It has come out in evidence that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years i.e. before 15.3.1993, the date of incident. This fact is fortified by the evidence of Dr. Kuldeep, who was examined as DW1. He deposed that the dec..

It has come out in evidence that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years i.e. before 15.3.1993, the date of incident. This fact is fortified by the evidence of Dr. Kuldeep, who was examined as DW1. He deposed that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and was under his treatment from 23.12.1992 to 2.4.1993 at Kuldeep Hospital, Ambala City. His evidence was brushed aside by the trial Court on the ground that Dr. Kuldeep was not a Psychiatrist. It may be noted that Epilepsy is not a Psychiatrist problem. It is a disease of nerves system and a MD (Medicine) could treat the patient of Epilepsy. The reasoning given by the trial Court for brushing aside the evidence of DW1 cannot be sustained. Therefore, the possibility of an accidental death, since she was suffering from Epilepsy, cannot Page 2626be ruled out. Evidently, she was in the kitchen and, might be, during cooking she might have suffered Epileptic symptoms and fell down on the gas stove and might have caught fire, resulting her ultimate death. - DW2, ASI Ram Mohan, the Investigating Officer of the case, deposed that he had recorded the statements of the deceased wherein she had stated that she was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years before the incident and that on 15.9.1993 while she was preparing meals on stove, she had an attack of fits and fell on the stove and caught fire. She had also deposed at that time that her husband was away at duty at Madhuban, Karnal. In our view, the evidence of DW2 has to be appreciated in the light of overall facts and circumstances of the case. 

Code of Criminal Prcedure, 1973

Indian Penal Code, 1860

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 ..

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. 

Appeal against conviction - Offences committed under Section 302 of the IShow

Appeal against conviction - Offences committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 - 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

Desposition: Disposed off

Criminal - Murder - Death sentence - A minor boy aged 10 years was murdered after he was subjected to carnal intercourse and then strangulated to death - Accused was charge-sheeted with offences punishable under Sect..

Criminal - Murder - Death sentence - A minor boy aged 10 years was murdered after he was subjected to carnal intercourse and then strangulated to death - Accused was charge-sheeted with offences punishable under Sections 302, 377 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - High Court had confirmed the death sentence - Appellant, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and all the circumstances put together would lead to only one inference that the accused was not guilty of the offences charged against him - Held, the prosecution succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and that the findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court call for no interference - In the instant case the crime test and criminal test stood fully satisfied against the accused - Life of a boy, the only son of the mother, was taken away in a gruesome and barbaric manner which pricks not only the judicial conscience but also the conscience of the society - Legislative policy is discernible from Section 235(2) read with Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C., that when culpability assumes the proportions of depravity, the Court has to give special reasons within the meaning of Section 354(3) for imposition of death sentence - Legislative policy is that when special reasons do exist, as in the instant case, the Court has to discharge its constitutional obligations and honour the legislative policy by awarding appropriate sentence, that is the will of the people - Incarceration of a further period of thirty years, without remission, in addition to the sentence already undergone, would be an adequate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case, rather than death sentence - It was ordered accordingly