BHAIKON @ BAKUL BORAH versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 03-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 5 S.C.R. 497 
BHAIKON @ BAKUL BORAH 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2008) 
MAY 3, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 376- Rape and murder 
A 
B 
- ·Trial court convicted the accused and imposed death 
sentence and life imprisonment for offences punishable u/ C 
ss.302 and 376 respectively - High Court confirmed the 
conviction, but reduced the death sentence to life 
imprisonment and the sentence of life imprisonment to 7 
years imprisonmerJt - Held: Version of the eye-witness is 
reliable and the same is corroborated by evidence of another 
D 
witness and also by medical evidence - Hence, conviction 
and sentence awarded by High Court upheld. 
Sentence/sentencing - Remission of sentence of life 
imprisonment -
Held: 
Life 
imprisonment means 
E 
imprisonment for whole of the life subject to the remission 
power granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution 
- When death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment, 
executive power of remission to be exercised cautiously, 
taking note of the gravity of the offence - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Articles 72 and 161. 
F 
The appellant-accused was prosecuted for 
committing rape and murder of the victim. PW-1 was the 
eye-witness to the incident. Trial court convicted the 
appellant-accused u/ss. 376 and 302 IPC and sentenced 
G 
him to death for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC and 
to life imprisonment (RI) for the offen~e punishable uls. 
376 IPC. The accused preferred appeal and the trial court 
preferred Death Reference. High Court disposed of the 
497 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A appeal and the Death Reference by confirming the 
conviction and altering the death sentence to life 
imprisonment and the sentence of life imprisonment to 
imprisonment for 7 years. 
8 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-accused 
contended that conviction could not have been based 
upon sole testimony of PW-1 as the same is not reliable; 
that in view of the remarks of the doctor (PW9 who 
conducted post-mortem of the deceased) to the effect 
C that no-mark of sexual violence was found on the genital 
organs of the deceased, the conviction u/s.376 was 
unsustainable; and that inasmuch as the High Court 
modified the death sentence into imprisonment for life, 
the authorities ought to have released him after expiry of 
a period of 14 years. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The trial court and the High Court rightly 
held that there was no reason to disbelieve the version 
E of PW-1 (the eye-witness) and the corroborative evidence 
of PW-2, (father of the deceased). In the same way, the 
injuries noted by PW-9 also support the prosecution 
story though. he has noted that there was no sign of 
injury on the genital organs of the deceased. Therefore, 
in view of oral and documentary evidence led in by the 
F prosecution, particularly, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 9 
as well as the statement of co-villagers, the conclusion 
arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court 
is acceptable. (Paras 11 and 12] (506-E-G] 
G 
2.1. Life imprisonment means imprisonment for 
whole of life subject to the remission power granted under 
Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. However, 
for adequate reasons, it is for the executive authorities 
to exerci'Se their power provided under the Constitution, 
H in an appropriate case. [Paras 15 and 16] [507-F-G; 508-
BHAIKON @ BAKUL BORAH v. STATE OF ASSAM 499 
8-C] 
A. 
Life Convict @ Khoka Prasanta Sen vs. B.K. Srivastava 
and Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 425; Mohinder Singh vs. State of 
Punjab (2013) 3 SCC 294; Sangeet and Anr. vs. State of 
Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452; Rameshbhai Chandubhai B 
Rathod (2) vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 2 SCC 764: 2011 (1) 
SCR 829; Chhote Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 8 
SCR 239; Mui/a and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 
SCC 508: 2010 (2) SCR 633; Maru Ram vs. Union of India 
and Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 107; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. 
Ratan Singh and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 470: 1976 (0) Suppl. C 
SCR 552; Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 
1961 SC 600: 1961 SCR 440 - relied on. 
2.2. When death sentence is commuted to 
imprisonment for life by the appellate court, the concerned D 
Government is permitted to exercise its executive power 
of remission cautiously, taking note of the gravity of the 
offence. [Para 17] [508-C-D] 
Swami Shraddananda (2) @ Murli Manohar Mishra vs.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.