_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Ishwari Lal Yadav vs. the State Of Chhattisgarh
Case Citation - Crl.A.Nos.1416-17/17
Parties Involved -
Petitioner - Rajendra Kumar & Anr.
Respondent - State of Chhattisgarh
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Facts of the Case
The deceased, a two-year-old boy named Chirag Rajput, was the son of Poshan Singh (PW-3) and Savitri Bai (PW-5). PW-5 worked as a domestic worker, and Poshan Singh (PW-3) worked in Billai. Smt. Vandana Rajput (PW-21) is the sister of Savitri Bai (PW-5) and was at home with Chirag on the day of the tragedy. On 23.11.2010, Chirag went out of the house to play while she was still inside. After a while, when she went to look to find Chirag and he wasn't there. She immediately phoned his sister and brother-in-law, namely who returned to the house immediately.
The two main accused, Smt. Kiran Bai and her husband Ishwari Lal Yadav believed in tantrism. Smt. Kiran Bai wanted to attain siddhi. She was also proclaimed as 'gurumata.' To appease God, she asked her husband and believers, the other co-accused along with them, to bring a small child for human sacrifice. The main accused were neighbors to PW-3 and 5. It is alleged that Chirag was kidnapped and murdered in a gruesome manner inside the house of main accused Kiran Bai and Ishwari Lal Yadav for the purpose of sacrifice. After that, he was buried in the boundaries of the house. To avoid the sound of cries, the music system was played loudly.
After the information from Vandana Rajput (PW-21) to her sister Savitri Bai (PW-5) and brother-in-law Poshan Singh (PW-3), all started searching for Chirag. When the parents of the child, family members, and other people of the neighborhood were searching for the missing boy, they became suspicious of the loud music emanating from the house of the two main accused. Thereupon, some people have entered the house of Kiran Bai and Ishwari Lal Yadav and found five mounds of freshly dug earth.
It is alleged that there was also a leaf bowl (Dona), one small bowl (Katori), one small round metal pot (Lota), a trident (Trishul), idols, and pictures of Gods and other items of puja were lying there. There was blood on some of these items. It is alleged that when the crowd asked the accused what had happened, Smt. Kiran Bai and Ishwari Lal Yadav confessed that they had sacrificed Chirag with the help of other co-accused and begged for mercy. Immediately after that, the crowd started digging the freshly dug earth, and the body of Chirag was taken out.
After that, police came to the site, and a report was lodged. The body of Chirag was sent for post-mortem. All the accused were questioned on which they made some disclosure statements. On the basis of such disclosure statements, recoveries of several incriminating articles were made. After completing the investigation, the police filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against all the appellants and one other accused by the name of Krishna Tambi. However, as he was absconding, his trial was separated. All the accused have denied the guilt and claimed trial. They were tried for the offenses as referred above before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, and they were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 27.03.2014. All the appellants were imposed with the penalty of death.
Issue of the Case
Whether the crime was gruesome enough to come under the rarest of rare doctrine?
Arguments of the Appellant
The Appellants had argued that there's absolutely no evidence on the report to confirm that there was a standard intention on the part of such appellants to commit the offense of kidnapping and murder of the deceased child. Aside from the accused, the appellants had submitted that the courts' findings barely support the alleged confessional statements. With the absence of any corroboration, the courts have committed a blunder by convicting the appellants under Sections 34 and 120B of IPC.
The appellants had also argued that there's no justification for imposing capital punishment on Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai and to give the justified punishment of imprisonment to any or all other accused.
It was also submitted that the incident in question could not be considered the "rarest of rare cases" to impose capital punishment.
Arguments of the Respondent
The petitioner had submitted that the case related to a gruesome murder of a small two-year-old boy as a ritual sacrifice. From the oral evidence given by the appellants on record, the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused exceeding the point of any reasonable doubt. Perse, there weren't any grounds to interfere with the questioned judgment.
It's was submitted that all the appellants were present within the house of the accused, and also the undeniable fact that the body of the deceased was also recovered from the house of the accused is proved from the oral evidence of PWs-2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16.
It was further submitted that the disputes mentioned by the appellants are minor and that they should not affect the well-reasoned findings and conclusions that were given by the judge, as confirmed by the tribunal.
Judgment of the Case
In this case, it was clear from the evidence that the main accused, namely, Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai had committed the murder of the two-year-old child Chirag as a sacrifice to God. It was also noticed that they were having three minor children at that time. In spite of the same, they committed the murder of the deceased, a child of two years of age brutally. The head of the helpless child was severed, his tongue and cheeks were also cut. Having no regard to the age of the accused, they were not possessed of the basic humanness, they completely lacked the psyche or mindset which can be amenable for any reformation. It was a planned murder committed by the aforesaid two appellants.
The appellants herein who are the main accused, namely, Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai were also convicted on an earlier occasion for the offense under Section 302, 34, and 201 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.98/2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, for similar murder of a 6-year-old girl for which they were convicted and sentenced to death, but such sentence was modified on appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1068 of 2014 by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur and they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment without any remission or parole. On appeal to this Court, the order of the High Court for such conviction for a similar offense can be considered an aggravating factor. By following the guidelines as mentioned in the case of Sushil Murmu, the judges concluded that this was a case of "rarest of rare cases" where the death sentence imposed by the trial court is rightly confirmed by the High Court. Confirming the death sentence imposed on them for the offense under Section 302 and 34 IPC. The sentence imposed on them under Section 201 IPC was also confirmed.
Similar Cases
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Can You Legally Practise Witchcraft?" by clicking the button below.
Comentários