In the case of – Arvind Singh versus The State of Maharashtra, the appeals were directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) on 5th May, 2016 whereby the appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction was dismissed by confirming the death sentence imposed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
On 24th April’2020, Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Hemant Gupta converted death sentence into life imprisonment and ruled that life imprisonment is a rule and death penalty is an exception
FACTS:
A boy named Yug, aged 8 years went missing from his apartment on 1st September’2014. Dr. Chandak (father of Yug) stated that, on 1st September, 2014, when he was present with his wife at the hospital, she told him that their driver Raju Tote had informed her on the phone that their son went along with somebody. Dr. Chandak (PW-1) came home and started inquiring about his son Yug. After inquiring from the watchman of the society he came to know that his son, went with unknown, fair complexioned boy, aged about 20-25 years, wearing a red half sleeves T-shirt, full white pants with a white handkerchief wrapped around his face, came to him, riding a black scooty and those unknown boy where wearing same uniform as of it’s clinic Thereafter, he saw Yug going towards Chhapru Nagar Chowk along with the boy on his scooty.
ACTION TAKEN BY POLICE:
After receiving the statements from the witnesses, FIR No. 287 of 2014 was registered for an offence under Section 363 IPC but after the information of kidnapping and death was received, offences under Section 364A and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were added. On the basis of such statement received in the Police Station, The initial investigation was taken over by N.T. Gosawi (PW-25) and later taken over by S.K. Jaiswal (PW-50). On completion of the investigation, including the recovery of dead body, the prosecution presented a charge sheet for the trial of the accused.
TRIAL COURT FINDINGS:
The learned trial court examined the prosecution evidence under the following heads:
“A) Ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses relating to kidnapping/abduction of victim-Yug by the accused,
B) The theory of doctrine of last seen together of victim Yug in the company of accused,
C) The evidence of T.I. parade,
D) The evidence of CCTV footage,
E) The evidence of demand of ransom from the accused,
F) The evidence of recovery of dead body as well as incriminating articles etc. u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act,
G) The circumstances of motive, preparation and previous conduct of the accused u/s. 8 of the Evidence Act,
H) The evidence of criminal conspiracy,
I) The evidence of CDR & SDR of the relevant telephonic conversation,
J) Presumption of factum of murder of victim-Yug on the part of accused,
K) The C.A. report/DNA report inculpatory in nature.”
TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
The learned trial court convicted A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 364A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. By a subsequent order, A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to death for the offences punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on both offences. The learned trial court also convicted A-1 and A-2 for offences punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and for an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC, A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
IT IS THE SAID ORDER OF THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT.
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court after listening both parties ruled that:
- The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
- Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the “offender” also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the “crime”.
- Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception.
Apex Court Bench arrived at the conclusion stated that the motive of the accused to take life was to become rich by not doing hard work but by demanding ransom after kidnapping a young, innocent boy of 8 years. Thus, having considered all the circumstances and facts on record, we are of the considered view that the present case falls short of the “rarest of rare” cases where a death sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the appellants.
Bench while converting Death Penalty into life imprisonment further observed and directed that the life means till the end of the life with the further observation and direction that there shall not be any remission till the accused completes 25 years of imprisonment.
The Judgment and Order passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364A read with Section 34 IPC was confirmed by Supreme Court. However, the death sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, is converted into the life imprisonment.
Bench thus proceeded to dismiss the appeal except modification in respect of sentence.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
