Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
RAVJI @ RAM CHANDRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 787 1996 SCC (2) 175
JT 1995 (8) 520 1995 SCALE (6)745
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
G.N. RAY,J.
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against judgment dated March
22, 1995 passed by the Division Bench, Rajasthan High Court
(Jodhpur Bench). By the impugned judgment, the High Court
affirmed the death sentence passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No. 122/93
against the appellant in D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No.
3/94 and dismissed D.B. Criminal (Jail). Appeal No. 602/94
preferred by the appellant before the High Court against the
conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of death
awarded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
in the said Sessions Case No. 122/93.
The appellant sent a special leave petition from the
Jail where he is lodged. Initially a learned counsel of this
Court was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the case
of the appellant. Later on, the appellant wrote a letter to
the Registry of this Court expressing his intention that one
of the three advocates mentioned by him in his letter may be
engaged to represent his case before this Court. Pursuant to
such request, Mr. Natarajan, a senior advocate of this Court
agreed to appear as amicus curiae in deference to the desire
of the appellant. We appreciate such gesture on the part of
Mr. Natarajan, for accepting the case of the appellant as
amicus curiae.
The appellant was committed to a Sessions Trial in
Sessions Case No. 122/93 before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Banswara, on the charge of committing murder
of five persons including the wife and three minor sons of
the appellant and attempting to murder his own mother and
the wife of a neighbour. The trial court after relying on
the evidences of witnesses including injured eye-witnesses
inter alia came to the finding that the prosecution had
established by leading cogent evidence that the appellant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
was guilty of murdering five persons and he was also guilty
for attempting to murder his mother Smt. Mangi (PW 12) and a
neighbour’s wife Smt. Galal (PW 4). Considering the fact
that the commission of the said murders was committed in a
brutal and barbaric manner, the trial court after convicting
the appellant under Sections 302 IPC sentenced him to death
penalty. Such sentence of death was referred to the
Rajasthan High Court for confirmation. The reference for
confirmation of death sentence was numbered as D.B. Criminal
Murder Reference No.3/94. The appellant also preferred an
appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 122/93. Such
appeal was numbered as D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.
602/94. Both the said Murder Reference No. 3/94 and Jail
Appeal No. 602/94 were disposed of by the High Court by a
common judgment dated March 22, 1995, dismissing the
Criminal Appeal No. 602/94 and confirming the death sentence
by allowing Murder Reference No. 3/94.
Mr. Natarajan, the learned senior counsel appearing as
amicus curiae for the appellant, has submitted that in the
instant case there is no direct evidence regarding the
allegation of murdering four persons by the appellant namely
his wife and three minor children. Admittedly, besides the
said dead persons, only mother of the appellant was present
in the house at the time of murdering wife and minor
children of the appellant. The mother of the appellant
herself was injured by the assailant who had murdered
appellant’s wife and three minor children. But the mother
who was examined as PW 12 did not support the prosecution
case. She has deposed that some unknown person murdered her
daughter-in-law and three grand children and also injured
her. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. Hence,
there is no direct evidence that the appellant had murdered
his wife and three minor sons. The prosecution case has been
sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence. But motive
for murdering wife and three minor sons is totally absent.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes
considerable significance. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that
even if this court accepts the concurrent finding of the
courts below that appellant is guilty of murdering his wife
and three minor children besides murdering another man
Gulabji the absence of motive requires to be considered for
sustaining the death penalty. Mr. Natarajan has submitted
that there are eye-witnesses to prove the prosecution case
of murdering Gulabji and attempting to murder Smt. Galal.
The wife of Gulabji before whose eyes Gulabji was murdered
and Smt. Galal herself has deposed in support of the
prosecution case. The finding by the Courts below that the
appellant has murdered Gulabji cannot be said to be without
any basis and he fairly concedes that an attempt to assail
such finding may be an exercise in futility. Mr. Natarajan
has, therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case, it
will be only appropriate for him to confine his submission
on the question of sentence to be passed against the
appellant.
