LexRAMESH versus STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 7 S.C.R. 956 RAMESH v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2010) . AUGUST 1, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 -· ss. 376, 302 and 201 - Rape and murder - Prosecution case that accused committed rape of C 8 year old girl and she died due to neurogenic shock - On the basis of evidence on record, accused convicted uls. 376, 302 and 201 and sentenced accordingly - Justification of - Held: Order passed by the courts below does not call for interference - Non-mentioning of the name of the accused o in the initial FIR not fatal to the prosecution case - Last seen theory proved - Confessional statement of the accused corroborated - Circumstantial evidence indicate towards th,e guilt of the accused and the evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence E - Last seen theory. According to the prosecution case, the appellant committed rape of an 8 year old girl and due to neurogenic shock, the girl died. FIR was lodged. Investigations were carried out. The appellant was F arrested. The appellant made confessional statement voluntarily and the shawl worn by the child at the time of occurrence was recovered. The trial court on basis of evidence on record convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced accor<lingly, G . All sentences were to run concurrently. The High Court upheld the order passed by the trial court. Hence, the instant appeal. The questions which arose for consideration in the H 956 RAMESH v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 957 POLICE instant case are whether the absence of name of the A accused in the FIR points towards the innocence of the accused and entitles him for acquittal; whether the instant case is a fit case to apply the last seen theory to establish the guilt of the accused; and whether the circumstantial evidence in the present case indicate B towards the guilt of the accused. and whether these evidences are sufficient to establish the guilt pf the. accused? Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court was correct in upholding the decision of the Sessions Judge in convicting the accused of ·rape and murder of the deceased child. Therefore, the decision of the High Court is upheld and c the charges under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC are D proved against the appellant.· His sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 376, life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and on default, one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 and also E 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and on default, rigorous imprisonment of six months under section 201 of IPC is confirmed. All sentences would run concurrently. [Para 20] [977-B-D] F 2.1. It was submitted by the appellant/accused that his name did not appear for the first time in the FIR and mention of his name was only an improvement of the first version. It has been mentioned by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the FIR initially did not mention the name of the accused and on the other hand, PW-1, G father of the deceased child had suspected one of his relatives for the offence. It was however, revealed after investigation that it was the accused who committed the · act and the police in fact was proceeding in the right path. The involvement of the accused was further corroborated H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. A by the recovery of the shawl of the deceased on the basis of the confession of the accused which was made in the presence of witnesses. The decision of the High Court that non-mentioning of the name in the initial FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution is concurred with. B Therefore, the submission of the appellant that since his name did not appear in the FIR, he is entitled to acquittal, is not maintainable. [Para 15] [971-F-H; 973-E-F] Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana 2012 (4) SCR 408 c : (2012) 6 sec 204 - referred to. 2.2. It was the case of the prosecution that P.W. 3, the grandmother of the accused had sent the child to see whether the floor was grinded. However, when the child did not return for some time, P.W. 3 went home. At this D juncture, there is evidence through PW 5 and PW 12 who were employees under the accused that the accused took the child to the backyard while he unusuaUy per
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.