Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2017
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1 CRA No. 1684/2017
CRRFC No. 03/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K.Seth, Judge &
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, Judge
Criminal Appeal No. 1684/2017
Bhagchandra
Vs
State of Madhya Pradesh
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, Advocate for the appellant
Shri S.K.Rai, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRRFC No. 03/2017
In Reference
Received from Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur
Vs.
Bhagchandra
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.K.Rai, Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, Advocate for the respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : Yes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law laid down :- (i) Evidence of related eye-witnesses can be relied
upon for conviction.
(ii) Non-compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. cannot prove fatal for the
prosecution if the case is duly established against the accused.
(iii) Keeping in view the heinous and brutal nature of murder of more
than one person, now-a-days death sentence is essential.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Paragraphs : - 21 to 25, 27 to 29, 43 to 47
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
( 19/12/2017) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-
1. The criminal appeal (CRA 1684/2017) has been preferred by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment and findings dated 04.04.2017 passed by the Second Addl. Session Judge, 2 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 District Chhatarpur in Session Trial No. 05/2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below :
Section Act Imprisonment Fine In default of fine 302 Indian Penal Code Death Sentence - - 302 Indian Penal Code Death Sentence - - 302 Indian Penal Code Death Sentence - -
201 Indian Penal Code RI for 7 years 2000/- S.I. for 3 months
506-B Indian Penal Code RI for 7 years - -
2. The Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur also made reference to this Court under Section 366(1) of Cr.P.C. for confirmation of order of capital punishment of death awarded to the appellant. Thus, by this common order we propose to decide the aforesaid criminal appeal and criminal reference.
3. It is not in dispute that appellant Bhagchandra is the real brother of deceased Thakur Das and Devki Prasad and deceased Akhilesh was the son of Devki Prasad i.e. nephew of the appellant.
Kiran Patel (PW-1) is the wife of deceased Devki Prasad. Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) are the daughter and son of deceased Devki Prasad and Kiran Patel (PW-1).
4. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the deceased Thakur Das, deceased Devki Prasad and his son deceased Akhilesh resided together at village Pur under the Police Station Maharajpur, District Chhatarpur. The appellant resided in their neighborhood. On 11.10.2015 at about 5:00-5:30 am, complainant Kiran the wife of deceased Devki Prasad (PW-1) had gone to attend call of nature. 3 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 While she was returning, she saw the appellant armed with axe getting out of her house. The appellant had enmity with them, therefore, she suspected of some unpleasant incident. She immediately went inside the house and saw Thakur Das (her elder brother-in-law) lying dead, covered with blood and his neck was detached from the body. She also found her son dead. She immediately went looking for her husband Devki Prasad who was sleeping in the field behind the house. She rushed to the field and saw the appellant assaulting her husband Devki with the axe. She tried to stop him but the appellant threatened to kill her. She somehow succeeded to escape. In the meanwhile, family members and neighbours gathered at the spot and found that the appellant had cut the neck of Thakur Das, Devki Prasad and Akhilesh. All of them had died on the spot. Immediately FIR was lodged by Kiran (PW-1) at Police Station, Maharajpur. Merg was registered. After inquest report Crime No. 187/2015 was registered by the police against the appellant. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed before the concerned Court and case was committed to the Session Court.
5. The Court of Second Additional Session Judge framed charges against the appellant under Sections 302 (three counts), 201 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded that he was falsely implicated by Kiran (PW-1) to grab the property.
4 CRA No. 1684/2017CRRFC No. 03/2017
6. After considering the entire prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of committing the offences. Hence, awarded sentence as mentioned at paragraph one. The learned trial Court made reference to this Court for confirmation of order of capital punishment awarded by the trial Court.
7. The appellant challenged the impugned judgment and sentence on the grounds that there is no direct evidence against him. The testimony of eye-witness is contradictory with the medical evidence. The appellant had no motive to kill the deceased persons. The conclusions of trial Court are contrary to law, facts and circumstances. Hence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. The appellant also submits that this case is not covered under the category of "the rarest of rare". The learned trial Court erred in law and facts in convicting the appellant. It is not just and proper, therefore, unsustainable in the eyes of law.