Mr. Natarajan has submitted that unfortunately in this
case, the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence as to
why the appellant suddenly killed his wife who was in
advanced stage of pregnancy and three minor children when
his wife and his three minor children were asleep in his
house. Mr. Natarajan has also submitted that the prosecution
has also failed to lead any evidence to indicate or even to
suggest as to what was or could be the motive that impelled
the appellant immediately after murdering his wife and three
minor children and injuring his own mother when she tried to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
prevent him from committing such crime, to rush to his
neighbour’s house and to attempt to kill the wife of the
neighbour Smt. Galal (PW 4) who was admittedly then sleeping
with her daughter in their house. He has also submitted that
unfortunately, there is also no evidence from which any
motive can even remotely be inferred as to why the appellant
thereafter killed another neighbour, an elderly man with
whom appellant had no enmity, when the said old man Gulabji
was coming towards the house of Smt. Galal after hearing her
shrieks on being injured by the appellant.
Mr. Natarajan has submitted that there is no evidence
to suggest that the appellant had ever suspected the
fidelity of the wife or any extra marital relationship of
his wife with anybody or with the neighbour, namely the
husband of Smt. Galal. There is not even any whisper by the
prosecution witnesses that Smt. Galal had in any manner
caused annoyance to the appellant and had ever attempted to
disturb the conjugal life of the appellant so that there
might be an occasion for the appellant to entertain some
wrath or hatred against PW 4 Smt. Galal.
Mr. Natarajan has submitted that commission of crime is
perpetrated for some reason which may be even ill founded or
ill-conceived. Sudden fit of passion, anger etc. actuated by
various considerations like hatred, wrath, a sense of
revenge etc. often induce an accused to commit murder.
Mr. Natarajan has submitted that motive constituting
mens rea is a very relevant factor in the process of
delicate balancing between the gravity of the crime and
consequential sentence to be passed against an accused on
consideration of mitigating factors.
Mr. Natarajan has further submitted that there is no
material on record to justify a finding that the appellant
was insane at the time of commission of crime and he failed
to understand the implication of his misdeeds. The appellant
has also not taken any such plea. Even then, the sudden
impluse, without any plausible motive to kill his wife in
advanced stage of pregnancy and three minor children with
whom love was not lost and attempt to kill innocent old
mother who only tried to prevent the commission of crime of
murder of his own wife and children and above all taking a
mad rush to a neighbour’s house and attempting to kill the
neighbour’s wife while she was asleep and thereafter killing
another old neighbour Gulabji on the way, remains absolutely
inexplicable. Such wild behaviour of the appellant having a
fair standard of education and upbringing and exposure to
teachers training, only suggests that he was temporarily
seized of a gigantic psychic disorder. Why and how this
wretched transformation had happened remains a mystery. The
investigating officer, unfortunately, did not make any
sincere effort to cause enquiries in this regard. Mr.
Natarajan has submitted that this inexplicable sudden
psychic disorder as an important mitigating factor on the
question of awarding the extremely penalty of death has been
last sight of both by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
and by the High Court.
Mr. Natarajan has referred to a decision of this Court
in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar versus State of Gujarat
(1964 (7) SCR 361) for the purpose of contending that it is
a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore the burden
lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a
case of homicide should prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused caused death with the requisite intention
described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
general burden never shifts and always rests on the
prosecution. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that it has been
indicated in the said decision that although primarily an
accused has a burden to satisfy the existence of
circumstances to satisfy the test of a ’prudent man’ that at
the time of commission of offence, by reason of unsoundness
of mind, the accused was incapable of understanding the
nature of his act, but if the materials placed before the
Court raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a Judge
whether the accused had requisite intention as laid down in
Section 299 I.P.C., he has to acquit the accused because in
that event, the prosecution will have failed to prove
conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict
between general burden which is always on the prosecution
and which never shifts and the special burden that rests on
the accused to make out a defence of insanity.
Mr. Natarajan has submitted that although no plea of
unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of offence has
been taken by the accused and no material in support of such
plea has been placed by the accused, but even then if on the
materials placed by the prosecution, a lurking doubt is
reasonably raised in the mind of the Judge about the
temporary psychic disorder of the accused thereby making him
incapable to understand the effect of his act, the accused
is entitled to the benefit of absence of mens rea under
Section 299 I.P.C. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that even if
the materials on record may not justify inference of such
complete incapacity of the accused to understand the
implication of his action but if the materials at least
justify probability of existence of some degree of psychic
imbalance at the time of commission of offence. The Court
must address to itself the probability of existence of such
factor in awarding the extreme penalty of death. Mr.
