Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is prima facie material to establish the involvement of the petitioners in activities violating the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The consequences of such violation are extrem..

Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is prima facie material to establish the involvement of the petitioners in activities violating the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The consequences of such violation are extremely serious. The minimum punishment on conviction is 10 years rigorousimprisonment. For more serious activities, the punishment can extend to imprisonment for life, and even to death penalty. Some of the accused are still absconding. Obviously, all the accused are financially well placed. Releasing them from jail at this juncture, when the prosecution has not even commenced to examine the main witnesses, could prove detrimental to the eventual outcome of the trial. Atleast till the culmination of the evidence of the material witnesses, it would not be proper to release the petitioners on bail. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are accordingly affirmed. [Para 15] 1.2 It would be just and appropriate to direct the prosecution to first examine the material witnesses. It shall be open to the petitioner (s) to move a fresh application for bail, after the examination of all the material witnesses.

The conduct of the petitioner in not reporting the matter to the petitioner and, on the other hand, burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of the offence, does enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Had it not been for the..

The conduct of the petitioner in not reporting the matter to the petitioner and, on the other hand, burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of the offence, does enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Had it not been for the insistence of PW-1, such evidence may have gone completely unnoticed. It is only on account of his insistence that the body of the victim was exhumed, and, thereafter, subjected to post mortem examination which, ultimately, revealed the fact that it was not simply a stomach pain which caused the death of the victim but the several injuries which had been caused to her. The very fact that he tried to hide the evidence, resulted in his conviction also under Section 201 IPC. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court as far as conviction and sentence is concerned. [Paras 3 and 4] 2.1. Life imprisonment is not to be interpreted as being imprisonment for the whole of a convict's natural life within the scope of Section 45 of IPC. On a conjoint reading of Sections 45 and 47 IPC and Sections 432, 433 and 433A Cr.P.C., it is well established that a convict awarded lifesentence has to undergo imprisonment for at least 14 years. While Sections 432 and 433 empowers the appropriate Government to suspend, remit or commute sentences, including a sentence of death and life imprisonment, a fetter has been imposed by the legislature on such powers by the introduction of Section 433A into Cr.P.C. by the Amending Act of 1978. [Paras 15 and 16] 2.2. By virtue of the non-obstante clause used in Section 433A Cr.P.C., the minimum term of imprisonmentin respect of an offence where death is one of the punishments provided by laws or where a death sentence has been commuted to life sentence, has been prescribed as 14 years. In the various decisions, "imprisonment for life" has been repeatedly held to mean imprisonment for the natural life term of a convict, though the actual period of imprisonment may stand reduced on account of remissions earned. But in no case, with the possible exception of the powers vested in the President under Article 72 of the Constitution and the power vested in the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution, even with remissions earned, can a sentence of imprisonment for life be reduced to below 14 years. It is thereafter left to the discretion of the concerned authorities to determine the actual length ofimprisonment having regard to the gravity and intensity of the offence. [Para 16] 2.3. In the facts of the present case, it is not a fit case where the petitioner should be released on completion of 14 years imprisonment. The petitioner's case for premature release may be taken up by the authorities concerned, after he completes 20 years imprisonment, including remissions earned.

The High Court noted that the whole incident is extremely revolting, it shocks the collective conscience of the community and the aggravating circumstances have utweighed the mitigating circumstances in the case of accused persons 1, 2 & 4; bu..

The High Court noted that the whole incident is extremely revolting, it shocks the collective conscience of the community and the aggravating circumstances have utweighed the mitigating circumstances in the case of accused persons 1, 2 & 4; but held that in the case of others it was to be altered to life sentence. The High Court itself noticed that five members of a family were brutally murdered, they were not known to the accused and there was no animosity towards them. Four of the witnesses were of tender age, they were defenseless and the attack was without any provocation. Some of them were so young that they could not resist any attack by the accused. A minor girl of about fifteen years was dragged in the open field, gang raped and done to death. There can be no doubt that the case at hand falls under the rarest of rare category. There was no reason to adopt a different yardstick for A2, A3 and A5. In fact, A3 was the main person. He assaulted PW1 and took the money from the deceased.33. Above being the position, the appeal filed by the accused persons deserves dismissal, which we direct and the State’s appeal deserves to be allowed. A2, A3 and A5 are also awarded death sentence. In essence all the six accused persons deserve death sentence.