8. We have heard rival submissions at length. Perused the record.
9. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant.
10. The questions for consideration before us are as follows :
(i) Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the appellant in the aforesaid offences?
(ii) Whether the case is covered under the category of "the rarest of rare"?5 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017
11. After perusal of the entire record, we come to the conclusion that the case is not based only on circumstantial evidence but on direct evidence of eye witnesses Kiran Patel (PW-1), Urmila (PW-2), Kamlesh (PW-3) and Rakesh Vishwakarma (PW-7).
12. Urmila Patel (PW-2) is the daughter and Kamlesh (PW-3) is the son of deceased Devki Prasad, and brother & sister of deceased Akhilesh. The deceased Thakur Das was the elder brother of deceased Devki Prasad. It is not disputed that they all resided together at the time of incident. The incident took place between 5:00 am to 5:30 am. At that time, their presence on the spot is natural. Urmila (PW-2) is 11 years old and Kamlesh (PW-3) is 12 years old. Although, they are child witnesses but they are old enough to understand the incidents happening in their surroundings. It is not challenged by the appellant that all the victims died on the spot, as a result of fatal injuries on their vital parts by axe.
13. Urmila (PW-2) has stated that at the time of incident, she was plastering the chulah (hearth) when she heard noises she came out. She saw the appellant brutally assaulting (cutting) Thakur Das with an axe. Her elder brother Akhilesh was sleeping nearby. Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) tried to awake him but he did not wake up. Then the appellant also hit 6 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 Akhilesh on his neck with the axe and repeatedly inflicted blows on his body.
14. Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) further stated that, the appellant also tried to caught hold of Kamlesh (PW-3) but he and his sister Urmila ran towards their neighbour Kamlesh Patel (PW-6) s/o Gulabchandra Patel. They went inside the house of Kamlesh Patel. Kamlesh Patel (PW-6) came to know about the incident from Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3). But due to fear they did not come out to help. The testimony of Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) and Kamlesh (PW-6) have corroborated with each other.
15. In case of Baleshwar Mehto Vs. State of Bihar [2017 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) SC 344], the High Court of Patna has held as under -
"Eyewitnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility."
16. In case of Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh [(2003) 6 SCC 380] and Krishnan Vs. State [(2003) 7 SCC 56], the Hon'ble Supreme has held as under :
"The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the 7 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 witnesses; their performance in the witness- box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
17. In the light of the above principles, we find the testimony of all these three witnesses trustworthy.
18. Appellant has not challenged the fact that, at the time of incident Devki Prasad was sleeping in the field. As per Kiran (PW-1), wife of deceased Devki Prasad while she was returning from outside, she saw the appellant coming out of her house armed with an axe. In apprehension, she ran inside the house and saw Thakur Das and her son Akhilesh lying dead. The head of Thakur Das was detached from his body and Akhilesh also sustained neck and head injury. Kiran (PW-1) corroborated the testimony of Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) and Kamlesh s/o Gulabchandra Patel (PW-6) that Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) escaped from the incident and ran towards their neighbour house. When Kiran Patel (PW-1) saw the appellant going towards the field, she went after him and saw the appellant assaulting her husband Devki Prasad with an axe. She tried to stop the appellant but, he threatened to kill her. Thereafter, she started shouting and ran away. On the way, Kiran Patel (PW-1) met Rakesh Vishwakarma ((PW-7). Later, Rammilan (PW-4), Khillu Patel 8 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 (PW-5), Kamlesh Patel (PW-6) and other villagers came to her house. Rakesh (PW-7) duly corroborated the testimony of Kiran Patel (PW-1). We find that Rakesh witnessed the incident from about 10-15 feet distance. His presence is found reliable.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant contended as to why the witnesses did not try to rescue the victims. At the time of incident, the appellant was in a fit of rage, armed with axe who had slit the throats of three persons. In such a situation, no one would dare to face him or rescue the victims.