Natarajan has submitted that in the absence of any material
which might have thrown light on the mysterious behaviour of
the accused in perpetrating the crime alleged against him,
the court may reasonably hold that for the inexplicable
reason, not attempted to be unearthed, the accused had been
suffering from a pyschic disorder for which the extremely
penalty of death for knowingly perpetrating a brutal and
ghastly crime, shocking the conscience of the society, is
not warranted.
Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Rajasthan has refuted the contentions of Mr. Natarajan and
has submitted that the charge of murder perpetrated on the
appellant’s pregnant wife and three minor children and also
attempt to murder his own mother by the accused when she
tried to prevent the appellant from committing the said
heinous crime, has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately, the mother of the appellant (PW.12) who
herself was injured, did not support the prosecution case
for which she was declared hostile. There are very strong
reliable and clinching evidence which clearly indicates that
it is the appellant and none else who was guilty of
murdering the wife and three minor children and injuring his
mother. From the deposition of the mother of the appellant
though declared hostile, it transpires that accused and the
deceased wife and minor children and the mother were present
at home at the time of commission of the murder and no other
person was present at home at that time. Both the mother and
the deceased wife and the minor children suffered injuries
caused by an axe and immediately after the said incident,
the accused also attempted to murder the neighbour’s wife
Smt. Galal (PW 4) oy an axe and also murdered Gulabji,
father-in-law of Smt. Galal by the axe. There are eye-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
witnesses who had seen the accused attempting to kill Smt.
Galal and also murdering Gulabji by the axe. There is clear
evidence by the eye-witnesses that when the son of Gulabji
tried to apprehend the accused he fled away from the scene
of occurrence. Although murder of the wife and minor
children and attempt to murder his mother, further attempt
to murder Smt. Galal and the murder of Gulabji had happened
at three different places, all the said incidents had
happened in a quick succession and entire chain of incidents
really constitute one continuous course of action.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found the
evidences in support of the prosecution case as convincing
and reliable and by giving cogent reasons, has clearly came
to the finding that the entire prosecution case had been
established beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Bhati has submitted
that the motive for the crime is undoubtedly an important
factor for appreciating the correctness of testimony vis a
vis complicity of the accused with the crime alleged against
him. But human mind is so complex that at times it is not
always possible to precisely comprehend as to why and how a
man has reacted in a particular manner for committing a
crime. The learned counsel has submitted that law is well-
settled that if there is clear, clinching and reliable
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, it is
immaterial that the motive for the commission of crime has
not been established.
Mr. Bhati has also submitted that the facts and
circumstances revealed from the depositions of the
witnesses, do not support the contention that the appellant
had been suffering from any psychic disorder for which he
momentarily failed to appreciate as to what he had been
doing at the time of committing the heinous crimes one after
the other. The learned counsel has submitted that it is true
that evidence has not been led as to what was or could be
the probable motive for committing the crime. But is has
been clearly established that the appellant in a cool and
calculated manner killed his wife who was in advanced stage
of pregnancy and being asleep could not offer any
resistance. The appellant similarly killed the three minor
children while they were sleeping in their house. The only
other person present at that time in the house was his
mother. The mother has not indicated that there was any
quarrel or altercation between the husband and the wife
immediately or shortly before the murders had taken place.
The facts revealed from the evidences adduced only indicate
that there was no occasion for any sudden provocation or a
fit of impulse which had impelled or could impel the
appellant to commit the said ghastly murder of his helpless
wife and three minor children. On the contrary, the
evidences point out that such heinous crime had been
perpetrated in a cool and calculated manner. When the poor
mother tried to prevent the appellant even did not spare his
own mother and also caused injuries on her person in an
attempt to kill her by the same axe with which the wife and
the three minor children had been murdered. The learned
counsel for the State has further submitted that the
appellant thereafter went to the house of his neighbour and
attempted to kill the neighbour’s wife Smt. Galal who was
also asleep in her house. There is no evidence on record to
suggest that there was any occasion for the appellant to
harbour any ill feeling, hatred or wrath against Smt. Galal
which might have prompted him to murder her. The learned
counsel for the State has further submitted that the
appellant was quite keen in fleeing away from the place of
commission of crime and only when the father-in-law of Smt.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
Galal, namely, Shri Gulabji came on his way and enquired of
him as to what had happened, the appellant, in an attempt to
escape from the place, mercilessly murdered the old man by
giving a number of axe blows on his person. The son of
Gulabji and others on hearing the shouts came to the place
where Gulabji was murdered and tried to apprehend the
appellant but could not do so because the appellant
succeeded in escaping from the place and went to the next
village.
