Birju V/s State of M . P

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2014-02-14
Case No: 1352-1353 OF 2012
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: K.S. Radhakrishnan and Vikramajit Sen
Subject: Criminal Law-Capital Punishment
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Section: rms Act 1959 - Section 25 Arms Act 1959 - Section 27 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 327 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 398 Probation of Offenders Act 1958 - Section 3 Probat
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: Rana Ranjit Singh (P) & C.D. Singh and Anshuman Shrivastava (R)
State of Appellant(s): Madhya Pradesh
History of Case No: rder dated 28.06.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Crl. Death Ref. No. 1 of 2010 and Crl. Appeal No. 187 of 2010
Equal Citation Details :

2014 ALLMR (Cri)1090, I(2014)CCR502 (SC), 2014(1)MLJ(Crl)634, 2014(1)RCR(Criminal) 959, 2014(2) SCALE 293

Case Note / Description :

Appellant, submitted that the case on hand was not the one which falls in the category of "rarest of rare" warranting capital punishment and further there was no intention to kill - Whether the present case would fall under the category of "rarest of rare", warranting the death sentence - Held, even if the crime test and criminal test have been fully satisfied, to award the death sentence, the prosecution has to satisfy the R-R Test - One of the factors which weighed with the trial court as well as the High Court to award death sentence to the accused was his criminal antecedents - One of the factors which weighed with the High Court to affirm the death sentence was that the accused was charge-sheeted for commissioning of 24 criminal cases, out of which three were under Section 302 IPC and two were under Section 307 IPC, consequently, the Court held that there was no probability that the accused would not commit the act of violence in future and his presence would be a continuing threat to the society - No materials were produced to show that the accused stood convicted in any of those cases - Accused was only charge-sheeted and not convicted, hence, that factor was not a relevant factor to be taken note of while applying the R-R test so as to award capital punishment - Accused in the present case had the full knowledge i.e., if he fires the shot on the temporal area, that is between the forehead and the ear, it would result in death of the child of one year who was in the arms of PW1 - Appellant had taken out the pistol and fired at the right temporal area of the child, as retaliation of not meeting with his demand and there was nothing to show that, at the time of the incident, he was under the influence of liquor - Consequently, while conviction was affirmed it was held that the present was not a rarest of rare case, warranting capital punishment - Death sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was set aside and conviction was converted into imprisonment for life. 

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)