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated by Kiran, the wife of deceased Devki Prasad to get his property. Kiran Patel (PW-1) stated that few years ago, deceased Thakur Das was residing with the appellant. The appellant wanted to hold possession of the land and tractor belonging to Thakur Das. Thakur Das refused to give away the property. Thereafter, appellant sent Thakur Das out of his house. On the other hand, Kiran (PW-1) deposed that six months prior to the incident, Thakur Das started residing with his brother Devki Prasad and Kiran Patel. Appellant thought that Thakur Das would give his property to Devki Prasad, therefore, he killed Thakur Das, Devki Prasad and Akhilesh. This contention of Kiran Patel (PW-1) is 9 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 supported by Rammilan (PW-4) and Khillu Patel (PW-5), both neibhbours of of the deceased persons as well as the appellant. They were residing in the same village hence, were in knowledge of these facts. An alternate plea has been taken by the appellant that deceased Thakur Das had illicit relation with his wife. But in this regard no suggestion has been given by the learned counsel for the appellant to any witness nor any evidence is adduced by him, hence the evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded.
21. It is also important to note that the testimony of Kiran Patel (PW-1), Rammilan (PW-4) and Khillu Patel (PW-5) with regard to the land dispute between the appellant and his brothers is unchallenged. In their cross-examination which establishes the motive of the appellant to commit such crime. Learned counsel for the appellant alleged that in this case, all the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. But, it is also important to note that they are also relatives of the appellant. Infact, the relatives are more interested to implicate the real culprit of the crime. They will not spare the real culprit and falsely implicate their own relatives or other innocent persons.
22. In case of Roop Narain Mishra Vs. State of UP [2017 Cri.LJ 1487] has held as under :
10 CRA No. 1684/2017CRRFC No. 03/2017
"On the point of 'interested witnesses', the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdeo, reported in 2003 Cri LJ 844 (SC) observed that only on the ground of interested or related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. Most of the times eye witnesses happen to be family members or close associates because unless a crime is committed near a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occurrence. In Mst. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1976 Cr LJ 418 (SC), following observations were made:
The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other is convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. In the reported case the incident took place at midnight inside the house, the only natural witnesses who could be present to see the assault were the persons present in the house at that time. No outsider can be expected to have come at that time because the attack was sudden. Moreover a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness.
Witness who gives details with absolute accuracy is trustworthy."
[See also Waman and others v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 Crl. LJ 4827].
23. In case of Arjun vs. State of C.G. [2017 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 305), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"Evidence of related witness is of evidentiary value. Court has to scrutinize evidence with case as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law. Fact of witness being related to victim or deceased does not by itself discredit evidence."11 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017
24. Hence, in the light of the above legal proposition, the testimony of near relatives of the deceased persons is rightly relied by the trial Court. We are not inclined to discard the same.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that there are many contradictions and omissions in the testimony of those witnesses. But, on consideration of the entire evidence and the facts & circumstances of the case, we do not find any substantial contradiction or omission in their statements, but we find that the testimony of eye-witnesses is fully reliable. We rely upon the case of Rammi Vs. State of MP (AIR 1999 SC 3544), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."
26. The FIR was lodged promptly by Kiran (PW-1), wife of deceased Devki Prasad which is established by Sub-Inspector 12 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 Shahjad (PW-18). The FIR (Exh. P/22) has been lodged on 11.10.2015 at about 7:40 am i.e. within two hours of the incident which took place between 5:00 am to 5:30 am. The distance from the scene crime to the police station is about 6 kms. The FIR was lodged against the appellant. Facts of the FIR are fully corroborated by the eye-witnesses, hence the prosecution case is duly proved and found reliable.
27. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is not proved in the case. Copy of FIR was sent to the concerned magistrate after 24 hours of the incident. The FIR was lodged as an afterthought against the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution case cannot be relied upon.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Daud Khan [2016 (2) SCC 607] has held as under:
The interpretation of Section 157 of the CrPC is no longer res integra. The purpose of the "forthwith" communication of a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate is to check the possibility of its manipulation. Therefore, a delay in transmitting the special report to the Magistrate is linked to the lodging of the FIR. If there is no delay in lodging an FIR, then any delay in communicating the special report to the Magistrate would really be of little consequence, since manipulation of the FIR would then get ruled out. Nevertheless, the prosecution should explain the delay in transmitting the special report to the 13 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 Magistrate. However, if no question is put to the investigating officer concerning the delay, the prosecution is under no obligation to give an explanation. There is no universal rule that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. In other words, the facts and circumstances of a case are important for a decision in this regard."
29. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellant that because non-compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is not sufficient to ignore the whole prosecution evidence. The prosecution evidence duly establishes the case against the appellant.
30. On the same date of incident, statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Kiran Patel (PW-1), Kamlesh (PW-3), Urmila (PW-2), Rammilan (PW-4), Khillu (PW-5), Matadeen (PW-9), Kamlesh S/o Gulabchandra Patel (PW-6), Gulabchandra (PW-
8), Rakesh Vishwakarma (PW-7), Kisia Bai were recorded by Investigating Officer Shahjad Singh (PW-18). No suggestion has been given to him that, the statements have been recorded belatedly. This fact wash away any doubt with regard to the contention that the FIR was lodged as an afterthought and not on 11.10.2015.
31. Investigating Officer Shahjad Singh (PW-18) recorded memorandum statement of the appellant Exh. P/10 before 14 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 Lachhi Ram (PW-12) and Gulabchand (PW-8). Thereafter, a bloodstained axe (Article A) was recovered from the field of the appellant vide seizure memo (Exh. P/12). The police also recovered bloodstained clothes (Article B & C) of the appellant vide seizure memo (Exh. P/11). This fact was corroborated by panch witness Lachhiram (PW-12) and Gulabchand (PW-8). In the FSL report, low DNA mixed profile was detected on the source of Article R (axe). Similarly, they found non-amplifiable very low DNA detected from the source of Article B, D, F & Q. We are of the considered view that due to less quantity of blood present over the incriminating articles or otherwise, the DNA profile was not detected in the source of articles, not sufficient enough to match. Hence, merely on this ground, the testimony of eye- witnesses cannot be brushed aside or discarded.
32. The occular evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Mahesh Dixit (PW-14), Dr. Sunil Chourasia (PW-15) and Dr. N.K.Gupta (PW-16) conducted the autopsy of all the three deceased persons on the same day of incident i.e. on 11.10.2015. Dr. Mahesh Dixit (PW-14) who conducted post-mortem of the body of Devki Prasad found the following injuries :
15 CRA No. 1684/2017CRRFC No. 03/2017
(i) Neck is detached from trunk except thin tag of skin attached on posterior side of neck
(ii) Cervical vertibra fractured and cutted.
(iii) All major blood vessel and cervical nerves, trachea, esophagus are cutted and separated from trunk.
(iv) Cut margin are sharp and chop type wound caused by hard and sharp object.
(v) Incised wound is present in abdomen on left side of size 10 cm x 2.5 cm exposing peritonium.
33. Dr. Sunil Chourasia (PW-15) who conducted post-mortem of the body of deceased Thakur Das, found the following injuries :
(i) Incised wound of size 11 cm x 4 cm present over left cervical region, margin sharp, underlying muscles, vessels and spinal cord are cut. Tissue taken from the wound.
(ii) Incised wound of size 6 cm x 2 cm present over left shoulder underlying muscle cut.
(iii) Incised wound of size 6 cm x 3 cm present over right cervical region, margins sharp, underlying great vessels vessels & muscles cut.
