JUGENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 29-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 193 
JUGENDRA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2008) 
MAY 29, 2012 
[DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 302 and 376 read with s. 511 - Accused causing c 
death of a 9 year old girl by strangulation in an attempt to 
commit rape on her - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by 
High Court - Life imprisonment awarded - Held: Medical 
report clearly says that the death was caused due to asphyxia 
as a result of throttling - From the evidence of witnesses and 0 
the medical evidence, only a singular view is possible that the 
accused had made an attempt to commit rape and he was 
witnessed while he was strangulating the child with a shirt -
The trial Judge had given unnecessary importance to 
absolutely minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of E 
the matter and the High Court has correctly treated such 
analysis to be perverse - Sentence/Sentencing - Appeal 
against acquittal - Evidence - Minor discrepancies in. 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
Punishment for attempt to commit rape on a 9 year old 
girl and causing her death - Held: Rape or an attempt to rape 
F 
is a crime not only against an individual but a crime which 
destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere - The 
consequential death of a child is more horrendous and has 
G 
a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate, 
eventuates on the collective at large - The cry of the collective 
has to be answered and respected and that is what exactly 
193 
H 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
the High Court has done by converting the decision of acquittal 
to that of conviction and imposing the sentence as per law. 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
Appeal against acquittal - Power of appellate court -
B Explained. 
The accused-appellant was prosecuted for attempt 
to commit rape on a nine year old girl and causing her 
death. The prosecution case was that on the day of the 
c incident when the victim and her younger brother, were 
bathing in a pond near their house, the accused took her 
to the nearby field. They were followed by the younger 
brother of the victim. The accused took off the 
undergarment of the girl and flung her on the ground. The 
0 cries of the girl and her brother attracted PW-2 and 
another, who had seen the accused taking the girl to the 
field. They rushed to the place. Soon thereafter PW-1, the 
father of the victim, and his elder son also rushed to the 
plot and saw the accused pressing the neck of the girl. 
E By the time the witnesses could reach the spot the girl 
was dead. The accused was apprehended at the spot. 
The trial court taking note of some discrepancies in the 
testimony of the witnesses, acquitted the accused. 
However, the High Court convicted the accused u/s. 302 
and s. 376 read with s.511 IPC and sentenced him to 
F imprisonment for life and 10 years RI, respectively, under 
the two counts. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal of the accused, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. This Court has consistently taken the view 
that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has full 
power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the 
conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal 
should be reversed. (para 18] (204-C] 
JUGENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P. 
195 
Jadunath Singh and Others v. State of UP. AIR 1972 SC 
A 
116; Oamodar Prasad Chandrika Prasad and Others v. State 
of Maharashtra 1972 (2) SCR 622 = AIR 1972 SC 622; State 
of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR 1960 SC 391; Shivaji 
Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra 1974 
(1) SCR 489 =AIR 1973 SC 2622; State of Karnataka v. K. 
Gopala Krishna AIR 2005 SC 1014; Ayodhya Singh v. State 
of Bihar and others (2005) 9 SCC 584; Anil Kumar v. State 
B 
of U.P. 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 449 = (2004) 13 SCC 257; Girija 
Prasad (dead) by LRs. v. State of M. P. 2007 (9) SCR 483 = 
(2007) 7 SCC 625; State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran 2007 (3) c 
SCR 507 = (2007) 3 SCC 755; State of U P. v. Ajai Kumar 
2008 (2) SCR 552 =AIR 2008 SC 1269; State of Rajasthan 
v. Sohan Lal 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 480 = (2004) 5 SCC 573; 
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka 2007 (2) SCR 630 = (2007) 
4 SCC 415; S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman and others 
D 
2011 (1) SCR 27 = (2011) 2 SCC 83; Sunil Kumar 
Sambhudaya/ Gupta (Or.) v. State of Maharashtra 2010 (15) 
SCR 452 = (2010) 13 SCC 657; Balak Ram v. State of UP. 
1975 (1) SCR 753 = (1975) 3 SCC 219; Budh Singh v. State 
of u P. 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 715 = (2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.