CrPC, 1973

Indian Penal Code, 1908

Held, nature of simple injury inflicted by accused, part of body on which it was inflicted, weapon used to inflict same and circumstances in which injury was inflicted do not suggest that Appellant had intention to kill deceased - However, Appella..

Held, nature of simple injury inflicted by accused, part of body on which it was inflicted, weapon used to inflict same and circumstances in which injury was inflicted do not suggest that Appellant had intention to kill deceased - However, Appellant had knowledge that injury inflicted by him was likely to cause death of deceased - Therefore, case would more appropriately fall under Section Part II of IPC - Hence, Appeal allowed to extent that instead of Section of IPC Appellant was convicted for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section Part II of IPC - Appeal disposed off. Criminal - Compensation - Section of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Whether any compensation was to be awarded against Appellant and in favour of bereaved family Under Section of Cr.P.C. - Held, under Section of Cr. P.C., Court is empowered to direct State to pay compensation to victim in such cases where compensation awarded Under Section is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where case ends in acquittal or discharge and victim has to be rehabilitated - Further, power to award compensation under Section was not ancillary to other sentences but in addition thereto - Moreover, Court had duty to apply its mind to question of awarding compensation under Section - Furthermore, while award or refusal of compensation might be within Court's discretion, it was mandatory duty of Court to apply its mind to question in every criminal case - However, Section Code of Criminal Procedure would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary and such enquiry could precede order on sentence to enable Court to take a view both on question of sentence and compensation that it might in its wisdom decide to award to victim or his/her family - Thus, evenif regretted by order of High Court and Trial Court on occasion to consider question of award of compensation, fine imposed upon Appellant and default sentence awarded to him was sustained - Appeal disposed off.

Criminal - Conviction - Test Identification Parade - Absence thereof - Sections 161 and 313 of Show

Criminal - Conviction - Test Identification Parade - Absence thereof - Sections 161 and 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Sections 302, 326 and 436 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant/Accused was awarded capital punishment for offences of murder, grievous hurt and mischief by fire by considering it as rarest of rare case - However, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted at time of investigation - Hence, present appeal - Whether death penalty awarded to Accused by considering it rarest of rare case was maintainable whereby there was no TIP - Held, Accused was known to witnesses and they identified him by his face - Since Accused persons were known to witnesses and they were identified by face, fact that no TIP was conducted at time of investigation, was of no consequence - Oral evidence tendered by witnesses also confirmed involvement of Appellant in alleged offences - Accused also made admission of guilt that victims sustained bullet injuries by firing of him and his associates - However, impugned order put entire elements of crime on Accused which could not be sustained - Crime perpetrated by group of people, could not have been thrown upon Accused alone - Hence, participation and involvement of Appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt but it was not rarest of rare case - Conviction modified from capital punishment to imprisonment for life - Appeal disposed of.

Criminal - Conviction - Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 High Court reversed judgment and order passed by Trial Court acquitting Appellant of charge of Murder Whether, High Court had rightly convicted Accused?

He..

Criminal - Conviction - Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 High Court reversed judgment and order passed by Trial Court acquitting Appellant of charge of Murder Whether, High Court had rightly convicted Accused?

Held, High Court did not deal with contradictions as to evidence of witnesses, medical evidence and ocular evidence, identity of Accused, FSL report and recovery of weapon. Contradiction in statement of PW.8 in Court as compared with his statement before police demolished aspect of motive. There was delay in lodging FIR and it was not explained. Non-production of FSL report in Court by prosecution was fatal as in absence thereof, it was difficult for Court to reach to conclusion as to whether offence was committed with M.O. Investigation was not conducted fairly. High Court committed an error in recording the finding of fact that prosecution succeeded in proving case beyond reasonable doubt. High Court failed to meet grounds pointed out by Trial Court discarding case of prosecution. Thus, findings of fact recorded by High Court remained perverse and was set aside. Judgment and order of Trial Court was restored. Appeal allowed.