State Of Gujarat vs Milind Ramniklal Surti(U.T.P.) on 20 April, 2018

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Milind Ramniklal Surti(U.T.P.) on 20 April, 2018

1. This appeal is preferred by the State under Page 1 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the sentence against judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No.46 of 2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the respondent herein was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 449 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life (till last breath of his life) for offence under Section 302, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 449 and for a period of 7 years for offence under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case involves murder of three persons at the hands of the respondent, for which an FIR being CR-I-

51 OF 2010 came to be registered with Valsad City Police Station for offences under Sections 302, 449, 498A, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. From the FIR and the investigation conducted thereafter, the case of the prosecution on facts appears to be as under:-

2.1 Complainant-Binkuben Shaileshbhai gave the complaint with Valsad City Police Station on 11.05.2010 at 11.30 declaring that on the same day around 9.00 o'clock in the morning, his father Shaileshbhai had gone for the purpose of attending Selvasa Court and complainant was returning on the scooter from the office Page 2 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT of tax consultant Ajay Rathod. That when the complainant came near Pragji Tower on her scooty, her brother-in-law Milindbhai Ramniklal Surti came on motor cycle near to her and started giving abuses to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, got afraid and came back to her house. During this period, at the house of the complainant, her mother Bharatiben, sister Pooja and brother Dhaval were present. The complainant's brother-

in-law-respondent herein also came there on his motorcycle and parked it bear the house of the complainant. The accused-respondent herein, who was armed with knife, entered the house of the complainant at around 10.15 am. At that time, complainant, her mother, father, sister and brother Dhaval were present in different room. At that time, the accused-respondent herein entered into the room with knife and he was stopped by the mother of the complainant. The accused pushed mother of the complainant and went into the room of brother and sister of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant and her mother went after the accused, where the accused-respondent herein was inflicting knife blows on sister Pooja, brother Dhaval and mother. The accused gave knife blows on the chest of brother Dhaval and also gave knife blows on the chest of sister Pooja. On account of the knife blows given to her mother on stomach, there was profound bleeding when the accused Page 3 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT tried to chase the complainant with knife, the complainant went out of the house and started shouting for help. On account of her screaming, Imtiazbhai Balsari, owner of the shopping center, Bhagubhai Teawala and many other persons residing in the locality came there. Meanwhile, accused Milind came out of the house with blood stained knife and clothes and ran away towards Mahavir society by jumping the northern side wall of the bungalow of the complainant. The complainant immediately came back to her house and show her mother lying on sofa in bleeding condition. She also show her sister Pooja and brother Dhaval in bleeding condition and in unconscious condition. In the meanwhile, neighbours Kumarbhai Nanalal Chheda, Mansukh Shethia from Mahavir society came there and took the mother, sister and brother of the complainant to hospital for treatment.

Because of the scuffle took place in the house, the mobile of accused-Milind had fallen down and motorcycle being Here Honda Splender bearing registration No.GJ-15- EE-5175 of the accused was found near the wall of the bungalow of the complainant.

2.2 Accused-Milind had love marriage with the sister of the complainant before two and half hears.


After     the      marriage,          he     was      frequently           beating       and

mentally        and     physically          harassing          the    sister       of    the



                                       Page 4 of 25
         R/CR.A/407/2018                                          JUDGMENT



complainant.          On account of ill-treatment meted out to

sister Pooja, she came back to her parental house in the month of February and left her child at the house of her in-laws. A notice for maintenance was also issued to accused Milind. Accused-Milind thereafter met Advocate Falguniben who is junior Advocate working with the father of the complainant and gave threat to all family members of killing them. Accused-Milind was creating atmosphere of fear in the minds of the family members of the complainant by frequently visiting the house of the complainant. This time round, the accused came with open knife and entered house of the complainant and gave blows by knife to sister Pooja, brother Dhaval and mother Bharatiben and caused fatal injuries to all of them and during the course of treatment, all had died.

2.3 Upon due investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against 4 accused persons including the respondent for offences under Sections 302, 449, 498A and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. After compliance with the necessary provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, sessions came to be committed by a separate order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad.

2.4 Before the Sessions Court, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and thereby claimed to be tried.

Page 5 of 25

       R/CR.A/407/2018                                                     JUDGMENT



2.5         Charge        came       to     be        framed      vide      Exh.9          for

offences under Sections 302, 449, 498A, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code..

