1996 (8) TMI 571 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Affirms Conviction and Death Penalty; Dying Declarations Inadmissible but Support Witness Accounts.

Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Ors. Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

The SC upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellants, dismissing the appeal. The court found overwhelming evidence against the appellants, ... - Issues Involved:1. Identity of the appellants as the culprits.2. Admissibility of dying declarations as res gestae.3. Appropriateness of the death penalty.Detailed Analysis:1. Identity of the Appellants as the Culprits:The court examined the evidence presented to establish the identity of the appellants. PW-6 (the driver) and PW-7 (the conductor) identified the appellants in the trial court and during a test identification parade conducted by a judicial magistrate. PW-1 and PW-5 provided detailed accounts of the roles played by each appellant during the incident. PW-1 testified that the second appellant chased and robbed him of his wristwatch and cash, while PW-5 recounted being chased and robbed of his pants by the first appellant. The evidence was further corroborated by PW-9 and the recovery of stolen items by the police. The court concluded that the evidence was overwhelming and supported the conviction of the appellants.2. Admissibility of Dying Declarations as Res Gestae:The court addressed the admissibility of dying declarations under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. It was noted that the principle of res gestae allows for the inclusion of statements that are part of the same transaction as the crime. However, the court found that there was an appreciable interval between the acts of incendiarism and the recording of the statements by the judicial magistrate, which disqualified them from being considered as res gestae. Despite this, the court acknowledged that such statements could still be used to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses under Section 157 of the Evidence Act.3. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty:The court considered the plea for reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment. The defense highlighted three mitigating factors: the young age of the appellants, the primary motive of robbery rather than murder, and the appellants' failure to prevent some passengers from escaping. The court referenced the principles established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, which dictate that the death penalty should be reserved for the 'rarest of rare cases.' The court found that the crime's heinous nature, the appellants' premeditated plan, and the brutal execution warranted the death penalty. The court emphasized that the number of victims and the inhuman manner of the crime justified the sentence, concluding that this case fell within the 'rarest of rare' category.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellants, dismissing the appeal. The court found the evidence against the appellants to be overwhelming, ruled that the dying declarations were not admissible as res gestae but could corroborate witness testimony, and determined that the death penalty was appropriate given the crime's severity and the appellants' actions.