LexRAM DEO PRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 108
RAM DEO PRP,SAD
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
{Criminal Appeal No.1~•54 of 2012)
APRIL 11, 2013
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376 and 302 - Rape and murder
of 4 years old child - Conviction and death sentence by
c courts below - On appeal, held: It is established that child was
in possession of the accused soon after she was sexually
abused - Therefore, presumption is invoked against the
accused for causing the injuries on private parts of the victim
leading to her death - Since the accused failed to rebut this
0
presumption, his conviction is justified - However, in view of
the deficiencies in the investigation, absence of forensic
evidence, lapses in trial proceedings and that the accused
had not sufficient resources to get /1imself defended upto his
satisfaction, death sentence is conw3rted to life imprisonment,
E which would be not less than 18 years - His case for remission
would be considered only after 18 years of imprisonment -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.114 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Remission of sentence.
Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Imposition -
F Criteria - Held: Nature of offence a·lone may not in all cases
be the determining factor for bringing the case in the 'rarest
of rare' category to impose death penalty- Quality of evidence
is also a relevant factor.
G
H
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having raped
and the killed a 4 years old child. The prosecution case
was that the accused lifted the child from her house and
thereafter, subjected her to sexual abuse. When he was
seen by the villagers carrying the child, he threw the child
108
RAM DEO PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR
109
in the field and fled away. Charge was framed against him
A
u/ss. 376 and 302 IPC. Trial Court convicted him for the
offences charged and awarded death sentence. The trial
court referred the case to High Court for confirmation of
death sentence. The accused did not prefer any appeal.
High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence.
B
Jail petition was sent to this Court.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The first part of the prosecution case i.e.
when the victim/deceased was lifted from the verandah
C
of her house and before she was subjected to the sexual
abuse, did not form part of the charge. Further, this part
of the prosecution case was based on the solitary
evidence of PW1 and as he turned hostile, this part of the
case falls to the ground. However, the second part of the
D
case i.e. the case, after the victim child was subjected to
sexual abuse and brutality, is fully established by the
evidences of PW.1 and PW.3. What is thus established
against the appellant is that he was seen carrying the
child soon after she was sexually abused and brutalized
E
in the most cruel manner and on seeing the group of
villagers coming after him, he threw down the child in the
wheat field and ran away. It was, therefore, for him to
explain how the child came in his possession and in the
absence of any explanation the court would be fully
justified in invoking section 114 of the Evidence Act and
to hold him guilty of causing the injuries to her private
parts leading to her death. No exception can, therefore,
be taken to the appellant's conviction under sections 376
and 302 IPC. [Para 35 and 36] [122-C-F]
2.1. The offence committed by the appellant is·
heinous and revolting but the nature of the offence alone
may not in all cases be the determining factor for bringing
the case in the "rarest of rare" category and to impose
F
G
H
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the ultimate and irreversible punishment of death. [Para
39] [123-C]
B
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra
(2012) 4 SCC 37: 2012 (2) SCR 225 - distinguished.
2.2. There are deficiencies in the investigation. No
attempt was made to find out the spot where the child
was sexually abused and brutalized and where it might
have been possible to find some blood or some other
article that could have thrown any light on the identity of
C the offender. Apart from the post-mortem report there is
no medical evidence. There is not a scrap of forensic
evidence of any kind. Even the torch in the light of which
the appellant is said to have been identified in the cold
wintry and foggy night was not produced before the
D court. There are also lapses in the trial proceedings in the
framing of the cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.