Akhtar v. State Of U.P ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 1998, decided on February 2, 1999

Disposition

dismissed

Judges

G.B Pattanaik
S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.

Acts

The case in hand can be held to be one of the rarest of rare cases for which punishment of death can be awarded (implied reference to a specific law or article, but not explicitly stated)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the murder of a young girl after committing rape on her. He was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, and the High Court confirmed the sentence in Capital Reference Case No. 3 of 1997.

According to the prosecution, the deceased had accompanied her grandmother (PW 2) to a pond east of the village. While PW 2 was digging soil, the girl left quietly. PW 2, unable to find her, met PW 1, and both soon heard the girl’s cries. They rushed to the spot and found the accused in the act of committing rape on the deceased. Other witnesses, including PW 3, also arrived. The accused tried to flee but was chased and apprehended on the spot by PWs 1 and 3. The police were informed, arrested the accused, and after investigation filed a charge-sheet for rape and subsequent murder.

The prosecution examined multiple witnesses, with PWs 1–3 being the material witnesses. Relying on their testimony, both the Sessions Court and the High Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape and then caused the death of the victim. In sentencing, the courts characterized the matter as among the “rarest of rare” cases, referring to decisions in Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994) 3 SCC 381 and Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 250.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution proved the accused’s commission of rape and murder beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimonies of PWs 1–3.
Whether, on the established facts, the case qualifies as a “rarest of rare” case warranting the death penalty, particularly in light of Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa and Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The testimonies of the three material witnesses (PWs 1–3) are wholly unreliable.
On that basis, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, (1994) 3 SCC 381	Used by the courts below to support imposition of death penalty in rape-murder cases deemed to fall within the “rarest of rare” category.	Distinguished. The Supreme Court noted special features in that case which justified the death penalty; the present case was not covered by that ratio.
Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P., (1996) 6 SCC 250	Used by the courts below to justify the death penalty in grave rape-murder circumstances under the “rarest of rare” doctrine.	Distinguished. The Supreme Court held the specific features of that case were not present here; thus, the ratio did not warrant a death sentence in the present matter.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

On the conviction: The Court undertook a careful scrutiny of the testimonies of PWs 1–3, mindful that the appellant had received a death sentence. It found nothing elicited in cross-examination to undermine their credibility. The Court accepted the consistent eyewitness account: PWs 1 and 2 heard the victim’s cry, found the accused committing rape, and with PW 3’s involvement, apprehended the accused as he attempted to flee. On this basis, the Court held that the prosecution had proved that the accused committed rape and caused the victim’s death, rendering the conviction under Section 302 “unassailable.”

On the sentence: The central question was whether the case warranted the death penalty under the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Court examined the two Supreme Court precedents relied upon by the courts below. It observed that those decisions featured special circumstances that justified the extreme penalty, which were not mirrored here. Evaluating the factual matrix, the Court found that the murder was not intentional or premeditated. Instead, it concluded that the accused encountered the victim alone, picked her up to commit rape, and the death occurred in the course of that act due to gagging. Medical evidence supported death by asphyxia. Given these mitigating features, the Court determined that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The conviction under Section 302 IPC is upheld; the death sentence is commuted to imprisonment for life. Subject to this modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed.

Implications: The immediate consequence is that the appellant will serve life imprisonment instead of facing the death penalty. The decision distinguishes, rather than extends, prior death penalty precedents; it turns on the specific factual and medical evidence indicating lack of premeditation and death by asphyxia during the rape. No broader rule beyond this fact-bound application of the “rarest of rare” standard is articulated.

Show full summary ...

Akhtar v. State Of U.P .

1. The appellant who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for having caused the murder of a young girl after committing rape on her has been sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge and the said sentence of death has been confirmed in Capital Reference Case No. 3 of 1997 by the High Court. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the deceased accompanied by her grandmother (PW 2) had gone to a pond, east of the village. While the grandmother was digging out soil, the deceased quietly left the place. When the grandmother could not find the deceased near her, she came out and on the way she met PW 1 and questioned him as to whether he had seen the deceased to which PW 1 replied in the negative. At that point of time both of them, namely, PW 1 and PW 2 heard the cry of the deceased and, therefore, they rushed to the place of occurrence. Reaching the spot of occurrence they found the accused in the act of committing rape on the deceased. It attracted the attention of other witnesses including PW 3 who also had reached the place of occurrence. The accused-appellant then left the victim and tried to escape but he was chased and caught red-handed by PWs 1 and 3. Thereafter on information being given the police arrested the accused-appellant and started investigation and on conclusion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet of committing rape on the deceased and after that causing murder of the deceased. The prosecution examined many witnesses in support of its case but the three material witnesses are PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. Relying upon their evidence the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case of committing rape on the deceased and causing murder of the deceased by the accused-appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the question of sentence is concerned the courts have taken into consideration the fact that a young girl was killed by committing the brutal act of rape on her and, therefore, the case is one of the rarest of rare cases and the decisions of this Court relied upon by both the courts below are (1) Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994) 3 SCC 381 and (2) Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P (1996) 6 SCC 250

2. Mr A.N Bardaiyar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before us that the evidence of the three witnesses is wholly unreliable and, therefore, this Court must come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In his endeavour to point out on reliability of the witnesses the learned counsel placed before us the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses. Since the accused-appellant has been sentenced to death we have also carefully scrutinised the evidence of these three witnesses but we do not find anything brought out in their cross-examination. In our considered opinion the courts below have rightly held the witnesses to be reliable and on the basis of the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses the conclusion is irresistible that the accused committed rape on the victim girl and also caused death of the victim girl. The conviction of the appellant upheld under Section 302 remains unassailable.

3. The question however remains to be considered is whether the case in hand can be held to be one of the rarest of rare cases for which punishment of death can be awarded. The two decisions of this Court on which reliance has been placed by the courts below are placed before us i.e the case of Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994) 3 SCC 381 and Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P (1996) 6 SCC 250 We have carefully examined the aforesaid two cases and it is difficult for us to hold that the present case can be held to be covered by the ratio of the aforesaid two cases because of the special features which were available in the aforesaid cases, this Court has come to the conclusion that punishment of death is the appropriate punishment in the circumstances in which the dastardly act was committed. But in the case in hand on examining the evidence of the three witnesses it appears to us that the accused-appellant has committed the murder of the deceased girl not intentionally and with any premeditation. On the other hand the accused-appellant found a young girl alone in a lonely place, picked her up for committing rape; while committing rape and in the process by way of gagging the girl has died. The medical evidence also indicates that the death is on account of asphyxia. In the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the case in hand cannot be held to be one of the rarest of rare cases justifying the punishment of death. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC but looking to other mitigating circumstances, we commute the sentence of death to imprisonment of life. Subject to the aforesaid modification of sentence, this appeal is dismissed.

Akhtar v. State Of U.P .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Akhtar v. State Of U.P .

Comments