Gayasi Vs. State of U.P. - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 1979.|
|Judge|| Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. and; A.P. Sen, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1981SC1160; 1981CriLJ883; 1981(1)SCALE579; (1981)2SCC712; 3SCR268|
|Acts||Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302 and 307|
|Respondent||State of U.P.|
|Appellant Advocate|| S.K. Bisaria, Adv|
|Respondent Advocate|| H.R. Bhardwaj and ; R.K. Bhatt, Advs.|
|Prior history||Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated February 28, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3500 of 1978 and Murder Reference No. 33 of 1978--|
- indian penal code, 1890.section 375 & 376 & 417: [tarun chatterjee & v.s. sirpurkar, jj] rape inference as to consent of prosecutrix - prosecutrix admitting absence of a major injury promise of marriage to secure consent before rape offence committed on three/four different occasions first forcibly, when prosecutrix declined to marry appellant-accused later, on appellant promising to marry prosecutrix report by prosecutrix to family members and police only after appellant refused to marry her held, the evidence about the cheating is of slipshod nature and not believable. it is also self-effacing. after all, the first act of the sexual intercourse was without the consent and the accused had thereby committed rape. however, the version that he gave a marriage promise would..........a split second thereafter, the appellant emerged with a sword and chopped off the neck of bhagwan singh. daya ram is still absconding but the appellant was convicted by the sessions court under section 302 read with section 34 of the penal code and was sentenced to death. he was also convicted under section 307 of the penal code. the sentence of death having been confirmed by the high court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. the leave is limited to the question of sentence.2. we see no reason for commuting the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant to the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. the fact that daya ram is absconding does not reduce the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant. bhagwan singh had but performed his ministerial duty as an.....
1. The appellant's land was auctioned on December 26, 1976 in a revenue sale held to recover arrears of land revenue. On the same day, the land of one Mool Chand was also sold for a similar reason. The deceased Bhagwan Singh, who was an Amin, acted as an officer of the Court in effecting the aforesaid sales. After the sale proceedings were over, Bhagwan Singh was returning home on a bicycle, with his peon Shripat, who is examined in the case as P.W. 4 The appellant, Mool Chand and the latter's son Daya Ram lay in wait for the deceased and while he was passing along on his bicycle, Daya Ram fired three shots at him; two out of these hit Bhagwan Singh, as a result of which he fell down. A split second thereafter, the appellant emerged with a sword and chopped off the neck of Bhagwan Singh. Daya Ram is still absconding but the appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to death. He was also convicted under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The sentence of death having been confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. The leave is limited to the question of sentence.
2. We see no reason for commuting the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant to the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. The fact that Daya Ram is absconding does not reduce the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant. Bhagwan Singh had but performed his ministerial duty as an Amin in putting the appellant's land to sale. He bore no personal grudge against the appellant nor had he anything to gain for himself by selling the lands of the appellant and of Daya Ram. Such crimes committed against public servants for reasons arising out of the performance by them of their public duties must be discouraged and put down with a firm hand. We, therefore, confirm the sentence of death passed on the appellant and dismiss the appeal.