LexOM PRAKASH @ RAJA versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' OM PRAKASH @ RAJA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL DECEMBER 5, 2002 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B Section 302-Multiple murder-Death sentence-Rarest of rare case- Accused-domestic servant ghastly attacking the entire family of employer- C Committing murder of three out of four inmates of house single handedly with different weapons-Also attempting to murder the fourth inmate-Convicted and sentenced to death-High Court corifirming the same-On appeal, Held: circumstances and events unfolded by the evidence of survivor incompatible with the innocence of accused and murder cleverly pre-planned and committed D in brutal and diabolical manner-Hence conviction and death sentence confirmed. Motive-Held, lack of sufficient motive cannot be the criteria to test conviction, if the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. Appellant was working as domestic servant in the house of retired Brigadier. The Brigadier and his wife decided to dispense with the services E of accused on account of his misbehavior. According to prosecution, the next day accused murdered three members of the family single handedly with different weapons and also attempted to kill the Brigadier's wife-PW F 1 but she had providential escape. Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to death. Appellant filed an appeal. High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that he was roped in on mere suspicion, that G there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect him with the crime; that appellant had no compelling motive to kill his master and his kith and kin; that it would be difficult to believe that accused single handedly killed so many persons at three different places using several 623 H 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A weapons; that more than one person would have been involved in these serial killings; that the version given by informant-PW-I in her deposition is an improvement over the earliest version in the FIR; that the prosecution has apparently not come forward with correct version of the incident; that he was juvenile at the time of commission of crime; and that in any case, death sentence is not warranted. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The circumstances and events unfolded by the evidence of PW-1 clinchingly and unerringly point to the fact that none other than the accused would have killed the husband of PW-1 and are incompatible C with the innocence of accused. Appellant-accused executed his plan to put an end to the lives of the entire family in a calculated manner. First, he directed his attack towards the son of PW-1 who was sleeping so that he would not be able to come to the rescue of others. It was easy for him to kill that sleeping young man. The fact that a stone slab was found on the D body would lead to a reasonable inference that the accused would have hit him on the head with that stone so as to prevent any resistance being offered on hue and cry being raised. Then, he targeted the ladies. When informant's husband returned home, he became the next victim. Thus the contention that it could not have been possible for appellant to single- handedly commit three murders one by one by using different weapons E cannot be accepted. [631-H; 632-A-C] 1.2. The FIR was given to police within one and a half hours after the incident. Informant gave all essential and relevant details of the incident naming the accused as culprit. It cannot be expected of a person F injured and overtaken by grief to give better particulars. The possibility of PW-1 inventing a story at that juncture trying to implicate accused is absolutely ruled out. The contents of FIR, broadly and in material particulars, conform to the version given by PW-I in her deposition. It is also corroborated by PW 4-sweeper who regularly came to the house for cleaning in morning times. He heard the earliest version of the incident G from PW-1 and also noticed the accused running away after scaling the wall. Both the courts believed his evidence. The criticism based on the alleged improbabWties is not justified. Another circulnstance to be borne in mind is that appellant absconded and he was apprehended only after five long years. !632-E-HJ H OM PRAKASH@ RAJA v. STATE OF UTT ARANCHAL 625 1.3. The correctness of convic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.