- (1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. Satish was charged by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 6) Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 796 of 2001 for offecnes punishable under Sections 302/376 (2) (f)/363/366/201 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 29-10-2002, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced Satish in the manner stated hereinafter: (i) Under Section 302 IPC to death; (ii) Under Section 363 IPC to seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000; (iii) Under Section 366 IPC to seven years' R and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000; (iv) Under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 ; and (v) Under Section 201 IPC to seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000. The learned Judge directed that in case the appellant did not deposit the fine, he would undergo a sentence of six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 299 of 2002 has been preferred by Satish against his conviction and sentence on the aforesaid counts and Capital Sentence reference No. 3 of 2000 arises out of the reference made by the learned Judge under Section 366 (1) Cr. P. C. to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence of Satish. Since they arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we propose disposing them off by one judgment. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under: The informant Amrish Kumar PW 1 is the father of deceased Vishakha alias Akansha. At the time of the incident, the informant, the deceased, Anil PW 2 Sanjiv Kumar Tyagi PW 3 and Kulbhushan Dayal PW 5 were living in village Nangla Ander, within the limits of police Station Sardhana, District Meerut. At that time the appellant was also living in the said village. At the time of the incident, the informant's daughter Vishakha alias Akansha was studying in Nursery class in Savrodaya Public School, situated opposite police station Sardana in district Meerut. On 16-8-2001 at 7. 00 a. m. Vishakha alias Akansha went to school to study. Normally, she used to return from the school at about 2. 00 p. m. but that day, she did not return by that time. Till about 2. 30 p. m. the informant waited for her to return but when she did not come he went to school. On the way, he met children of the village, who also used to study in the said school. When he asked them about his daughter they replied that she was behind them. Despite searching her, he could not find her. Thereafter, he got an announcement made in Sardhana Kasba on a loudspeaker and also gave an oral information to the said effect at police station Sardhana. The police told him that he should search her and they would also search her and in case they found her they would inform him. Next morning, at about 6. 00 a. m. , while he was searching his daughter he found her corpse in the sugarcane field of Moolchand. There was a bluish mark on her neck and it appeared that she had been strangulated. Blood was coming out from her thigh. Seeing the condition of the corpse he felt that someone had raped and thereafter, strangulated her. He then scribed a written FIR and proceeded to Police Station Sardana and lodged it. The evidence of Head Constable Jaiveer Singh PW 6 shows that on 17-8-2001 at 8. 00 a. m. he registered a case on the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant Amrish Kumar PW 1. A perusal of the FIR shows that the informant has stated therein that on 17-8-2001 at about 6. 00 a. m. he found the corpse of his daughter Vishakha alias Akansha in the field on Mool Chand and it appeared to him that after being subjected to rape she was done to death. On the basis of the FIR a case under Section 302/376/201 IPC was registered. It is pertinent to mention that neither in the FIR the appellant is named nor any suspicion is cast against him.
(3.) THE evidence of SHO Mahendra Singh Negi PW 8 shows: On 17-8-2001 in his presence FIR was lodged by the informant Amrish Kumar. He thereafter, recorded the statement of Head Constable Jaiveer Singh, who had registered the case on the basis of FIR and that of the informant Amrish Kumar at the Police Station itself. He then left for the place of the incident, where under his supervision SI Rama Kant Yadav performed the inquest on the corpse of the deceased. On the pointing out of the informant he prepared the site plan and in the presence of a public witness Satendra Kumar PW 4 recovered the tie of the deceased under a recovery memo (Exhibit ka-2 ). On 18-8- 2001, on information from an informer he arrested the appellant from near Kalindi Out Post. During the course of interrogation the appellant confessed his involvement in the crime. On 19-8-2001, at the pointing out of the appellant in the presence of Kulbhushan PW 5 and some others he recovered the underwear of the deceased under a recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-3 ). THEreafter, the appellant took him to his house and his underwear was recovered on his pointing out in the presence of Kulbhushan PW 5 and some others under a recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-4 ). On the said date he recorded the statements of Suresh and Lekh Raj. On 2-9-2001, he recorded the statement of Kulbhushan. On 24-9-2001, he recorded the statements of Sanjeev PW 3 and some others. He thereafter, submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. Going backwards, the autospy on the corpse of the deceased Vishakha alias Akansha was conducted on 17-8-2001 at 2. 00 p. m. by Dr. R. K. Gupta PW 7, who found on it the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 4 cm on front and both side neck in its middle part. (ii) Multiple abrasion in an area of 9 cm x 3 cm on back of upper art of right forearm. (iii) Multiple abrasion in an area of 5 cm x 1 cm on back and front of lower part of left upper arm. (iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm x. 5 cm x muscle deep at lower part of labia in midline. Blood coming out from the vaginal cavity. (v) Multiple abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on medical aspect of left leg in middle part. (vi) Multiple abrasion 11 cm x 4 cm on outer and front of upper part of left thigh. The cause of death spelt out in the autopsy report was asphyxia as a result of smothering. It is pertinent to mention that in his deposition in the trial Court Dr. Gupta reiterated it and also stated therein that injury No. 4 could have been the result of penetration of a male organ and the other injuries could have either been the result of friction or scuffle. He also stated therein that the deceased could have died therefrom on 16-8-2001 at about 2-2. 30 p. m.;