LexHAKKIM versus STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 7 S.C.R. 978 HAKKIM v. STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2012) AUGUST 6, 2014 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss .. 302, 307, 3071149, 3021109, 449, 324 - Conviction and sentence under- Prosecution cas~ that all the accused persons on provocation entered the house of PW 1 armed with weapons individually - Accused persons attacked PW 1, his family members and friend causing D injuries to them - Three co-accused held the lady-wife of PW 1 and A 1 slit her throat resulting in the death of the lady - Accused persons beaten by the people gathered and taken to the hospital and thereafter, arrested -· On basis of the evidence, courts below convicting all the accused u/s. 449; E A1 u/s. 302, 307; A2 - A4 u/ss. 3071149, 3021109; and A3 - A4 u/s. 324 /PC and sentenced them accordingly - On appeal, held: Post mortem doctor in her certificate confirmed the multiple knife injuries found on the body of the deceased - Extensive injuries were sustained by the injured eye- F witnesses - Thus, overwhelming evidence available on record to support the prosecution case as regards the use of multiple weapons in the crime committed by the appellants - It cannot be said that there was no scope to invoke ss. 109 and 149 and only Section 304 Part II, /PC can be applied - Further, having regard to the extensive use of the weapons by the accused G in the process of killing of the deceased and the inflicting of the injuries on the prosecution witnesses, no concession in the matter of punishment can be given - A 1 being only 17 years and 9 months on the date of the occurrence, and having H 978 HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPDT. OF POLICE 979 already suffered more than the maximum period of detention A as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act, while upholding his conviction, he is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of the Act and the sentence already undergone by him to be sufficient - Sentence/Sentencing - Juvenile Justice Act. Prosecution case was that a report ab6ut nefarious activities of PW1 in a magazine provoked the accused along with three others. On the fateful day, appellants- accused armed with knives entered house of PW-1 and • B attacked PW-1, his family and his friend who was residing C with him, which resulted in death of PW-1's wife 'S', injuries to PW-1, 2, 3, 4. Three of the accused held the deceased 'S' and A1 had cut her throat resulting in her instantaneous death. People living in and around the place of residence of PW-1, gathered and beat the accused, and were shifted to the hospital by the police. D The appellants were arrested. PWs 1 to 4, injured witnesses, PW-5, independent witness, employed on that day for the repair of the house of PW-1, PW-10, doctor who conducted post mortem, PW-8, doctor who examined the injured witnesses, were examined. PW-10 issu.ed post E mortem certificate and PW-8 issued certificates with regard to injuries suffered by PWs 1 to 4. PW-32, doctor examined the accused. FSL report confirmed presence of blood on seven items. PW-10 stated that four knives marked in the case could have caused the injuries F sustained by the deceased as well as by other injured persons. The trial court convi'cted the appellants-accused under various sections, sections 302, 307, 3071149, 3021 109, 449, 324 IPC and sentenced all the appellants- accused to undergo RI for a period of 5 years for G commission of offence u/s. 307; A1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence u/s. 302; A2 to A4 were sentenced to undergo three years RI for the offence u/s. 3071149 and undergo life imprisonment for the offence uls. 3021109; and A3 and A4 were sentenced H 980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. A to undergo six months RI for the offence u/s. 324 IPC. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence the instant appeal. Disposing of the Criminal Appeal filed by A-1 and 8 dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by A-2, A-3 and A-4, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no scope for reducing the sentence. As far as the submission made based on single knife is concerned, it is a case where the accused were C apprehended on the spot and the recovery of the weapons was also carried out at the time when they were apprehended. The said factor cannot be disputed in as much as apart from the ey
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.