesses showed extraordinary interest in the investigation. 5. Delay in Recording Statement of PW-15: The appellants argued that the delay in recording PW-15's statement made it unreliable. The court found the delay justified, as PW-15 had left for Delhi and was unaware of the investigation. His detailed and consistent testimony about seeing the children with Appellant No.1 was found credible. 6. Alleged Fabrication of Evidence by Investigating Officer: The appellants claimed that the investigating officer had fabricated evidence. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the circumstantial evidence presented was consistent and credible. The court emphasized the need to ensure that the actual culprits do not get acquitted due to alleged procedural lapses. 7. Circumstantial Evidence and Chain of Events: The court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. The evidence presented, including the testimony of PW-4, PW-11, and PW-15, along with the recoveries made, formed a consistent and credible chain of events leading to the appellants' guilt. 8. Recovery of Evidence and its Corroboration: The court noted the recovery of school bags, dead bodies, and other incriminating items like clothes and tape used to bind the victims. The recovery of a ransom letter in Appellant No.2's handwriting further corroborated the prosecution's case. The court found that these recoveries, along with the fingerprint evidence, strongly supported the appellants' involvement. 9. Appropriateness of Sentence: The complainant appealed for the enhancement of the sentence to the death penalty. The court upheld the High Court's decision that the case did not qualify as the "rarest of rare" warranting the death penalty. The court found no reason to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to convert the life imprisonment sentence to a death sentence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the conviction and the life imprisonment sentence. The court found the prosecution's circumstantial evidence credible and sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The decision emphasized the importance of a holistic and integrated approach in evaluating circumstantial evidence.
|