TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the evidence, including the medical evidence and recovery of the child's nicker, established beyond doubt that the respondents committed rape and sodomy on the child; (ii) Whether the absence of independent witnesses at the time of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act rendered the recovery unreliable; (iii) Whether the facts proved made out murder or only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issue (i): Whether the evidence, including the medical evidence and recovery of the child's nicker, established beyond doubt that the respondents committed rape and sodomy on the child.
Analysis: The post-mortem evidence showed extensive injuries consistent with violent sexual assault, and the defence did not effectively challenge the autopsy doctor's testimony. The child had been taken by the first accused, was later found in the house of the accused in a naked and helpless condition, and the recovery of the bloodstained nicker from the second accused's house provided additional incriminating circumstance. The prosecution evidence of the mother and other witnesses supporting the taking away of the child was accepted as reliable, and the material circumstances formed a complete chain pointing to the respondents.
Conclusion: The respondents were rightly held to have committed rape and sodomy on the child.
Issue (ii): Whether the absence of independent witnesses at the time of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act rendered the recovery unreliable.
Analysis: A recovery effected pursuant to information supplied by an accused in custody is not governed by the same requirements as a search, and Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not insist upon attestation by independent witnesses. The court may rely on the evidence of the investigating officer if it is otherwise trustworthy. Official acts carry a presumption of regularity, and mere absence of independent witnesses is not by itself a ground to reject the recovery evidence.
Conclusion: The recovery evidence was admissible and could not be discarded merely because no independent witness signed the recovery memo.
Issue (iii): Whether the facts proved made out murder or only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Analysis: The medical evidence suggested that death resulted from intracranial injury sustained during the violent sexual assault. The necessary intention or knowledge to commit murder was not established, but the offenders must be taken to have had knowledge that their acts on a four-year-old child were likely to cause death. The proper legal characterization was therefore culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Conclusion: The conviction for murder was not sustained, but conviction under Section 304 Part II was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's acquittal was set aside, the trial court's findings on rape and unnatural offence were restored, and liability for culpable homicide not amounting to murder was also affirmed, with the matter disposed of in favour of the State.
Ratio Decidendi: Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not require independent witnesses as a condition of admissibility, and violent sexual assault on a child causing death may justify conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder when murder is not proved.
TaxTMI 
