Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka Reptd By N R Police vs Syed Abdul Razaq S/O Syed Shafi Ahamed on 13 February, 2012
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, H.S.Kempanna
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTlCE K. BHAKrHAvATs.A!.A3 A THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H5. KEMAPANNA7-3 T: A' AND CRIMINAL APPEAL N¢'T.'T2...:9¢20o6D' BETWEEN: State of Karnataka, Rep. by N.R.Police. (By AND: 1. Syed Abdu|:"'Ra2E1q; A S/o.Syed shaTa__Ah_ame._d,=5; D.No.36, 16"' Cross,» _ " VKaiIasapu:ram', Mahdi M'oha¥na. MyVsoVrVé; . Safi'E:i!aT|.<-haT1.'@"_'SaTfLjT|a, 'VS/o.JiyauT|ak_han;j..-- A Major, -A.T.T'.j'j.~Vak.Mina |\"rI!Vr_Tl3 Masid Road, 5 Ha nthinaaga"r, 3. Ayyub, S/o.Samiullakhan, (R-3 deleted) ...RESPONDEiV\lT..S'~V._ (By Sri.Hashmath Pasha, Adv. for R-2, Sri.Rajendra C.Desai, Adv. for R-1) This Criminal Appeal is filed under .Sect'ion_ 3A77.;4clr;lP_.c:.,*bpy the SPP for the State praying to enhance=..:the_-sentence 'i-mpr§'sed::;_a by P.O, FTC-II, Mysore in S.C.No.89/96 onK16=._8.2005--.convict--i_ng. ' the respondents/Accused Nos.1 & 2'fo__r the.offence"pigni_sha_ble
U/SS.120-B IPC, 364--A IPC, 302 & r/w.S_ec.3y4*_.o'f IVPC & sentencing them to undergo imprisonimeiztg for life and fine of ?5,000/- each for the offence u,/s..l20--,B*"an'd-- etc._ This appeal coming this day, Dr.Bhakthavatsala, J, delivered the follogwiyyngfa in This is Vstategjplpeiaiii"fil:e'd«V""-lin'de'r"Section 377 of Cr.P.C.. praying thatvithe and Sentence dated 16.08.2005 made'---in is.c.-5i4a'..3f9/.5.'i996 on the file of Fast Track Cot:-rtA_l\|o.Il_»: rfi'ay___be modified and impose sentence of deathforthe-.offen.c'e._under Section 302 and 364--A read with ltmgevctionu of IlV5Cla's against Respondents 1 and 2. LearneV_d3~Addl. SPP submits that the Respondents 1 and 421/Vac.cL:--s_'e~d__yliAl3re sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence
1. Sections 364--A and 302 of IPC and on completion of 10 gr 3 years jail sentence and as per Order dated 25" _ Respondents 1 and 2 were released on 3Q.,Q,1_.200'6. ""rlee§.fu'rtt:iter~e.V'V "
submits that Respondents 1 and 2 kidnap.peci_"boy1age~d:"ab'out_7?1' years from school and administered's_leeping"pills rand: ithievreagfter, killed him and thrown dead body in pla'ce:a_nd covered with stone and the case falls rarest of rare cases and the accused d.eserve..d.e.a:th Trial Court erred in awarding Therefore, he submits that the ap.pe'a"l';»ma.$i be:"a.l.'iow'e'd prayed for.
3. Learn.c---d'»c.ou'nsel"Ifor Respondents' 1 and 2 submits that the case does-not fall thfe'-scope of rarest of rare case and there is no good gtoundxto death penalty.
4. All gt«h.egAthree..gC§,;;ctised faced trial for the offences under Se-éVtii'o'nsA 3'64; 387,H3'V(')"'2"',"V2O1 and 120-3 of IPC. By Judgment dateVd*tAc3:used No.3 was acquitted for all the :j:'of'fences'.'Accusedi':Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offences odnudgetggsections120-B, 364--A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 {of l4Al?Cifandi"s.entenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Awarding f"4'Vi'm_prii'son;ment for life for the offence under Sections 302 and IPC is general rule and awarding a death sentence is an I exception. it cannot be said that it is a cold-blooded murder. in our view, this case does not fall within the scope of rarest_4of_jr-are cases. There is no good ground to award death pena|ty.?r'""~5.'jf: ~'--
5. In the result, the appeal fails air-rd'"the 'same '.i_':e:r'e-by dismissed. V ;flIUDG5 %;
"5VJUDGE bnv* sas