2.6 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined following witnesses:-

             Sr. Name of the witness                                                 Exh. No.
             No.
             1    Deposition of the complainant Binkuben Shaileshbhai-eyewitness     19
             2    Deposition of witness Shaileshbhai Trikambhai                      82
             3    Deposition of witness Imtiyazbhai Gulamnabi                        197
             4    Deposition of witness Bhagubhai Gangaram                           198
             5    Deposition of witness Mansukhbhai Anandji                          199
             6    Deposition of witness Tarlikaben Navinbhai                         200
             7    Deposition of witness Rajan Bhagwanji                              201
             8    Deposition of witness Vihang Aakash                                202
             9    Deposition of witness Falginiben Harendra                          204
             10   Deposition of witness Sureshbhai Dalpatbhai                        223
             11   Deposition of witness Thakorbhai Jivanbhai                         224
             12   Deposition of witness Nitinbhai Shambhubhai                        225
             13   Deposition of witness Bhupen Chhaganbhai                           231
             14   Deposition of Mustikam Gulambhai                                   233

15 Deposition of Dr.Ashvin Ramanbhai Patel (gave treatment to the 126 accused) 16 Deposition of Dr.Shital Abhishekh Kharediya (conducted PM) 128 17 Deposition of Dr.Nirav M.Desai (gave treatment to the deceased) 139 18 Deposition of Dr.Samit Ranjan (gave treatment to the accused) 227 19 Deposition of Police Constable Abdulbhai Gulamnabi (accepted 195 clothes from the dead body from Hospital) 20 Deposition of Police Constable Pramod Shaligram 203 21 Deposition of PSO Mahendrabhai Karunashankar (registered the 210 offence and clothes from dead body and clothes after PM were presented before him) 22 Deposition of Rajendra Joravarsinh Gohil (the officer who took the 220 complaint) 23 Deposition of ASI Pratapbhai Jivabhai (accepted cloths of the 221 injured persons from Doctor House) 24 Deposition of IO Pramod Surji Valvi 234 Page 6 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT 25 Deposition of Dipak Bhagubhai Patel (FSL officer, who had taken 206 the site visit and prepared report) 26 Deposition of Rameshchandra Chunilal (Executive Magistrate and 216 conducted identification parade) 27 Deposition of panch witness Priyank Nanalal 148 28 Deposition of panch witness Darshan Mahendra Dalal 150 29 Deposition of panch witness Dhirubhai Ramanbhai 181 30 Deposition of panch witness Mukeshbhai Nathubhai 185 31 Deposition of panch witness Bakulbhai Prabhulal 188 32 Deposition of panch witness Anil Lalchand 193 2.7 Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidence:-

             Sr. Name of the witness                                                Exh. No.
             No.
             1    Inquest panchnama                                                 149
             2    Panchnama of scene of offence                                     151
             3    Panchnama of physical situation and recovery of clothes of the 173
                  accused
             4    Discovery panchnama                                               176
             5    Panchnama prepared at the time of taking possession of the 182
                  clothes of the injured persons
             6    Panchnama prepared at the time of taking possession of clothes 189
                  from the dead body
             7    Panchnama of taking possession of shirt of witness Vihang Aakash 194
             8    TI parade panchnama                                               219
             9    Receipts containing signatures of the panchas                     152 to
                                                                                    172
             10   Receipts containing signatures of the panchas                     174, 175,
                                                                                    177, 183,
                                                                                    184, 190,
                                                                                    191, 192,
                                                                                    195
             11   Medical certificate of the accused                                127
             12   Police Yadi written to the Medical Officer                        129
             13   PM report of deceased Dhaval                                      130
             14   Certificate containing reason of death of deceased Dhaval         131
             15   PM report of deceased Poojaben                                    132
             16   Certificate containing reason of death of deceased Poojaben       133



                                       Page 7 of 25
 R/CR.A/407/2018                                                     JUDGMENT



       17   PM report of deceased Bharatiben                                   134
       18   Certificate containing reason of death of deceased Bharatiben      135