Mr. Bhati has therefore, submitted that the appellant
was quite conscious as to what he had been doing and he was
neither confused nor stupified for what he had done but
being fully conscious of the gravity of the offence
committed by him, wanted to flee away from the place of
occurrence. Mr. Bhati has also submitted that the appellant
was not remorseful even after the incident. He did not
attend the funeral of his wife and minor children who had
been brutally murdered by him. The appellant did not go to
the hospital to see her ailing mother. There is recovery at
the instance of the accused, of the blood stained vest of
the accused and the axe with which the murders had been
committed. There are eye-witnesses in support of the
prosecution case of attempting to murder Smt. Galal and
murdering Gulabji. In the aforesaid circumstances, both the
learned Additional Sessions Judges and the High Court had no
hesitation in finding that the appellant had committed the
murder of five persons and attempted to kill two others in a
brutal and cruel manner.
Mr. Bhati has submitted that the evidences adduced in
the case clearly establish that the appellant had murdered
his helpless wife and three minor children without any
provocation whatsoever in a very cruel manner. The said
helpless wife and the minor children had been murdered by a
person who had a duty to protect them. Such dastardly crime
perpetrated in a brutal manner cannot but shock the
conscience of the society. Mr. Bhati has also submitted that
it is an act of gravest unkindness that the appellant even
attempted to kill his own mother who only tried to prevent
him from committing the said heinous crime. Mr. Bhati has
submitted that the appellant even then did not become
remorseful but attempted to kill the neighbour’s wife while
she was sleeping and also killed another elderly neighbour,
Gulabji without any provocation whatsoever. Gulabji was
hacked to death by the appellant by giving successive blows
with the axe thereby killing him on the spot, before the
eyes of his wife. Mr. Bhati has submitted that both the
learned Additional Sessions Judges and the High Court very
carefully considered the question of sentence after being
fully alive to mitigating circumstance if any in favour of
the appellant. As in the instant case, the appellant without
any provocation committed murder of five persons in a very
cruel and barbaric manner in a cool and calculated manner
and also attempted to kill two others including his own
mother, the enormity and brutality of the crime had been
taken note of by the courts below and in the absence of any
mitigating factor the extreme penalty of death has been
awarded against him. In this connection Mr. Bhati has
referred to a decision of this Court in Shankar @ Gauri
Shankar and others Versus State of Tamil Nadu (1994 (4) SCC
478). After referring to a number of decisions of this Court
on the question of sentence and in particular the death
sentence to be awarded in a case of murder, it has been
indicated in the said decision that :
"the choice as to which one of the two
punishments provided for murder is the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
proper one in a given case will depend
upon the particular circumstances of
that case and the Court has to exercise
its discretion judicially and on well-
recognised principles after balancing
all the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances of the crime. The Court
also should see whether there is
something uncommon about the crime which
renders sentence of imprisonment of life
inadequate and calls for death sentence.
The nature of the crime and the
circumstances of the offender should be
so revealing that the criminal is a
menace to the society and the sentence
of imprisonment of life would be
inadequate. The sentence of death should
be reserved for the rarest of rare cases
after a due consideration of both
mitigating and aggravating
circumstances. What circumstances bring
a particular case under the category of
rarest of rare cases vary from case to
case depending upon the nature of the
crime, weapons used and the manner in
which it is perpetrated etc."
Mr. Bhati has also referred to another decision of this
Court in Jashubha Bharatsingh Gohil and others versus State
of Gujarat (1994 (4) SCC 353). It has been indicated in the
said decision that the protection of society and deterring
the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is
required to be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.
The change in the legislative intendment relating to award
of capital punishment notwithstanding the opposition by the
protagonist of abolition of capital sentence, shows that it
is expected of the Courts to so operate the sentencing
system as to impose such sentence which reflects the social
conscience of the society. The sentencing process has to be
stern where it should be.
Mr. Bhati has also submitted that although the motive
of the heinous crime committed by the appellant has not been
established but such motive looses its importance when the
prosecution case is totally proved beyond reasonable doubt.
When there is a direct evidence, it is not necessary to find
out the motive for the offence. For the said contention Mr.
