LexLAUT KUMAR YADAV @ KURI versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 668
LAUT KUMAR YADAV @ KURI
v.
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2006)
APRIL 25, 2014
[A.K. PATNAIK AND
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302, 376 rlw s. 511 - Murder-
C Attempt to rape - Victim, an 18 year old girl - Her neck cut
with a sickle - Circumstantial evidence, viz. a) sniffer dog-
tracking evidence, b) recovery of sickle, c) recovery of clothes
of accused-appellant and d) past conduct of appellant
pertairiing to eve teasing of the deceased -. Conviction of
D appellant- Justification - Held: Justified - There was no delay
in reporting the matter to the police - Merely because PW-1
was father of the deceased, his evidence could not be doubted
on that count in absence of any suspicion - PW-9, produced
to prove the recovery memo, was not a chance witness - His
E presence being most natural and probable, his evidence was
creditworthy and acceptable -
Defence plea that the
polythene bag in which the sickle was wrapped and taken by
the 10 was without any seal at the time of recovery, untenable
on the face of recovery memo itself - Since nobody was .
F named in the FIR, the 10 took help of dog squad and the
appellant was tracked - Appellant who was then taken into
custody gave. statement regarding commission of crime - A{
his instance, ·the sickle as well as blood stained clothes were .
recovered. - Plea that the alleged recovery of clothes i.e.
G gamchha 'and baniyan did not satisfy the mandate of s.27 of
the Evidence Act, not sustainable - Further, the Doctor gave
statement tha(the injury caused upon the victim could have
been caused by the sickle so recovered - The incident clearly
reflected upon the motive of the appellant - Earlier episode
H
668
LAUT KUMAR YADAV @ KURI v. STATE OF UTTAR
669
PRADESH
of eve teasing of the girl indicates that the appellant wanted A
sex with her and made forcible attempt to rape her and when
the girl resisted, it enraged and provoked him to eventually
commit the heinous act of murder - No evidence to suggest
that PW1 had any enmity or grudge with anyone who may be
suspected to have committed the murder -
All the
B
circumstances proved that it was nobody else but the
appellant who attempted to commit rape and murdered the
daughter of PW1 :.. Conviction of appellant accordingly
affirmed.
Sentence I Sentencing - Murder - Attempt to rape -
Accused-appellant attempted to commit rape and murdered
an 18 year old girl - Imposition of death sentence upon
appellant - Sustainability - Held: Circumstantial evidence led
c
to only one conclusion that appellant attempted to commit
rape and because of resistance, committed murder of the girl D
- Appellant was young i.e. aged about 21 years at the time
of offence - He had no criminal antecedents - Need to
balance the mitigating circumstances against the need for
imposition of capital punishment - Considering the age of
appellant, possibility of reforming him not ruled out - He could
E
not be termed as social menace - Further, the case not falling
under the "rarest of rare" category - Death sentence imposed
upon the appellant commuted to life imprisonment - Penal
Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 376 rlw s. 511.
F
The prosecution case was that the· appellant made
; attempt to commit rape on the 18 year old daughter of
PW1 and murdered her. The prosecution relied upon four
· pieces of circumstantial evidence, a) sniffer dog- tracking
evidence, b) recovery of sickle i.e. the weapon used by G
the appellant to cut the neck of the girl, c) recovery of
1 clothes of the appellant and d) past conduct of the
. appellant pertaining to eve teasing of the deceased girl.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302
IPC and also under Section 376 read with Section 511
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 8 S.C.R.
A
IPC. The appellant was sentenced to death. The
conviction as well as the death sentence imposed upon
the appellant was affirmed by the High Court.
In the instant appeal, the appellant, inter alia, made
8
the following submissions: (i) that the prosecution failed
to produce any witness to prove the very factum of the
registration of the FIR and irrespective of the same it was
ante-timed; (ii)that PW-1 was a highly interested witness
and entered into the witness box only for achieving the
conviction of appellant; (iii) that PW-9, produced to prove
C recovery memo, was not an independent but an
interestExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.