9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Conviction under Section 302/364/376 IPC, Appeal against death sentence, Compliance with Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, Circumstantial evidence, Admissibility of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Rarest of rare cases.
Conviction under Section 302/364/376 IPC: The judgment involved the conviction of the Appellant and another individual under Section 302/364/376 IPC by the Special Sessions trial, resulting in death sentence for both accused. The High Court affirmed the death sentence for the Appellant while acquitting the other accused, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. Appeal against death sentence: The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the Appellant challenging the death sentence imposed on him by the High Court. The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence and upheld the findings, conclusion, and sentence of the High Court regarding the accused. Compliance with Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure: The judgment highlighted a confession made by the Appellant before the Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, which was deemed voluntary. The Supreme Court found that the provisions of Section 164 were fully complied with during the recording of the confession. Circumstantial evidence: Despite being a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the entire chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime had been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Court upheld the guilt of the Appellant in committing the murders. Admissibility of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act: The recovery of body parts and other evidence, including a knife, was found admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court noted the matching of DNA tests and the recovery of body parts in the presence of medical professionals as crucial evidence in the case. Rarest of rare cases: The Supreme Court categorized the case as falling within the rarest of rare cases, citing the brutal and horrifying nature of the crimes committed by the Appellant. The Court emphasized the barbaric methodology employed by the Appellant in luring, killing, and mutilating innocent children, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the death sentence. Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
