LexSTATE OF U.P. versus MUNESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 545
STATE OF U.P.
v.
MUNESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2007)
OCTOBER 12, 2012
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 376 - Rape and murder
of minor girl - Conviction of respondent-accused by trial court
A
B
- Set aside by High Court - Justification - Held: Not justified
C
-
Two independent witnesses - PWs 2 and 3 actually
witnessed the occurrence - High Court committed error in
rejecting their evidence - Statement of PW1- the father of the
victim corroborated with the statements made by PW2 and
PW3 - Delay in lodging FIR was properly explained by PW1 o
- Statement of PW4(doctor), who conducted post-. :1ortem,
fully supported the case of the prosecution that the deceased
was raped before strangulation - ProsecuJion story fully
corroborated with the medical evidence on record - Act of
respondent repels moral conscience as he chose a 11 year
E
girl to satisfy his lust and subsequently murdered her -
Conviction restored - RI for life imposed.
Evidence - Witness - Statement before Investigating
Officer and before the Court - Contradictions - Appreciation
- Rape and murder of minor girl - Conviction of respondent-
accused - Set aside by High Court on the ground that there
were some contradictions between the statements made by
PWs 2 and 3 before the Investigating Officer u/s.161 CrPC
and that made by them before the court - Held: PWs 2 and
F
3 were independent eye-witnesses who actually witnessed the
G
occurrence - High Court committed error in rejecting their
evidence - The contradictions were minor and did not affect
the prosecution case - The statement before the Investigating
545
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A Officer and that before the Court were made at different
intervals of time and there was bound to be some variance
in the statements - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 376.
FIR - Delay in lodging of FIR - Whether reasonable and
8 explained - Rape and murder of minor girl -
Victim found
lying dead in a naked condition - Incident occurred at 4.30
p.m. - Complaint made at 11.05 p.m. on the same day -
Distance of 2 Kms. between the place of incident and the
police station - Held: PW-1, father of the victim is a villager
C and on hearing the incident through PWs 2 and 3, he rushed
to the spot, made arrangements to cover the body of his
daughter, searched for some time to trace the accused, and
thereafter, reached the Police Station - Considering the entire
incident as a whole, it cannot be said that there was any
unreasonable and unexplained delay which went to the root
D of the prosecution case - The delay was properly explained
by PW-1, even otherwise, the same could not be construed
as abnormal as erroneously observed by the High Court -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.161.
E
FIR - Nature of - Held: FIR is not an,encyclopedia - It
is just an intimation of the occurrence of an incident and it
need not contain all the facts related to the incident in
question.
Crimes against Women - Devastating increase in rape
F cases and cases relating to crime against women - Primary
concern both at national and international level - Although
the statutory provisions provide strict penal action against
such offenders, it is for the Courts to ultimately decide whether
such incident has occurred or not -
The Courts should be
G more cautious in appreciating the evidence and the accused
should not be left scot-free merely on flimsy grounds.
According to the prosecution, the 11 year old
daughter of PW-1 was raped and murdered by the
H respondent when she had gone alone from her house to
STATE OF U.P. v. MUNESH
547
prepare cow-dung cakes. It was alleged that PW-2 and
A
PW-3, who were passing through their fields at a short
distance, saw the respondent strangulating the victim
with a chunni ('dupatta') and on seeing them, the
respondent ran away. The victim was subsequently
found lying dead in a naked condition. PW-2 and 3
8
informed PW-1 about the said incident whereafter PW-1
lodged FIR. The trial court convicted the respondent
under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and sentenced him to
death. In appeal, the High Court disbelieved the
statements of PW-2 and PW-3 on the ground that there C
were some contradictions between the statements made
under Section 161 CrPC and in their evidence before the
court and further holding that there was delay in lodging
of the FIR, it acquitted the respondeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.