LexNEEL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2012] 5 S.C.R. 696 NEEL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2010) MAY 7, 2012 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 376(2)(f) and 201 - Rape C and murder -Allegation that appellant raped his 4 year old daughter and thereafter murdered her- FIR lodged by victim's mother (i.e. appellant's wife) -Trial court enumerated number of incriminating circumstances against the appellant and convicted him - High Court affirmed the conviction - On D appeal, held: Appellant was guardian of the child and was duty bound to safeguard the victim - He kept mum and did not give any information to any law enforcing agency or even to the mother of the victim - If somebody else would have committed the offence it was but natural that appellant would have taken E steps to initiate legal action to find out the culprit - Silence on his part in spite of such grave harm to his daughter was again a very strong incriminating circumstance against him - The provisions of s. 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 were fully applicable in this case - A shirt and pant belonging to F appellant recovered on the basis of his disclosure statement and taken into possession were sent to the FSL for examination - Report' of FSL showed that shirt and pant of the appellant were stained with blood - However, no explanation was given by appellant as to how the blood was present on G his clothes - Recovery of incriminating material at his disclosure statemimt, duly proved, was a very positive circumstance against him - No cogent reason to take a view different from the vi1~w taken by the courts below - Conviction accordingly upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106. H 696 NEEL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF 697 HARYANA Sentence I Sentencing - Father (appellant) raping and A murdering his 4 year old daughter - Conviction of appellant ulss. 302, 376(2)(f) and 201 /PC and death sentence imposed by Courts below - Conviction upheld by Supreme Court - Question regarding imposition of death sentence on appellant - Held: So far as the sentence part is concerned, the case B does not fall within the rarest of rare cases - But, considering the nature of offence, age and relationship of the victim with the appellant and gravity of injuries caused to her, appellant cannot be awarded a lenient punishment - In the facts and circumstances of the case, death sentence set aside and life c imprisonment imposed, however, appellant directed to serve a minimum of 30 years in jail without remissions, before consideration of his case for pre-mature release - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 376(2)(f) and 201. Sentence I Sentencing - Death sentence - When D warranted - Held: The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability - Before opting for death penalty the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken into consideration alongwith the circumstances of the crime for the reason that life E imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception - The penalty of death sentence may be warranted only in a case where the court comes to the conclusion that imposition of life imprisonment is totally inadequate having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime - The balance sheet of F aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before option is exercised - For awarding the death sentence, there G must be existence of aggravating circumstances and the consequential absence of mitigating circumstances - As to whether death sentence should be awarded, would depend upon the factual scenario of the case in hand. H 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - Statement under - Duty of accused - Held: It is the duty of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance proved against him while making a statement u/s.313 CrPC - Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance is an s additional link in the chain of circumstances to sustain the charges against him. The prosecution c:ase was that the appellant raped his 4 year old daughter and thereafter killed her. The appellant's wife (PW.3) lodged the FIR giving the complet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.