LexOMA @ OMPRAKASH AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 740 A OMA @ OMPRAKASH AND ANR. B v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2007) DECEMBER 11, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 395, 396 and 397 - Prosecution under - Offences committed by the two appellants-accused c with the nine absconding accused - Arrest of the appellants (A 1 and A2) after 10 years in some other case - Conviction by trial court and award of death sentence - High Court upheld conviction, but altered the sentence to life imprisonment - The appeal to this Court abated against A 1 due to his rJeath - D Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as A2 is concerned - No Tl Parade was conducted in respect of A2 and the witnesses could not properly identify him in the court - The recovery of the weapon stated to be at the instance of A2 cannot be connected to the crime - Hence E his conviction and sentence not correct. Sentence/Sentencing - Award of death sentence - Propriety of - Held: Clear reasoning and analysis are the basic requirements in a judicial decision - Criminal courts to decide the cases, examining the relevant facts and evidence F placed before them, applying binding precedents - Opinions of Judges or academicians, predilection, fondness, inclination, proclivity on any subject, however eminent they are, shall not influence a decision making process - The manner in which death sentence was awarded in the instant G case, is in complete disregard of the tests laid down by Supreme Court in awarding death sentence -The special reasons which weighed with the trial court to award the death sentence exposes the ignorance of the trial Judge of the H criminal jurisprudence of India - He needs fine tuning and 740 OMA @ OMPRAKASH AND ANR. v. STATE OF 741 TAMIL NADU proper training - National Judicial Academy and State Judicial A Academies should educate the judicial officers in this regard so that they do not commit such serious e"ors in future - Judgment. The prosecution case was that the appellants and 8 nine other absconding accused entered the house of PW 2, armed with iron rods, with the intention of committing burglary. In the process of burglary, they killed husband of PW2, by strangulating him with a rope and also assaulted PW2, PWS, PW6 and PW1 with iron rod. C Appellants (A1 and A2) were apprehended after a period of ten years, in connection with some other case and nine other accused persons are still absconding. An identification parade was conducted in respect of A1, but not in respect of A-2. Pursuant to a disclosure made by A-2, the iron rod used 1 O years back, was recovered. The D trial court found them guilty u/ss. 395, 396 and 397 IPC and sentenced them to death for offences committed u/ s. 396 IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence u/s. 396 IPC to that of life imprisonment. During pendency of the appeal before this E Court, A-1 died and the appeal against him abated. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: F Per K.S. Radhakrishnan: 1.1 The prosecution could not establish the guilt of the second accused beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, therefore, committed a gross error in awarding life G sentence to A2. The conviction and sentence awarded to A-2 is set aside. [Paras 38 and 39) [764-E-F] 1.2 In the instant case, FIR was registered against unknown persons. A2 was arrested after ten years in H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A connection with some other crime. PW1 and PW2 could not have identified A2 in the court at that distance of time. They were guided by the photographs repeatedly shown by the police. Evidently, the witnesses did not know the accused earlier, hence the accused could be identified B only through a test identification parade which was not done in this case, so far as A-2 is concerned. A-2 was not named in the FIR, nor any identification parade was conducted to identify him by the witnesses. It is rather impossible to identify the accused person when he is c produced for the first time in the court i.e. after ten years since he was unknown to the witnesses. It is a glaring defect which goes to the root of the case since none of the witnesses had properly identified the accused. [Paras 30, 31 and 35] [761-F-H; 763-D-E] D Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 4 SCC 494: 1998 (2) SCR 734; Ravindra Alias Ravi Bansi Gohar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.