NDLI: Ishwari Lal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Gruesome murder of small boy Evidence Act Crime against children 1872: s.106 IPC human sacrifice Death sentence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: ss.364/34 r/w. s.120B, ss.302/34 r/w. s.120B and s.201 – Gruesome murder of small boy as a human sacrifice – Prosecution case was that a child (boy) was found missing from his house – When his parents were searching for him, they noticed loud music being played in the house of appellants – They entered the house along with other village people and found freshly dug mound of earth – Appellants-main accused who claimed to be “tantriks” admitted that they killed the boy with the help of other co-accused and buried him to attain “siddhi” and begged for mercy – On the basis of disclosure statements of accused, recoveries of certain incriminating articles were made – Trial court convicted all the accused under ss.364/34 r/w. s.120B, ss.302/34 and s.201 and awarded death sentence – High Court confirmed the death sentence of the two main accused and modified the sentence of other accused to life imprisonment – On appeal, held: It was consistently, deposed by the independent witnesses that when they entered the house of the main accused, they had confessed that they had committed murder of the missing child for the purpose of sacrifice – There was nothing on record to show that such confessions were caused by inducement, threat or promise – When such confessions were corroborated by other evidence on record, the trial court as well as the High Court, rightly relied on such confessions – As regards the charge of kidnapping and conspiracy, there was no acceptable evidence on record – As far as co-accused were concerned other than the main accused, there was no consistency of the persons named by the witnesses in the house of main accused, when they all entered their house – In absence of any consistent definite evidence regarding presence of all other accused, along with the main accused and further when the prosecution failed to prove either the common intention or the conspiracy on their part along with the main accused, the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted and as such co-accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt – Prosecution proved the guilt of the main accused for offence under s.302 r/w s.34, however, their conviction under ss.364/34 r/w. s.120B is set aside. Evidence Act, 1872: s.106 – Applicability of – Held: As regards the applicability of s.106 of the Evidence Act, it was proved by cogent evidence that the body of the missing boy was found in the house of the main accused – By applying the provision under s.106, burden was on the accused to explain the fact within the knowledge of them how the body of the boy came to be buried in their house – Penal Code, 1860. Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Punishment for murder – It is clearly well settled that normal punishment for the offence under s.302 IPC is life imprisonment but in a case where incident is of “rarest of rare cases” death sentence is to be imposed – It is equally well settled that only special facts and circumstances will warrant passing of death sentence and a just balance has to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, before the option is exercised – To come to conclusion in each case aggravating and mitigating circumstances are to be considered – Further factors like, age of the accused, possibility of reformation, gravity of the offence etc. are also to be kept in mind – In this case, evidence on record showed that the two main accused, committed the murder of the two year old child as a sacrifice to the God – They had three minor children at that time – Inspite of the same, they committed the murder of two year old child brutally – The head of the helpless child was severed, his tongue and cheeks were also cut – Having regard to 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 two appellants – Appellants who were the main accused were also convicted on an earlier occasion for similar murder of a 6 year old girl – Such conviction for similar offence can be considered as aggravating factor – This is a case of “rarest of rare cases” where death sentence imposed by the trial court was rightly confirmed by the High Court – Penal Code, 1860 – Crime against children.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Subhash Reddy
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1115
Petitioner	Ishwari Lal Yadav
Respondent	State Of Chhattisgarh
SCR	[2019] 13 S.C.R. 893
Judgement Date	2019-10-03
Case Number	1416

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ishwari Lal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Please Log-in to view this content

Ishwari Lal Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bishna@ Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Sunita Vs. State of Haryana

Nirmal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Ranjit Kumar Haldar Vs. State of Sikkim

Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Suresh &anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Ishwari Lal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwari Lal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ishwari Lal Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bishna@ Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Sunita Vs. State of Haryana

Nirmal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Ranjit Kumar Haldar Vs. State of Sikkim

Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Suresh &anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Ishwari Lal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh