Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On 31st January 2020, the HC of Chhattisgarh upheld the death sentence given by the trail court as the reason stated was the accused shall invoke the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare cases.’ The bench comprising of Justice Prasanth Kumar Mishra and Justice Gautham Choudriya referred the concept of ‘rarest of rare cases’ in re Macchi Singh V. State of Punjab and held it to be ‘depravity of crime’ and ‘aggravating facts.’ The facts of the case were on March 25, 2015 the deceased minor who was said to be deaf and dumb disappeared from her house near Bhilai. The minor’s father filed a FIR that some unknown persons abducted his girl child u/s 363 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Furthermore, on investigation Ram Sona (Accused No 1) mother Kunti Sona (Accused No 2) held that her son had informed her about murdering of a girl and keeping the dead body in the house. And also confessed that Amrit alias Keli (Accused No 3), Ram Sona and Kunti Sona ‘concealed’ the body of the minor in mud besides the railway station.
And on further investigation the girl’s father identified and confirmed the minor’s body. All the accused persons pleaded innocence and did not examine any witnesses. The trail court based on the statements given by the accused persons, evident materials and records submitted by the police, witnesses examined by the prosecution side and oral evidence of the minor’s father gave the verdict of death sentence to Ram Sona u/s 376(A) and 302 of IPC. The aggrieved accused filed an Criminal Appeal in the High Court of Chhattisgarh against the order of the trail court. In the appeal the counsel for accused contented that the accused persons names were not mentioned in the ‘missing’ FIR and this was a method adopted by the appellants to frame the accused persons to hide their inability to find the real culprits. The counsel held the the factual circumstances were provided by Kunti Sona (A2) but not Ram Sona (A1) and he deserved to be commuted to life imprisonment a lesser degree punishment as this was purely ‘mitigating factors’ instead of ‘aggravating factors.’
The HC rejected all the contentions made by the counsel for accused and held that the statements made by kunti Sona and Keli were admissible in evidence as it was confirmed in the medical report. And further it was held that “While accused Kunti Sona and Amrit have not committed the main offence under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC but have only assisted the main accused Ram Sona in concealing the evidence of crime by disposing of the dead body, their disclosure statements are self-inculpatory.” The court also held that “The victim was resident of the same locality where the accused Ram Sona resides and had thus prior acquaintance with the family of the deceased. It is not a case of rape and murder of any stranger.” Thus, the HC upheld the sentence given by trail court in this matter.
86540
103860
630
114
59824