ANIL @ ANTHONY ARIKSWAMY JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-41
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
February 20,2014
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BACHAN SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND MAL SINGH SUNIL BATRA NATHU SINGH KARTAR SINGH AND UJAGAR SINGH SHER SINGH SUNIL BATRA MAL SINGH NIRPAL SINGH JAGMOHAN SINGH UJAGAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]MACHHI SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SEVAKA PERUMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BANTU NARESH GIRI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SAHDEO VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MANSINGH [REFERRED TO]
ALOKE NATH DUTTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SWAMY SHRADDANANDA ALIAS MURALI MANOHAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
BANTU VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI ALIAS DADYA SHANKAR ALHAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SATTAN ALIAS SATYENDRA [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SATISHBHUSHAN BARIYAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR PAL ALIAS DARA SINGH VS. REPUBLIC OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KOLI VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
MANNAN ALIAS ABDUL MANNAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUDAM ALIAS RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
HARESH MOHANDAS RAJPUT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
AMIT VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR KISANRAO KHADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR KOUSHAL VS. NAZ FOUNDATION [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
DITUL MEHTA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-10-99] [REFERRED TO]RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE VS. RABBU ALIAS SARVESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2024-5-77] [REFERRED TO]
REFERENCE VS. BAADU, S/O PRAKASH LAHASE [LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-125] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK S/O BHAIRO SINGH PURVIYA VS. ASHOK [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-218] [REFERRED TO]
C. MUNIAPPAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2016-3-87] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT JHA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-133] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI RAM VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-235] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KALI SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SHREE RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATI SWAMIJI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-103] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE (RECEIVED FROM II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE KHURAI, DISTRICT SAGAR VS. SUNIL ADIWASI [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-309] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE (RECEIVED FROM II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE KHURAI, DISTRICT SAGAR) VS. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION BANDARI DISTRICT SAGAR (MP) [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-243] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2022-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
MOFIL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL VS. RAMNATH KEWAT [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-116] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS YADAV AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-237] [REFERRED TO]
REFERENCE VS. RAJ KUMAR KOL [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE RECEIVED FROM THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SE VS. SACHIN KUMAR SINGHRAHA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-122] [REFERRED]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SOVAN SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2023-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL SHARMA VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2023-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE OF STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. SHEKHAR KORRAM [LAWS(CHH)-2022-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. BHARAT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-426] [REFERRED]
MULAYAM SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE VS. BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2023-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN @ AJAY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM S/O BABURAO DHOTRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-192] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. BHARAT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-294] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. BHARAT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-294] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. VED PRAKASH S/O SHIV CHARAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
HETRAM NAYAK VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2024-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE; RAVISHANKAR @ BABA VISHWAKARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2016-12-133] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE VS. RAJ KUMAR KOL [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE, BUDHAR DISTRICT SHAHDOL M.P. VS. RAMNATH KEWAT [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-177] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. BHARAT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-93] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. P. PONNUSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2024-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU YADAV, SON OF JODHA YADAV VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-164] [REFERRED TO]
DILESH NISHAD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
MITHLESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-421] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. NINO MATHEW [LAWS(KER)-2023-5-180] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE OF STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. MADANLAL TEKAM [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)We are, in this case, concerned with a gruesome murder of a minor boy aged 10 years after subjecting him to carnal intercourse and then strangulating him to death.
(2.)The accused, Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph, was charge-sheeted with offences punishable under Sections 302, 377 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.167 of 2008 convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Substantive sentences, it was ordered, would run concurrently. Since the accused was sentenced to death, reference was sent to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence. The accused also filed Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2011.
(3.)The Appeal and the criminal confirmation case then came up for hearing before a Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 10.08.2011 and the Bench noticed that the DNA profile blood sample and semen sample were not brought before the trial court. Further, it was noticed that PW5, the Assistant Chemical Analyzer of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai, had given detailed evidence in respect of the contents of Ext.35. She stated that she had occasion to compare DNA of blood sample of the accused with Ext.1 (semen stains on half pant) and Ext.5 (anal smear of the deceased) and the DNA samples were matching. PW5 submitted Ext. 38 report. Ext. 38, it was noticed, did not disclose any comparison, as stated by PW5, which was done in FSL at Mumbai. Considering the serious nature of the offence and considering the fact that the whole case against the accused was based on circumstantial evidence, the Court felt that it would be necessary to recall PW5 and record her further examination-in-chief with reference to her report in respect of the DNA profile of the accused, that too with reference to her evidence at paragraph No.3 of her examination in-chief on 25.09.2009.
(2.)The accused, Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph, was charge-sheeted with offences punishable under Sections 302, 377 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.167 of 2008 convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Substantive sentences, it was ordered, would run concurrently. Since the accused was sentenced to death, reference was sent to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence. The accused also filed Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2011.
(3.)The Appeal and the criminal confirmation case then came up for hearing before a Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 10.08.2011 and the Bench noticed that the DNA profile blood sample and semen sample were not brought before the trial court. Further, it was noticed that PW5, the Assistant Chemical Analyzer of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai, had given detailed evidence in respect of the contents of Ext.35. She stated that she had occasion to compare DNA of blood sample of the accused with Ext.1 (semen stains on half pant) and Ext.5 (anal smear of the deceased) and the DNA samples were matching. PW5 submitted Ext. 38 report. Ext. 38, it was noticed, did not disclose any comparison, as stated by PW5, which was done in FSL at Mumbai. Considering the serious nature of the offence and considering the fact that the whole case against the accused was based on circumstantial evidence, the Court felt that it would be necessary to recall PW5 and record her further examination-in-chief with reference to her report in respect of the DNA profile of the accused, that too with reference to her evidence at paragraph No.3 of her examination in-chief on 25.09.2009.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.