19 Yadi dated 19.05.2010 written to the Medical Officer for treatment 136 of the accused 20 Case papers of the accused dated 19.05.2010 137 21 Medical certificate of the accused dated 19.05.2010 138 22 Medical certificate given from the Doctor House of deceased 140 Dhaval 23 Medical certificate given from the Doctor House of deceased 141 Bharatiben 24 Medical certificate given from the Doctor House of deceased 142 Poojaben 25 Medical certificate given from the Doctor House of deceased 144 Dhaval 26 Medical certificate given from the Doctor House of deceased 145 Poojaben 27 Medical certificate given from the Doctor House of deceased 146 Bharatiben 28 Police Yadi regarding treatment of the accused dated 11.05.2010 228 29 OPD case papers of the accused dated 11.05.2010 229 30 Medical certificate of the accused dated 11.05.2010 230 31 Complaint 20 32 Letter written by Poojaben to her parents 85 33 Notice given by the Advocate of the accused Shri BC Pardiwala 85 dated 05.05.2010 34 Postal Department slip of notice being registered dated 07.05.2010 87 35 Receipt of UPC 88 36 Yadi dated 11.05.2010 written by the IO to the FSL officer to 207 come at the site 37 Site report of FSL 208 38 Station diary 211 39 Yadi received by the PSO to register the offence 212 40 Yadi dated 11.05.2010 received by the IO to take charge of the 213 investigation 41 Yadi dated 15.05.2010 received by the Executive Magistrate to 217 conduct TI parade 42 Yadi dated 17.05.2010 received by the Executive Magistrate to 218 conduct TI parade 43 Report regarding recovery of clothes from Adarsh Hospital 222 44 Copy of the RTO register (for ownership of Splender) 232 45 Letter written by the Medical Officer to the PI regarding blood 235 samples of the deceased 46 Yadi dated 15.05.2010 written by the PI to the TDO for preparing 236 map 47 Outward entry dated 15.05.2010 sent by the IO to FSL 237 Page 8 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT 48 Biological analysis report 238 49 Serological analysis report 239 50 Biological report 240 51 Outward entry 241 52 Biological analysis report and Serological analysis report 242 53 FIR dated 30.10.2010 (pertaining to absconding by the accused 243 from judicial custody) 54 Copy of the confession of offence by the accused and copy of 244 pursus and judgment dated 12.04.2016 55 Police Yadi (Yadi regarding presentation of the clothes after PM is 245 conducted) 56 Police Yadi (regarding presentation of the clothes of the injured 246 from Doctor House) 57 Police Yadi (Yadi written to Valsad Rural Police Station to give 247 muddamal receipt of the muddamal knife) 58 Yadi pertaining to allotment of the muddamal 248 59 Notice (sent by the Court to the IO for opinion on muddamal 249 mobile and Honda Splender) 60 Map of the scene of offence 250 61 Yadi (Yadi dated 11.05.2010 from the Doctor House to the Valsad 251 City Police Station informing commission of offence) 62 Letter written by the IO to the SP (letter written by the IO 252 regarding mobile of the accused)

3. Learned APP submitted that in connection with the acquittal of the respondent as well as co-accused under Section 498A, the State has preferred a separate appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The present appeal is for enhancement of the sentence with a prayer to enhance the sentence awarded to the respondent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code considering the nature of case. During the course of arguments, learned APP has made available on record of the case for perusal of the Court.



3.1         It is submitted that the nature of offence is




                                       Page 9 of 25
          R/CR.A/407/2018                                                      JUDGMENT

so brutal that 3 persons lost their lives on account of assault carried out by the respondent with knife.

Learned APP has drawn attention to the medical case papers and submitted that gravity of offence can be assessed from the fact that deceased Pooja-wife of the respondent had received 13 blows, deceased Dhaval had received 9 blows and deceased Bharati had received 4 blows on their stomach.

3.2 It is submitted that the prosecution was able to establish by evidence the aggravating circumstances which would bring the case within the principles of rarest of rare case for imposing death penalty.

3.3 It is submitted that from the evidence on record, it can be seen that the murder committed is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and carried out in must dastardly manner. The Sessions Court ought to have considered this the aggravating circumstance to justify death penalty. It is submitted that the crime was committed in such a manner that it will leave everlasting imprint in the society, which requires the Court to take an exceptional view by considering it to be a case falling in rarest of rare case.

3.4 It is thereafter submitted that the Sessions Court, while considering imposing life sentence (till the Page 10 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT last breath of life) as appropriate sentence in this case, has erroneously recorded that the case would not fall in the rarest or rare case as it would not arouse intense and in extreme indignation of the community like

(i) when the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in view to roast him in a house and (ii) when the victim is subjected to inhuman act of torture or cruelty in order to bring about his or her death, (i) when the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his body is dismembered in a fiendish manner.

