2012ACR2137, AIR2012SC1357, 2013(2)AJR306, 2012CriLJ1898, 2012(2)Crimes146, 2012(2)J.L.J.R.216, 2012-2-LW(Crl)1, 2012MLJ(Crl)683, 2012(2)PLJR338, 2012(3)SCALE234, (2012)4SCC257, 2012(2)UC876

 There was plausible explanation available on record of case file which explained delay in lodging FIR - Statement of sole eye-witness did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity and appeared to be true and correct version of what actually happened at scene of occurrence - Delay, if any, in lodging FIR, stood explained and was, in no way, fatal to case of prosecution - There had to be a very strong and compelling reason for Court to disbelieve an eye-witness - Statement of sole eye-witness did not suffer from any contradictions nor was at variance with case of prosecution - Both, external and internal injuries that deceased suffered as a consequence of rape and strangulation clearly indicated that crime could not have been committed by a single person - Therefore, involvement of two or more persons was most probable and in line with story of prosecution - Cumulative effect of oral/documentary and expert evidence was that prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt - Obligation to put material evidence to Accused under Section 313 of CrPC, was upon Court - One of main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of CrPC was to give an opportunity to Accused to explain circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if Accused so desired - But once he did not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow - Where Accused took benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 of CrPC., in so far as it supported case of prosecution, could be used against him for rendering conviction - Even under latter, he faced consequences in law - In present case, Accused had denied their presence on spot, at time of occurrence - Thus, it was for them to prove that they were not present at place of occurrence and were entitled to plea of alibi - They had miserably failed to establish this fact - Behaviour explained by defence witnesses appeared to be somewhat unnatural in social set up in which Accused, deceased and even some of prosecution witnesses were living - Version put forward by Accused in their statement underhttp://olisindia.in/files/cases/CrPC%201973%20_new.pdf Section 313 of CrPC was unbelievable and unacceptable - There was no cogent evidence on record to support their plea - Prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Accused were guilty of committing offence under Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 of IPC - It was neither possible nor prudent to state any universal formula which would be applicable to all cases of criminology where capital punishment had been prescribed - It would always depend upon facts and circumstances of a given case - Law required Court to record special reasons for awarding such sentence - It was imperative for Court to examine each case on its own facts, in light of enunciated principles - It was only upon application of these principles to facts of a given case that Court could arrive at a final conclusion whether case in hand was one of 'rarest of rare' cases and imposition of death penalty alone would serve ends of justice - Court should examine all or majority of relevant considerations to spell comprehensively special reasons to be recorded in order, as contemplated under Section 354(3) of CrPC - Merely because a crime was heinous per se might not be a sufficient reason for imposition of death penalty without reference to other factors and attendant circumstances -