LexAMIT versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 1009 AMIT v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1905 of 2011) FEBRUARY 23, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: ss.364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 - Rape followed by murder of minor girl - Allegation against the appellant that he took away the victim from her house in the C presence of her mother and grandmother on the pretext of giving her biscuits and raped and murdered her - Courts below convicted the appellant u/ss.364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 - On appeal, held: There was no evidence to show that grandmother of the victim was interested in having the appellant convicted o - As the appellant was neighbour and known to the grandmother of the victim, no Test Identification Parade was necessary for her to identify the appellant - Recovery of incriminating items made on disclosure statement made by appellant supported prosecution case - As per the post E mortem report, the injuries on the body of victim proved that rape was committed on her and all the injuries together were cause of her death - The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the appellant alone who committed rape on victim and killed F her and thereafter caused disappearance of the evidence of the offences - Courts below rightly convicted the appellant. Witness: Interested witness - Reliability of - Held: An interested witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow convicted for some extraneous reason G and a near relative of the victim is not necessarily an interested witness. Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence for offence of rape 1009 H 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. A and murder - Held: In the instant case, when the appellant committed the offence he was a young person aged about 28 years only - There was no evidence that he had committed the offences of kidnapping, rape or murder on any earlier occasion - There was nothing to suggest that he is likely to B repeat similar crimes in future - On the other hand, given a chance he may reform over a period of years - Following the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in *Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod, the death sentence awarded to the appellant is converted to imprisonment for life and the life C sentence of the appellant is extended to his full life subject to any remission or commutation at the instance of the Government for good and sufficient reasons. The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the appellant came to the house of PW-1 and while mother D of PW-1 and his wife were present in the house, the appellant took away daughter of PW-1 aged 3 years (victim) on the pretext of giving her biscuits. In the evening when the appellant returned home, he was asked about the whereabouts of the victim, but the E appellant did not reply and ran away. PW-1 lodged police complaint and the appellant was apprehended. His shirt bore blood stains. On the statement of the appellant, the dead body of the victim was recovered from the field in the presence of PW-1 and another person. The trial court F convicted the appellant under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 IPC and awarded various sentences including death sentence for the offence under Section 302, IPC. The High Court confirmed conviction and the sentences awarded by the trial court. G In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellant that PW-3 was the only person who was witness to the appellant taking away the victim from the house of PW-1, but PW-3 was an aged woman and had admitted in her cross-examination that she could not see H with her right eye; that PW-3 was an interested witness AMIT v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1011 inasmuch as she was the grandmother of the victim and A her evidence should not be relied on;. that no Test Identification Parade was conducted during investigation for the witness to identify the appellant; that no independent witnesses were taken by the Police for recovery of the articles and instead PW-1 was made a B witness to the recovery of various articles; and there was evidence to show previous enmity between PW-1 and the appellant due to which PW-1 planted the case against the appellant and that the weapon by which the victim was killed was not recovered and therefore there was no proof c that the appellant committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.