STATE OF U.P. versus OM PRAKASH

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 667 · Decided: 13-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 1 S.C.R. 667 
STATE OF U.P. 
V. 
OM PRAKASH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2006) 
JANUARY 13, 2015 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 3021149 - Brutal murder of 5 
persons and grievous injury by sharp edged weapons/lathis 
C 
to 7 persons - All the accused related to each other heavily 
armed with deadly weapons attacked the victims to retaliate 
their defeat in the village elections - When the victims tried 
to save themselves by taking shelter in a hut, it was set on 
fire - Victims who tried to run away were also assaulted -
D 
Incident occurred at 5 P.M. in sufficient light - Evidence of 
injured eye witnesses was corroborated by independent 
witness and medical evidence - Presence of witnesses and 
identification of accused by victims not disputed - The nature 
of injuries and the recovery of weapons from the accused 
showed that it was a massive untoward incident and the 
accused actively participated in the crime - Prosecution 
proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt -
Conviction upheld - As regards sentence, the accused were 
on a rampage and running berserk with the only sense 
triggered by the thrust of avenge - The brutality of the murder 
must be seen along with all mitigating factors - Though the 
incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution 
unerringly led to the guilt of the appellant but after balancing 
E 
F 
all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case, 
G 
the case does not fall under the category of the rarest of the 
rare cases -
There is hope for their reformation and 
rehabilitation - Also, the repetition of such criminal acts at 
their hands making the society further vulnerable is also not 
667 
H 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
apparent - Considering the nature of offence, the High Cowt 
was right in modifying the death sentence awarded by the trial 
coutt to that of imprisonment for life - Sentence/Sentencing. 
Dismissing the appeals of the State and the accused, 
8 
the Court 
HELD: 1. The criminal intention of the accused was 
proved beyond reasonable doubt. When wife of accused 
No. 7 fought the election of Gram Pradhan in which she 
lost, the group of accused persons alleged that no voting 
C 
has been made by the victim side in favour of wife of 
accused No. 7 and threatened the victim side with dire 
consequences. Accordingly, to take revenge of that 
failure in elections, the accused party felt it a suitable 
occasion to attack the complainant party on the day of 
o Hali, in which process five innocent persons were done 
to death mercilessly besides injuring several others. The 
depositions of prosecution witnesses showed accused 
No. 7 was throughout instigating the accused party to 
assault the victim party, other accused participated in the 
E 
F 
crime. When the helpless victims took shelter in a Kothari 
(small room), the accused, in pursuit of their avenge, tried 
to cut the doors of Kothari and having failed to do so, 
they poured kerosene oil on the chappar and burnt the 
Kothari leading to the burnt injuries and death of victims. 
The nature of injuries and the recovery of weapons from 
the accused make it clear that it was a massive untoward 
incident and the accused had actively participated in the 
crime. All the accused were related to each other forming 
a strong group heavily armed with deadly weapons and 
G attacked the victims to retaliate their defeat in the village 
elections. The plea taken by the accused that it is difficult 
to identify the accused at the spot when there was 
participation of about 35 persons in the crime as alleged, 
cannot be accepted for the reason that admittedly the 
incident occurred at 5.00 p.m. in the month of March in 
H sufficient light and undisputedly, the accused and the 
STATE OF U.P. v. OM PRAKASH 
669 
victims knew each other very well. PW1, PW2, PW4 were 
A 
injured eyewitnesses whose depositions were 
corroborated with the evidence of PW3, another 
independent eyewitness. These witnesses in clear and 
categorical terms explained the way in which the accused 
persons committed the crime. Thus the presence of 
8 
witnesses at the time of occurrence and identification of 
accused by the victims cannot be disputed. The recovery 
of deadly weapons from the possession of the accused 
strongly affirmed the role played by each of them in the 
deadly act. Therefore, the prosecution proved the guilt of C 
the accused beyond all reasonab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.