(iv) Incised wound of size 10 cm x 2 cm present over left parietal occipital region of scalp, skull chopped, brain matter exposed, anteroposterior in direction.
(v) Incised wound of 7 cm x 3 cm present over posterolateral aspect of left lumbar region. Transverse in direction.
(vi) Incised wound of size 7 cm x 2 cm present over right paraspinal region of back - obliquely transverse in direction.
(vii) Incised wound of size 7 cm x 2 cm present over left iliac crest, muscle exposed.
(viii) Incised wound of size 10 cm x 0.5 cm present over left gluteal region - obliquely transverse in direction.
34. Dr. N.K.Gupta (PW-16) who conducted post-mortem of the body of deceased Akhilesh Kumar found the following injuries :
16 CRA No. 1684/2017CRRFC No. 03/2017
(i) Incised wound 15 cm x 10 cm x muscle deep in right side shoulder region near neck.
(ii) Right side clavicle muscles exposed and right carotid cut.
(iii) Lungs exposed incised would 13 cm x 3 cm on left side fronto parietal region.
(iv) Incised would of size 9 x 3 cm x bonedeep on right side of occipital parietal region.
(v) Incised wound of size 10 cm x 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm postero lateral aspect of left cervical region.
(vi) Incised wound 12 cm x 4 cm x bonedeep and 11 cm x 3 x bonedeep at right scapular region on the backside.
(vii) Incised wound of 5 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm on the left side shoulder region. Injuries are antemortem and homicidal in nature.
(viii) Amputed three finger : middle, ring and index finger left side and attached by thin layer skin.
35. After perusal of all the post-mortem reports, it appear that the appellant inflicted about 7-8 fatal injuries to each of the deceased on the vital parts of their bodies. He committed murder of three persons in somewhat similar manner by cutting their neck. He repeatedly inflicted blows by the axe over the vital body parts. All the injuries and wounds were sufficient to cause immediate death of a person in ordinary course of nature. The appellant came premeditated to the spot armed with an axe to commit murder, at early morning hours i.e. 5:00-5:30 am when people are usually asleep. Thus, the act of the appellant comes under the definition of murder as prescribed under Section 300(4) of Indian Penal Code. 17 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017
36. With regard to the opinion of doctor and version given by the eye-witnesses and other-witnesses, we do not find any substantial contradiction and omission which adversely affect the prosecution case. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated all the prosecution evidence in its right perspective and rightly held the appellant guilty of committing brutal murder of Thakur Das, Devki Prasad and Akhilesh Kumar.
37. We do not find any evidence with regard to offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC against the appellant. No witness stated about it therefore, in our considered view, the appellant is liable to be acquitted under Section 201 of IPC.
38. In the circumstances of the case, we find the testimony of Kiran (PW-1) is wholly reliable that during the incident when the appellant inflicted axe blow on her husband Devki Prasad, she tried to save him from the appellant. But the appellant threatened to kill her. After considering the above facts and evidence that has come on record, we find that, at that time, he had already committed murder of two person and was armed with axe. He was in anger and also wanted to kill Kamlesh, the younger son of Kiran who had a narrow escape. Thus, the act of the appellant against Kiran properly falls under the purview of offence punishable under Section 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.
18 CRA No. 1684/2017CRRFC No. 03/2017
39. On the above reasons, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with judgment of trial Court regarding conviction of the appellant-Bhagchandra under Section 302 (three counts) and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment is well reasoned judgment regarding conviction and sentence of the appellant in aforesaid crime. The prosecution failed to prove/establish the charge of offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, the appellant is hereby acquitted from the same.
40. Now the question would be whether the instant case could be one of the "rarest of rare" case warranting death penalty.
41. In case of Omprakash Vs. State of Haryana [(1999) SCC (Cri.) 334], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"The Court must respond to the cry of the society and to settle what would be a deterrent punishment for what was an apparently abominable crime."
