BABUBHAI UDESINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 24,2006

BABUBHAI UDESINH PARMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUBRAMANIA GOUNDAN V. THE STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PYARE LAL BHARGAVA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DAVENDRA PRASAD TIWARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PARMANANDA PEGU VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE N C T OF DELHI VS. NAVJOT SANDHU ALIAS AFSAN GURU [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ASWINI KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-1-191] [REFERRED TO]
KANAILAL GOWALA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
NEMAI CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
MILIND S/O SAHEBRAO LAHANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH G P , HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT, AT AURANGABAD [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-280] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. VIJAYAN V.P. [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU SONKAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
OSBAN FERNANDES VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-8-107] [REFERRED TO]
HURA MANGHA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(GAU)-2020-2-186] [REFERRED TO]
GOWARI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-302] [REFERRED TO]
KHAGEN BURAGOHAIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
ALOKE NATH DUTTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KALITA VS. KISMAT ALI [LAWS(GAU)-2022-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN SINGH DHARMSHATRU VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NAGALAND VS. RIKUMKABA @ RIKUM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
BABALOO @ RAJ KUMAR MAURYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-382] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MOHANAND NAIK [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-139] [REFERRED TO]
S ARUL RAJA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
INAYATKHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SANIL KUMAR VS. THE STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2018-8-226] [REFERRED TO]
H K PUTTA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-441] [REFERRED]
JAMES EAZY FRANKY VS. DRI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-418] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH @ BITTU VS. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-144] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. SUREN RAI [LAWS(SIK)-2018-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR AGA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-158] [REFERRED TO]
GURVINDER SINGH BHATIA VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-171] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellant herein was a labourer. He is said to have committed a series of offences involving heinous crimes. He is involved also in a case of rape and murder of a minor girl Savita. She was sister of Shankar Bhursinh (complainant). He lodged a First Information Report on 1.07.1998 inter alia stating that he with a view to earn his livelihood came with his family to Karamsad town. He was staying in a shed opposite to Tirupati Petrol Pump. He was sleeping in that shed. He woke up at about 2 a.m. for answering the call of nature. At that time her sister was sleeping along with other family members. When he woke up again, he did not find Savita. It was raining on that night. Searches were made for her. On the next day morning, her dead body was found lying in the surrounding field belonging to Malabhai and Kanbhai. Her neck was tied with a frock which was worn by her. She was found to be dead. The blood was found to have been oozing out from her private part. The knicker worn by her was also missing. He informed the police. The appellant was arrested by the investigating officer Mr. R.G. Patel on 12.08.2002. He purported to have made a confession about committing rape and murdering Savita. He also allegedly showed the place of incidence to the investigating officer. He prepared panchnama of the scene of offence and recorded statement of the concerned witnesses. He then sent the frock worn by the deceased to Forensic Science Laboratory. The appellant purported to have made a confessional statement before PW-2 Ambalal.
(2.)Principally relying on or on the basis of said judicial confession made by the appellant, he was found guilty of commission of offence. The learned Sessions Judge took into consideration the fact that he has been found guilty of commission of similar offences as also other offences and, thus, imposed death penalty on him. The High Court affirmed the said judgment of conviction and sentence by its judgment dated 2.03.2005.
(3.)The High Court while recording that the confession was found not only to be true but having been voluntarily made, opined that the same could be relied upon. At the same time, the High Court proceeded on the basis that the accused was free to make retraction of his confession when his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The High Court furthermore noticed that oath should not have been administered to the accused but opined that the same is not of much significance but proceeded on the basis that the decisions of the Apex Court have often said that the court cannot solely rely on the retracted confession and make it a foundation for convicting the accused. But, while purporting to keep the confessional statement of the appellant aside, it examined the purported circumstances used against him. We are afraid, nothing has been brought on record to show existence of any circumstance which would lead to the conclusion that the appellant alone is guilty of commission of the offence.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.