LexRAJ KUMAR versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 212 A RAJ KUMAR B v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1419-1420 of 2013) FEBRUARY 25, 2014 [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.) PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 302, 376, 450 - Rape and murder of 14 years old girl - Accused-appellant on visiting c terms with the family of the victim-deceased, was asked to sleep in their house on the fateful night by the parents of the deceased as they had to irrigate fields at night and the children would be alone - Appellant committed rape on the deceased and then caused grievous injuries resulting in her 0 death - Conviction and death sentence by courts below -Held: Courts below rightly drew adverse inference against appellant - He did not take any defence or furnish any explanation as to any of the incriminating material placed by the trial court - He also did not deny his presence in the house on that night E - When the children were left in the custody of the appellant, he was bound to explain as to under what circumstances girl died - Incident witnessed by brother of the deceased - Also, no case of false implication was made out - In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below, F particularly in respect of the DNA report to the extent that the semen of appellant was found in the vagina swab of the deceased and that she died of asphyxia caused by strangulation, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below affirmed - Order of conviction not interfered with. G WITNESS: Child witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age or extreme old age or disease or because of H 212 RAJKUMAR v. STATE OF M.P. 213 his mental or physical condition - The evidence· of a child A witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him - In the instant case, the eye-witness, was a child aged 10 years at the time of incident - Courts below found him worth reliance as he understood the B questions put to him and he was able to answer the same - No cogent reason to take a view contrary to the same. SENTENCE/SENTENCING: Death sentence - Held: The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in c gravest cases of extreme culpability - Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the offender a/so require to be taken into consideration alongwith the circumstances of the crime for the reason that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception - The penalty of death 0 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 - In the instant case, appellant had committed a heinous crime and raped an innocent, helpless and defenceless minor girl who was in his custody - He is E liable to be punished severely but it is not a case which falls within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases - Hence, the death sentence is set aside and life imprisonment is awarded - The appellant to serve a minimum of 35 years in jail without remission, before consideration of his case for pre-mature F release. The prosecution case was that on the fateful night, the appellant aged 32 years was asked by the father of the victim-deceased to stay at his house with his four G children as he and his wife had to irrigate the land at night. The appellant was on visiting terms with the family and the children used to call him mama. On that night, the appellant consumed liquor and asked the deceased aged 14 years to sleep else where and the appellant slept with H 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A her other siblings. Around midnight, he committed rape on the deceased and then killed her by causing some grievous injuries. The incident was witnessed by PW-2, the brother of the deceased but out of fear he could not raise his voice. He narrated the incident to his parents in B the morning when they came back home. The case was registered against the appellant under Sections 302, 376 and 450, IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant under . the said offences and awarded death sentence. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the death sentence. c Hence the appeal. Dispos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.