Bhati has referred to the decisions of this Court in Tarseem
Kumar versus Delhi Administration (1994 (Suppl. 3) SCC 367),
Jamna and Others versus State of U.P. (1994 (Suppl. 1) SCC
185) and Kuriakose and Another versus State of Kerala (1994
(Suppl. 1) SCC 602). Mr. Bhati has submitted that although
Mr. Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, has very strongly contended that it was quite
likely that the appellant was suffering from psychic
disorder otherwise such facts, without any motivation could
not have been perpetrated and likelihood of sudden psychic
disorder ought to be considered as a mitigating factor in
awarding the extreme penalty of death, there is not an iota
of evidence regarding sudden psychic disorder of the accused
appellant at the time of commission of the said crime. The
evidences on the contrary reveal that in a cool and
calculated manner, and without any provocation whatsoever,
he committed one after the other the said dastardly crime in
a very brutal and ghastly manner. Mr. Bhati has submitted
that the number of murders in one continued course of action
and attempt to kill two others including the mother of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
appellant cannot but shock the conscience of the society.
The offence committed by the appellant is one of the rarest
and there is no mitigating circumstances which warrant
punishment of life imprisonment instead of capital
punishment. He has, therefore, submitted that the order of
death sentence is wholly justified in the facts of the case
and no intereference is called for.
After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence on record through
which we have been taken and after considering the judgments
passed by the courts below, it appears to us that the
commission of crimes by the appellant, namely, murdering
five persons including the wife and three minor children of
the appellant and attempt to murder two others has been
clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. Although the
mother of the appellant who herself was injured while
attempting to prevent her son from committing the murder of
wife and three minor children, has not supported the
prosecution case and has been declared as a hostile witness,
the evidences adduced in this case are so clear that the
courts below had no difficulty in holding that the appellant
was guilty of murdering his wife and three minor children
and injuring his own mother in an attempt to kill her. In
our view, such finding has been made on the basis of the
reliable and clinching evidence adduced in the case and we
find no reason to take a contrary view. The prosecution case
that the appellant had murdered Gulabji and also attempted
to kill Smt. Galal has also been established by
unimpeachable, convincing and reliable evidences. Smt. Galal
who herself was injured has deposed and the wife of Shri
Gulabji who has seen the commission of murder of Gulabji has
also deposed in the case. Therefore, the finding that the
appellant is guilty of the offence of attempting to kill
Smt. Galal and he is also guilty of murdering Gulabji is
wholly justified and no interference is called for with such
finding.
Mr. Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing as amicus
curiae for the appellant has ingeneously contended that no
evidence has been led in the case which may suggest that
there was some occasion for the appellant to bear suspicion,
hatred or grudge against his wife or Smt. Galal or her
husband which might have induced the appellant to commit the
offences. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that normally for
every crime there is some motive and even though conviction
can be based if there is reliable evidence about the
commission of crime without establishing any motive for such
crime, such motive, according to Mr. Natarajan, assumes
significance in awarding the sentence particularly in a
murder case.
Mr. Natarajan has contended that the appellant appears
to have suddenly lost the equillibrium of his mind and
behaved in a strange manner thereby committing murder of his
wife and three minor children apparently without any
provocation and even attempting to kill his own mother when
she tried to restrain him. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that
in the absence of any evidence suggesting harbouring of
hatred, grudge or ill feeling against the wife or Smt.
Galal, the sudden spree of murderous assault unusual to the
social and educational background of the appellant, becomes
inexplicable and such strange behaviour only suggests that
he must have been seized of psychic disorder momentarily.
Mr. Natarajan has also submitted that the evidences do not
reveal that the appellant was insane at the time of
commission of the crime and such plea of insanity has also
not been taken by the appellant. Hence, the appellant may
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
not claim the benefit of absence of mens rea. But the
possibility of temporary psychic disorder requires to be
considered in awarding the extreme penalty of death. Such
contention of Mr. Natarajan though ingeneous does not appeal
to us.