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking through a Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and other connected cases [AIR 1980 SC 898] considered the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided under Section 302 of IPC. After elaborate discussions, it was found that provision of death penalty as an alternative 19 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 punishment for murder is not unreasonable and it is in the public interest. Therefore, it was held that the provision in Section 302 of IPC violates neither the letter nor the ethos of the Constitution. Following this decision, three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957] held as follows:
"In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh's case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh's case:
(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability;
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime';
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances;
(iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the 20 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised."
[Also see Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu :
(2010) 9 SCC 567, Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India : (2011) 2 SCC 490, Surendra Koli Vs. State of UP : (2011) 4 SCC 80, Sudam Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 7 SCC 125.]
43. The accused/appellant may not be a hardened criminal, but he committed brutal murder of three persons by cutting their neck and causing several fatal injuries together in a preplanned manner, who were unarmed and sleeping. Due to which they failed to escape from the sudden and unexpected attack.
44. At the time of incident, the conduct and behaviour of the appellant clearly indicates that if Kiran (PW-1), Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) have not saved themselves, the appellant could have killed them too. We have considered all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the instant case.
45. In case of Purushottam Dashrath Borate Vs. State of Maharshtra [(2015) 3 SCC (Cri.) 326], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the age of the accused persons, their family background and lack of criminal antecedents cannot be said to be the mitigating circumstance, the nature of heinous offence and cold and calculated manner in which it was committed by the accused person. The agony suffered by the family of the victims cannot be ignored. Having regard to the 21 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 nature and manner of crime, we strongly feel that, a sentence of life imprisonment would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. It would amount to no punishment at all.
46. In case of Mukesh Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi [(2017) 6 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that -
"Where a crime is committed with extreme brutality and the collective conscience of the society is shocked, courts must award death penalty, irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability of death penalty. By not imposing a death sentence in such cases, the courts may do injustice to the society at large."
"Question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion and has to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating or mitigating in the individual cases. The courts are consistently faced with the situation where they are required to answer the new challenges and mould the sentence to meet those challenges. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law. It is expected of the courts to operate the sentencing system as to impose such sentence which reflects the social conscience of the society. While determining sentence in heinous crimes, Judges ought to weigh its impact on the society and impose adequate sentence considering the collective conscience or society's cry for justice. While considering the imposition of appropriate punishment, courts should not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim and the society at large.
In State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey and Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 710, it was observed as under:
Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public 22 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Naidu (1991) 3 SCC 471.
Another significant development in the sentencing policy of India is the 'victim-
centric' approach, clearly recognised in Machhi Singh (Supra) and re-emphasized in a plethora of cases. It has been consistently held that the courts have a duty towards society and that the punishment should be corresponding to the crime and should act as a soothing balm to the suffering of the victim and their family. [Ref:
Gurvail Singh @ Gala and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2013) 2 SCC 713; Mohfil Khan and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand (2015) 1 SCC 67; Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 652]. The Courts while considering the issue of sentencing are bound to acknowledge the rights of the victims and their family, apart from the rights of the society and the accused. The agony suffered by the family of the victims cannot be ignored in any case. In Mohfil Khan (supra), this Court specifically observed that 'it would be the paramount duty of the Court to provide justice to the incidental victims of the crime - the family members of the deceased persons."
47. Now-a-days reformative ideas are totally ineffective. Justice demands that the Court should impose punishment befitting the crime so that it reflects public abhorrence of the crime. The instant case clearly comes within the category of the "rarest of rare" case. Any other punishment is absolutely 23 CRA No. 1684/2017 CRRFC No. 03/2017 inadequate. Therefore, relying upon the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, we are not inclined to convert the capital punishment awarded to the appellant into life imprisonment. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, death sentence awarded to the appellant should be maintained.
48. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the appeal preferred by the appellant-Bhagchandra is hereby dismissed. The death sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is hereby confirmed under Section 366(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.
(S.K.SETH) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Digitally signed by
SREEVIDYA
Date: 2017.12.19 14:55:09
+05'30'