SURESH versus STATE OF U.P.

SURESH versus STATE OF U.P.

Although the conviction for offences under sections 302 and 307 IPC was supported by corroborative evidence (presence at scene, injuries on appellant consistent with defensive wounds, appellant's conduct and pattern of crime), the extreme penalty of death under section 302 was not warranted in the circumstances (appellant about 21 years old, likely sudden impulse, signs of being unhinged/mental health history, reliance in part on a five-year-old witness not administered oath, the trial judge's failure to question the accused on sentence under section 235(2) CrPC and the appellant having been in custody for ten years); consequently the Court confirmed conviction but substituted life...

Parties
Appellant: Suresh; Respondent: State of U.P.; Complainant: Mohan Lal Khetan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 March 1981
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (appeal No.1495 of 1977); Final Disposal by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Murder, Death Penalty, Child Witness Reliability, Oath for Child Witness, Corroboration of Witness Testimony, Section 302 Penal Code, Section 307 Penal Code, Section 235(2) Cr PC, Section 484(2)(a) Cr PC
Criminal Law Evidence Sentencing Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility Murder Death Penalty Child Witness Reliability Oath for Child Witness +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suresh

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Mohan Lal Khetan

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (appeal No.1495 of 1977); Final Disposal by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentence under section 302 IPC was warranted
  2. 2 Whether the testimony of a five-year-old child who was not administered oath is sufficiently trustworthy to sustain conviction
  3. 3 Whether corroborative evidence supports the child witness and sustains conviction

Ratio Decidendi

Although the conviction for offences under sections 302 and 307 IPC was supported by corroborative evidence (presence at scene, injuries on appellant consistent with defensive wounds, appellant's conduct and pattern of crime), the extreme penalty of death under section 302 was not warranted in the circumstances (appellant about 21 years old, likely sudden impulse, signs of being unhinged/mental health history, reliance in part on a five-year-old witness not administered oath, the trial judge's failure to question the accused on sentence under section 235(2) CrPC and the appellant having been in custody for ten years); consequently the Court confirmed conviction but substituted life...

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Penal Code confirmed
  • Death sentence imposed under section 302 set aside