9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence. 2. Validity and voluntariness of the confessional statement. 3. Corroboration of the confessional statement. 4. Appropriateness of the death penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence: The appellants were convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl based on circumstantial evidence. The key circumstances included: - Appellant No. 1 was the night chawkidar and had exclusive access to the waiting room where the family stayed. - Both appellants were seen conversing under suspicious circumstances. - Appellant No. 1's reluctance to open the door when the girl was found missing. - Seizure of a black-colored half pant belonging to Appellant No. 1 and a brown-colored jangia with white stains belonging to Appellant No. 2. - Injuries on Appellant No. 2's face, indicating resistance from the victim. 2. Validity and Voluntariness of the Confessional Statement: The confession of Appellant No. 1 was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and detailed the commission of the crime. The confession was held to be voluntary and truthful, as Appellant No. 1 did not retract it during the trial and even admitted to it during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Corroboration of the Confessional Statement: The confession was corroborated by several pieces of evidence: - The presence of both appellants at the scene. - Appellant No. 2's suspicious behavior and injuries. - Seizure of stained undergarments. - Testimonies of multiple witnesses, including employees of the travel agency and the parents of the deceased. The court emphasized that a confession can form the basis of conviction if it is voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence. 4. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty: The court considered whether the death penalty was appropriate, given that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that while the crime was heinous, the appellants showed remorse, particularly Appellant No. 1, who confessed and repented. The court referred to precedents suggesting that death penalty should be reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases and concluded that life imprisonment was a more appropriate sentence in this case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of both appellants but modified the sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment, considering the nature of the evidence and the appellants' remorse. The court emphasized the importance of corroborated confessions and the cautious application of the death penalty.
|
