Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Since the question in all these appeals are common though on different facts, we shall take common questions together whereas, the facts of each case will be considered at the appropriate places.

Before adverting to the facts relevant to the decision of these cases, it is essential to narrate history of the crimes involving accused. Earlier, in case arising out of FIR No.363 dated 7.9.1998, PS City, Bhadurgarh for offences under Section 363,366,302 and 201 IPC, the accused was interrogated by Smt. Suman Manjri, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The accused suffered a disclosure statement in that case admitting his involvement in committing the act of kidnapping, rape and murder by strangulation of minor girls. The accused was also subjected to Lie Detection Test on 1st, 2nd & 3rd of December, 1998 by Dr. Bibha Rani, Lie Detection Expert, wherein the accused admitted his involvement in several cases of kidnapping, rape and murder of minor girls.

On 10.7.1997, one Shankar Kumar was arrested in this case. He was being prosecuted but the occurrences of similar nature continued to be occurring and ultimately the present accused namely Satish was arrested in FIR No.363 of 1998 on the pointing out of minor girl Somani, who was another victim of the accused. At that stage, the accused was interrogated by Smt. Suman Manjri, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The accused suffered a disclosure statement in that case admitting his involvement in several cases of kidnapping, rape and murder of minor girls.

We have considered the facts on record. Since, the conviction is based on confessional statement of the accused, which has been proved on record and has been admissible in earlier judgment as well in the earlier part of this judgment; therefore, there is no reason to upset the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court.

Now coming to the sentence to be imposed upon the accused in these cases arising of three First information reports, we may notice that the out of three victims, two have lost their life to the lust and perversity of the accused. The third victim is fortunate not to loose her life but one can understand the trauma of violation of her person in young age of 7 years. The accused has been found guilty of kidnapping minor girls of tender age and then subjecting them to rape not only in the present cases, but in eight other earlier cases, therefore, we find that there exist aggravating circumstances, which makes it a rarest of rare case for imposition of death penalty. The accused is repeatedly involved in most heinous crimes of kidnapping, rape and murder of small girls to satisfy his lust. From the medical evidence, it has been found that the accused was not suffering from any psychotic mental disorder. Therefore, there is no mitigating circumstance not to award death sentence to such a convict. But a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.235-DB of 2005, has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of 20 years, without any remission. Therefore, we do not sentence him to death but order that the accused - Satish shall undergo life imprisonment for a period of twenty years without remission in each of the three cases. With the said sentence, we dismiss Criminal Appeal No.651-DB of 2003 filed by accused Satish but accept the appeals filed by State partly in the manner of sentence as mentioned above.