It has been clearly revealed from the evidences adduced
in the case that the appellant was in his house with his
wife, mother and three minor children. There is no evidence
that there was any altercation between the husband and wife
either immediately or shortly before the commission of
murder of wife and three innocent minor children of the
appellant. From the evidence it clearly transpires that the
appellant in a cool and calculated manner wanted to kill the
wife and three minor children while they were asleep and had
no occasions to give any resistance whatsoever. It is also
revealed from the evidence that he was fully determined to
commit the crime of murder and was conscious of the nature
of the crime being committed by him. Precisely for the said
reason, when his mother wanted to prevent him from
committing such heinous crime he even did not spare his
mother and also injured her with the axe in an attempt to
kill her also. There is no evidence that the appellant was
found in a confused state of mind. On the contrary, it
transpires from the evidence that he silently went to the
neighbour’s house and attempted to kill Smt. Galal who was
also asleep. It appears to us that in a cool and calculated
manner the appellant wanted to kill Smt. Galal who being
asleep was not capable of giving any resistance. It is also
quite apparent that the appellant being conscious of the
enormity of the crime committed by him, wanted to flee away
from the place of occurrence and when the poor old man
Gulabji came on his way and enquired as to what had
happened, he immediately hacked Gulabji to death in an
extremely brutal manner and thereafter fled away from the
place of occurrence and tried to hide himself. Such facts,
in our view, clearly indicate that the appellant committed
all the said heinous crimes in a conscious state of mind and
in a calculated manner. Hence, case of temporary psychic
disorder as sought to be canvassed by Mr. Natarajan cannot
be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana versus State of West
Bengal (1994 (2) SCC 220) it has been indicated by this
Court that :
"some criminals get very harsh sentences
while many receive grossly different
sentence for an essentially equivalent
crime and a shockingly large number even
go unpunished thereby encourage the
criminal and in the ultimate making,
justice suffer by weakening the system’s
credibility."
It has also been indicated that :
"In imposing sentences in the absence of
specific legislation, Judges must
consider variety of factors and after
considering all those factors and taking
an overall view of the situation, impose
sentence which they consider to be an
appropriate one. Aggravating factors
cannot be ignored and similarly
mitigating circumstances have also to be
taken into consideration. The measure of
punishment in a given case must depend
upon the atrocity of the crime; the
conduct of the criminal and the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
defenceless and unprotected state of the
victim. Imposition of appropriate
punishment is the manner in which the
courts respond to the society’s cry for
justice against the criminal. Justice
demands that courts should impose
punishment befitting the crime so that
the courts reflect public abhorrence of
the crime. The courts must not only keep
in view the rights of the criminal but
also the rights of the victim of crime
and the society at large while
considering imposition of appropriate
punishment."
In our view, in the facts of the case, it has been very
clearly established that the appellant has committed one of
the most heinous crimes by killing his poor wife who was in
advanced stage of pregnancy and three minor children for no
fault on their part. The appellant had a solemn duty to
protect them and to maintain them but he has betrayed the
trust reposed on him in a very cruel and calculated manner
without any provocation whatsoever. The appellant did not
even soare his mother who very rightly tried to prevent him
from committing such unpardonable crime. The appellant also
attacked his mother with the axe which he had used to kill
his wife and minor children and caused injuries on her
person with an intention to kill her. The brutality and
cruelty with which the crimes have been perpetrated cannot
but shock the conscience of the society. After killing the
wife and three minor children and injuring the mother he did
not become remorseful and desist from committing any further
crime. But like a blood thirsty demon, in a cool and
calculated manner he went to one of the neighbour’s house
and attempted to kill the wife of the neighbour while she
was asleep and as such utterly helpless to give any
resistance. When in his attempt to flee away from the place
of occurrence, the poor old Gulabji came on his way, the
appellant did not hesitate to kill him in extremely brutal
manner before the eyes of his wife. All the said heinous
crimes were committed without any provocation. The appellant
was not even remorseful after the said incident of
successive five murders and attempt to kill two others
including the appellant’s mother. The appellant did not go
to see the ailing mother injured by him and did not also
attend the funeral of his wife and even his three innocent
minor children. The crimes had been committed with utmost
cruelty and brutality without any provocation, in a
calculated manner. It is the nature and gravity of the crime
but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of
appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will
be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not
awarded for a crime which has been committed not only
against the individual victim but also against the society
to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to
be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should
conform to end be consistent with the atrocity and brutality
with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of
the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond
to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal. In
our view, if for such heinous crimes the most deterrent
punishment for wanton and brutal murders is not given, the
case of deterrent punishment will loose its relevance. We,
therefore, do not find any justification to commute the
death penalty to imprisonment for life. The appeal therefore
must fail and is dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11