LexVIKRAM SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2010] 2 S.C.R. 22 VIKRAM SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1396-1397 of 2008) JANUARY 25, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c ss. 302, 364A, 201 and 120-8 - Kidnapping for ransom - Poisoning young boy to death - Conviction ulss. 302, 364A, 201 and 120-8 and award of death sentence by courts below - Propriety of - Held: Kidnapping must be dealt with in the harshest possible manner and obligation rests on courts too 0 - On facts, boy was not only kidnapped for ransom but was murdered in the process - Eye witness to the kidnapping by two accused - Witnesses not chance witnesses - Medical evidence that the cause of death was over dose of chloroform and pentazocine - Evidence to the effect that conspiracy hatched between accused - Attempt by lady accused to E destroy the evidence relating to kidnapping - Recovery of various articles including telephone call details, medical equipment and car used as also dead body of deceased - Thus, award of death sentence to two accused upheld - However, death sentence awarded to lady accused, commuted F to life imprisonment as she apparently acted under pressure of her husband. s. 364-A - Provision for death or life imprisonment for offences relating to kidnapping - Purpose of amendment - G Held: Is to act as a deterrent on such offenders due to increasing number of such cases and also in cases where kidnapping does not result in the death of the victim. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 27 - Scope and applicability of - H 22 VIKRAM SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 23 Held: s. 27 reveaLs that a 'person must be accused of any A offence' and that he must be 'in the custody of a police officer' and it is not essential that such an accused must be under formal arrest - Accused taken in custody day before the formal arrest, has no adverse effect on recoveries made on disclosure statement, when accused were taken in custody. B Evidence:. Circumstantial evidence vis-s-vis eye witness account - Evaluation of - Standard to be applied - Explained. Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence - Award of - Validity and propriety of. C According to the prosecution case, the two appellants-VS and JS, kidnapped AV-a school boy aged 16 years from his school in the car for ransom. During the negotiations, the kidnappers administered heavy o doses of chloroform and fortwin injections to the boy which resulted in his death. The appellants-VS and JS had attempted to run away and the appellant S-wife of JS, was in the process of destroying the evidence, when they were apprehended by the police. The appellant VS was E known to the family of the deceased. The trial court convicted the appellants for offences punishable u/ss. 302, 364A, 201 and 120-8 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to death. The High Court upheld the order of death sentence. Hence the present appeals. F Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In the instant case, not only was the deceased-young boy kidnapped for ransom which acts would by itself attract the death penalty but he was G murdered in the process. There is the direct and eye witness evidence of PW-BS who had seen VS and JS (whom he knew earlier) kidnapping AV from outside the school. The balance sheet has been drawn up by the High Court and the same is accepted. However, there is H 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A some reason in favouring S-the lady appellant, wife of JS. Keeping in view the overall picture and the fact that at the time when AV was kidnapped from outside the School, S was not present and that she may have got embroiled in the conspiracy with her husband a13d VS on account B of having come under their pressure, some leniency must be shown to her. Therefore, regarding S, her death sentence ought to be converted into one of life. [Paras 20, 26, 29 and 30] [55-H; 56-A; 67-F-G-H; 64-D] C 2.1. Regarding the submission that it was doubtful as to whether the Alto belonging to NK had actually been used, it is.true that the colour of the car is said to be Miami Gold but it is significant that in the cross-examination of all the witnesses and in particular PW3, PW13 and PW19 w~o had deposed that the colour was silver grey not a D single question had been put as to the fact that the car was gold in colour and not grey. The only inference that can flow from the cross-examination is that "Miami Gold" was in fact a trade name
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.