LexPRAJEET KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 969 PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH A v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No.1621 of 2007) APRIL 2, 2008 B [P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Brutal murder of 3 innocent defenceless children -Also injury to parents and another child - Conviction under s. 302 and award of death sentence - c Justification of - Held: Justified as evidence of eyewitnesses cogent and point to the guilt of accused - They were residing in the house where incident happened and therefore their presence at the time of incident cannot be ruled out - These witnesses were direct relations of deceased children and thus D ". plea of false implication of accused leaving actual culprit is highly improbable and unacceptable - Punishment of death sentence appropriate as case falls in category of 'rarest of rare cases' - The act was diabolic of superlative degree in conception and cruel in execution and would not fall within E any comprehension of basic humanness which cannot be said to be amenable for any reformation - Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence. The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant was friend of son of informant (PW-3) and was living in F ~, their house for four years prior to the date of incident and was also taking meals for which he was paying Rs.500/- p.m. For several months he did not pay the dues and owed Rs.4000/- as rent and food for which PW-3 was making regular demands. In the afternoon of 18th April, G 1988, father, brother and a relative of the accused- appellant came to the residence of PW-1, at about half past ,; four and enquired about PW-3. At that time PW-3 had gone to the market. After dinner, the informant and his wife went 969 H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. ' A to sleep in their room which was on the third floor of the house. The accused also went to sleep in the adjoining room on the third floor. All the children of the informant were sleeping on the second floor. At night, the informant and his wife heard the noise of crying from the second B' floor and they thought that the children were quarrelling. Both of them came down and saw that the accused murdered their younger son with a dab (dagger like weapon). When the accused saw the informant and his wife, he caused injury to them and also gave fatal blow to C their elder son, daughter and niece using the same dab. The Sessions Court found him guilty of the offence under s.302, IPC and sentenced him to death penalty. He was also found guilty of the offence under s.307, IPC. However, as the extreme penalty of death was imposed D on the accused-appellant, the Sessions Court did not impose a separate sentence under s.307, IPC. The High Court accepted the death reference and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-appellant. Hence the present appeal. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The evidence of the three eye-witnesses is cogent and points to the guilt of the accused-appellant. They were injured in the same incident wherein the three F persons were killed. They were residing in the house where the incident happened and their presence at the time of the commission of crime cannot be doubted. The evidence of the informant-PW3 is supported by the First Information Report. The sti;ltements of the witnesses G implicating the accused-appellant in the commission of crime and the injuries caused to them and the deceased persons are fully supported by the medical evidence. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 having been the residents of the same house, their presence at the place of occurrence in H the dead hours of night and they having witnessed the • PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 971 incident, cannot be ruled out. These witnesses are close A and direct relations of the deceased children and, therefore, implicating a false person, leaving out the actual culprit, is highly improbable and unacceptable. These witnesses corroborate each other in the material particulars and the manner in which the incident B happened. PW-3 and PW-2 at the relevant time were in their room on the third floor and came down on hearing the noise to the second floor where they watched the drastic act being committed. When they tried to intervene, they were also attacked. PW-1 was in the adjoining room c where the incident happened and he came to the place of incident immediately after hearing the noise. Nothing has been brought about in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.