BISHNU PRASAD SINHA & ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 16-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
BISHNU PRASAD SINHA & ANR. 
v. 
ST A TE OF ASSAM 
jANUARY 16, 2007 
[S.B.SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 376(2)(g), 302 and 201134. 
Rape and murder-No eyewitnesses-Circumstantial evidence-
Conviction based upon-Punishment of death sentence-Permissibility 
of-The deceased, a young girl aged 7 to 8 years, was travelling with her 
parents and younger brother in a private transport service-Accused No. 
I, the night chawkidar, advised them to stay in the waiting room of the 
travel complex for the night-At that time a bus arrived at the said Travel 
Comp/ex-Accused No. 2 was the 'handyman' of the said bus-While the 
Manager, Driver and the Conductor slept in the said bus, he did not-He 
was seen talking with the accused No. I-The mother of the deceased slept 
for a while but woke up as her son had cried out-She did not find the 
deceased child-On opening the septic tank the head of a small child was 
found-During the course of investigation, the accused No. I made a 
confessional statement before the Magistrate-He gave a vivid description 
as to how the offence was committed by him and the accused No. 2-The 
accused persons were convicted and sentenced to death-High Court 
affirmed the conviction-Validity of-Held: Accused No. I's involvement in 
the .offence stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts-Apart from his 
conduct, his confessional statement is a clear pointer to his guilt-
Appellant No. 2's involvement is also proved-Their conduct, in particular 
the conduct of the accused No. I, is admissible under S. 8 of the Evidence 
Act-Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence-The 
accused had rightly been found guilty of committing the offence-If the 
offence is proved by circumstantial evidence, ordinarily, death penalty 
would not be awarded-Moreover, the accused No. I felt repentant while 
making his statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C. - Hence, death sentence 
modified to rigorous imprisonment for life-Criminal Procedure Code, 
1973, S. 313-Evidence Act, 1872, S. 30. 
H 
According to the prosecution, the deceased, a young girl aged 7 to 8 
916 
.....·. 
: 
f 
BISHNU PRASAD SINHA & ANR. v. STATE 
917 
..., .. 
years, was travelling with her parents and younger brother in a private 
A 
transport service. They reached the Travel Complex and were advised to 
stay over for the night. Appellant No. 1 was a night chawkidar of the waiting 
room of the said Travel Complex. He represented that they could stay there 
for the night and, therefore, should not have any apprehension in regard 
to their safety. 
B 
1 
The family went out for dinner and came back to the said waiting 
room. The father and both his children slept. The mother of the deceased, 
however, kept on sitting. Appellant No. 1 insisted on her repeatedly that she 
should go to sleep stating that as the waiting room would be locked, there 
was nothing for her to worry about. As she had not been sleeping, the c 
appellant No. 1, allegedly, scolded her to do so. At that time a bus arrived 
at the said Travel Complex. Appellant No. 2 was the 'handyman' of the said 
bus. While the Manager, Driver and the Conductor slept in the said bus, 
he did not. He was seen talking with the appellant No. 1. 
The mother of the deceased slept for a while but woke up as her son 
D 
-I 
had cried out. She did not find the deceased child. PW-2, the cashier of the 
transport service, was informed about the missing of the deceased. A 
complaint was lodged at the police station. A complaint was made that the. 
flush in the toilet was not working. PW-7 was asked by PW-2 to find out 
the reason therefor. He later on opened the septic tank and saw the head 
E 
of a small child. He immediately reported the matter to PW-1 as well as 
PW-2. 
In the First Information Report, apart from the appellant No. 1, 
,) 
suspicion was raised about the involvement of the driver, conductor and the 
F 
'handyman' (appellant No. 2) of the bus. 
During the course of investigation, the appellant No. 1 made a 
confessional statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He gave a vivid description as to how 
G 
the offence was committed by him and the appellant No. 2. 
.. 
The appellants were charged with and convicted for commission of 
offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the 
Penal Code, 1869 and sentenced to death. The High Court affirmed the 
conviction and sentence. Hen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.