LexBANTU @ NARESH GIRI versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A BANTU @ NARESH GIRI v. STATE OF M.P. OCTOBER 17, 2001 ·B [M.B. SHAH AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, 1!;] Penal Code, I 860-Sections 302 and 376-Prosecution under-De- ceased' last seen together with the accu,~ed-Conviction by Trial Court and High Court-Death sentence-Plea that death sentence is not justified since C the case was not rarest of rare case-On appeal-Conviction upheld, but sentence commuted· to life imprisonment. The appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 IPC, for having committed, rape and murder of six year old girl. Death sentence was imposed on him. Deceased was last seen together D with the accused·appellant by PW4, PWS and PWlO. Appeal against the conviction.and sentence was confirmed by High Court. E F G H In appeal to·this Court.appellant contended that it was not justified to impose death sentence because the offence does not fall in the category of rarest of rare case, since the death was caused incidentally and unin- tentionally; and that on the date of incident his age was less than 22 years; and had no past criminal record. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : In view of the evidence on record, it is evident that the High Court or the Sessions Court did not commit any error in appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution. Hence, the conviction of the appellant for the offences. punishable under Sections 302 and 376 IPC is confirmed, but the death sentence is commutted to ilnprisonment for life. [301~D-E; 302-A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.2001 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. R. No. 2/2000 and Cr!. A. No. 2161 of 2000. Tara Chandra Sharma (A.C.) for the Appellant. 298 BANTU v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 299 Anoop George Choudhary, Ms. Divya Suri, Ms. Bharti Tyagi and Uma A Nath Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, M.P., the accused has filed this appeal. B By the impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.2001, the High Court con- firmed the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya in Sessions Case No. 117 /99 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death. It is . the prosecution case that PW 1 Mohan Lal Sahu when returned at his home at about 6.00 p.m. on 25th January, 1999, he found that his grand- daughter (daughter of his late daughter) Jyoti aged about 6 years was not present in the house. He enquired about her from his daughter-in-law and other persons. He was informed that she had gone to visit cinema alongwith the accused .. After some time when accused Bantu @ Naresh visited his residence, he enquired about whereabouts of Jyoti and accused stated that he did not know anything about Jyoti and that he had not taken her alongwith him for· going to cinema. Thereafter, he and other family members and residents of the locality started searching Jyoti. During the search, few people in the mohalla told his wife that deceased Jyoti was seen accompanying the accused at about 4.00 p.m. and his wife informed him accordingly. Thereafter he along with his wife went at the house of accused to know the facts correctly but as the accused became angry on such enquiry, they came back. On being advised by the people from the neighbourhood, he lodged the report at the police station. Subsequently dead body of the deceased girl was noticed by PW 13 Sanjay Dube who was also neighbour of PW 1. The dead body was found lying in the bushes standing across the railway line. He noticed that underwear of the deceased was lying near the dead body and that there were blood stains and tooth mark on her cheek. He thereafter informed the police station. On the basis of the said information, investigating officer carried out necessary investigation. Thereafter, accused-appellant was charge-sheeted alongwith Balu @ Bairam Goswami. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted· the appellant but acquitted the other accused. c D E F G From the evidence on record, the Sessions Court as well as High Court H 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A ' arrived at fhe conclusion that the accused Bantu was neighbour of complainant Mohan Lal Sahu and was on visiting terms with him. After consi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.