LexDURYODHAN ROUT versus STATE OF ORLSSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 139 DURYODHAN ROUT v. STATE OF ORlSSA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2277-2278 of 2009) JULY 01, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: ss: 376(f), 302, 201. - Rape and murder-.of 10 year old girl - Conviction based on C circumstantial evidence. - PW1 and PW2 saw the appellant carrying the deceased on a cycle near the jungle but returning back alone after on hour - Confession of appellant that he took the deceased near the jungle, undraped her and then committed rape on her and when she cried, strangulated her D to death - On statement of appellant, Investigating Officer recovered the dead body and underwear of the deceased lying nearby from the jungle - Appellant was last seen with the deceased - There was nothing to indicate that within one hour, there was any scope for anybody else, other than appellant E to commit rape and murder of deceased - Chain of circumstances led to hypothesis that appellant alone was author of the crime - Trial court rightly convicted the appellant u/ss. 376(f)/302!201 - All sentences to run concurrently. F Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 31, proviso - Sentences in case of conviction of several offences at one trial - Held: Under proviso to sub- section (2) of s.31 in no case a person can be sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer than 14 years and the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is G competent to inflict for a single offence - In case a person is sentenced of conviction of several offer;ices including one that of life imprisonment, the proviso to s. 31 (2) shall come into 139 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A play - In view of the· fact that life imprisonment means imprisonment for full and complete span of life, the question of consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise - Therefore, in case a person is sentenced of conviction of several offences, B including one that of life imprisonment, the proviso to s.31 (2) shall come into play and no consecutive sentence can be -imposed - Sentence/Sentencing. Sentence/Sentencing: Life imprisonment - Held: Is not confined to 14 years of imprisonment~ s. 55 /PC & ss. 433 C and 433A indicate that only the appropriate government can commute the sentence for imprisonment of_ life for a term not exceeding 14 years or exceeds the release_ for such person . unless he has served at least 14 years of imprisonment - Life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole of the remaining D period of convicted person's natural life - There is no provision either in /PC or Cr.P.C., whereby life imprisonment could be treated as either 14 years or 20 years without there being formal remission by the appropriate government - E Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 55, 433, 433A. Evidence Act, 1872: Statement of accused made before the police officer which distinctly related to the facts of recovery - Held: Is admissible. General Clauses Act, 1897: s. 3(27) - Imprisonment - F Meaning of The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the appellant took the victfm-deceased aged 10 years on a bicycle on a pretext that the deceased would talk to her G brother on phone. In the evening, the appellant returned alone to the village. The father of the deceased, PW-5 asked the appellant about the deceased to which he informed that the deceased had gone with a woman to her house. When the deceased did not return the next H day, PW-5 again questioned the appellant. The appellant DURYODHAN. ROUT v. STATE OF ORISSA 141 confessed before PW-3, PW4, PW-5 and one more A person that he killed the deceased by strangulating her. The appellant was arrested and on the basis of his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of the dead body of the deceased was madr. B The trial court found the appellant guilty for offence under sections 376(f)/302/201 IPC and convicted him and sentenced h.im to death. The trial court also sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 for offence punishable under section 376(f) IPC and C RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 for the offence punishable under section 201, IPC. It was further ordered that in default of payment of fine, the convict would suffer imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 376 (f) IPC and three months for the offence
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.