LexSAHIB HUSSAIN @ SAHIB JAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 2 S.C.R. 1019 SAHIB HUSSAIN @ SAHIB JAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2083-2084 of 2008) APRIL 18, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B s.302- Accused committing 5 murders including of three C children - Circumstantial evidence - Held: The deaths established as homicidal in nature, evidence of witnesses, extra-judicial confession, absconding of accused, his conduct at the time of his a"est, recoveries of incriminating articles made pursuant to disclosure statement, the motive and the 0 statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC, all connect him to the crime and establish his guilt - Judgment of High Court affirming the conviction and commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for 20 years with a further direction that accused be not granted any remission meanwhile, upheld - Sentence/Sentencing - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence E - Extra - judicial confession. SENTENCE/SENTENCING: Sentence for a fixed term with a further embargo on F remissions - Death sentence awarded by trial court to accused found guilty of causing death of five persons including of three children - Commuted by High Court to imprisonment for 20 years with a further direction that accused be not granted any remissions till then - Held: The decision G of High Courf cannot be faulted with in the light of well reasoned judgments of Supreme Court over a decade - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. 1019 H 1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A The appellant was prosecuted for causing death of 5 persons including three children. The prosecution case was that on 27-10-2006 at 10.30 p.m., PW1 found the appellant talking to PW4 that he had finished 'S' the sister-in-law, three children and one 'MM'. PW1 rushed 8 towards their house and found 'MM' lying in a pool of blood outside the room and the bodies of the three children and 'S' lying inside the rooms. He informed the employer (PW2) over telephone. Subsequently, a written report was handed over to police. 'MM' also on the way C to hospital. The trial court convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to death. The High Court upheld the conviction, but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment for a period of 20 years and further directed that till then the accused should not get the benefit of any remission. D Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that in the incident in question 5 persons died and as per the post mortem E reports, the deaths were due to multiple injuries on various parts of the bodies. It is also not in dispute that there is no direct eye witness to the incident. Even in the absence of eye-witness to the incident, if various circumstances prove that the appellant-accused was F responsible for and involved in the gruesome murders, the decision of the court based on such circumstances cannot be faulted with. [para 6] [1028-B-D] 1.2. The post mortem report, ante mortem injuries noted therein and the evidence of doctors show that all G the five deaths were homicidal in nature. [para 7] [1028-E] 1.3. The entire evidence of PWs 1 and 4, though they did not witness the occurrence, as rightly observed by the High Court, the manner in which they deposed before H the court and the details stated by them are acceptable SAHIB HUSSAIN@ SAHIB JAN v. STATE OF 1021 RAJASTHAN and there is no valid reason to disbelieve their A statements. Their evidence very clearly establishes that the appellant-accused was the person who was involved in the incident occurred. [para 9) (1029-C] 1.4. The extra-judicial confession, though a weak type B of evidence, can form the basis for conviction if the confession made by the accused is voluntary, true and trustworthy and inspires confidence. The appellant- accused mentioned details of the incident to PW-4 and the courts below accepted his version as reliable and C trustworthy. The evidence of PW-4 is reliable, acceptable and inspires confidence. It supports the stand taken by PW-1. It is also on record that PW-4 was the friend of the appellant and they were residing in the same area. In those circumstances, the confession made by the appellant to PW-4 can be acted upon along with. other D material evidence. [para 1 OJ (1029-D-G] 1.5. On the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, a blood stained axe and the clothes worn by him were recovered in the presence of PW-2 and E PW-3.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.