3.5 It is submitted that the Sessions Court ought to have taken into consideration that the respondent committed a crime unmindful of the consequences of the same not only upon his parents or minor child but also its effect on the society and therefore, no leniency ought to have been shown to the respondent. It is submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in considering certain circumstances to be mitigating circumstances which can take the case of the respondent out of the purview of rarest or rare case. It is submitted that circumstance of love marriage of the respondent with the deceased wife, 7 month old child left without the mother, ongoing matrimonial dispute, efforts to compromise and handing over of the divorce deed to the respondent are circumstances which would put the accused Page 11 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT in set of confusion and cause mental disturbance, enough not to realize the consequences of his action, which state of mind was enhanced when the respondent assaulted by wife of deceased Dhaval when he entered the house of his in-laws.

3.6 It is submitted that it was the duty case upon the Sessions Court that considering the gravity of offence, the Sessions Court ought to have taken into consideration the deterrent effect on the society while imposing sentence, having found the respondent guilty of murder of three persons.

4. We have heard learned APP for the appellant-

State and perused the record made available.

5. Considering the appeal being under Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for life (till the last breath of life) to the death penalty as prescribed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court would refrain from entering into the merits insofar as recording of conviction under Sections 302, 449 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned and would restrict to the adequacy of sentence, more particularly so when it is brought to the notice of the Court that a separate appeal is filed in connection with acquittal Page 12 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT recorded by the Sessions Court qua co-accused and acquittal recorded for offence under Section 498A.

6. From the record, it appears that there was a love marriage between the respondent and deceased-Pooja and out of the wedlock, a child was born. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes took place, as a result of which, deceased-Pooja left the matrimonial home to reside with her parents in the same town. At that time, she heft her son aged approximately 6 to 7 months old with the respondent. On 08.02.2010, deceased-Pooja left the matrimonial house and accused and his father gave information to the police regarding her missing.

Examination of one of the witnesses-Shaileshbhai-PW No.2- Exh.82 reveals that talks for settlement had taken place in the interest of infant child. In the meantime, proceedings in the form of maintenance claim as well as deed for divorce was handed over to the accused, which was a divorce deed between himself and deceased-Pooja, which was handed over by witness Falguniben-PW No.9- Exh.204, who was junior Advocate to Shaileshbhai-PW No.2- Exh.82-father of deceased-Pooja. It is thereafter, the accused followed the informant-Binkuben-PW No.1-Exh.19 (sister of deceased-Pooja and sister-in-law of the accused). It also appears that when he reached the house of his in-laws, he was referring to the broken marriage Page 13 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT and the consequences thereof. Upon entering in the house of the in-laws, he found that his wife Pooja, her brother-Dhaval and mother-in-law-Bharatiben confronted him and it has also come on record that thereafter, Dhaval assaulted the accused with table and beat him on his face and thereafter, the accused started assaulting with knife causing severe injuries to deceased-Pooja, Dhaval and Bharatiben, resulting into their deaths.

7. As discussed above, the Sessions Court found convincing evidence, enough to establish charge of Sections 302, 449, 498A and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, thereby convicting the accused under judgment dated 24.01.2018 and thereafter, adjourned the Sessions Case for providing opportunity of hearing on sentence to the convicted accused. Perusal of the judgment indicates that elaborate hearing was afforded to both sides. The Sessions Court has painstakingly taken into consideration the aggravating circumstances and balancing the same with mitigating circumstances and has recorded elaborate reasons to arrive at a conclusion that the case is not fit for awarding death penalty.

8. The Sessions Court has proceeded to consider principles of law laid down by precedents culling out the points, necessary for deciding upon the appropriate Page 14 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT sentence and has recorded as under:-

"(7) Now keeping in view these three aspects, this Court will have to come to the conclusion as to whether is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?

(12-sic-8) In deciding this as has been stated above as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances are to be taken int consideration and moreover not only the crime but the circumstances of the offender are also required to be looked upon in deciding the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

(13-sic-9) As discussed in the judgment above in detail the death of three persons have been caused by the accused. All 3 were injured, there were taken to the hospital where they succumbed to death. The deceased Puja was having 13 blows on her body, deceased Dhaval was having 9 blows on different parts of his body whereas deceased Bhartiben was having 4 blows on the part of her stomach. Death of neither of these victims have been caused in such manner that they were cut to pieces or they were aflamed in the house to roast them alive in the house.

(14-sic-10) Moreover the accused had a love marriage with Puja and he was having a child of 7 months who was feeding and Puja has left the Page 15 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT home of the accused and was living with her father since last 2 months and the small child of 7 months was without any feeding of her mother. On 8th February when Puja left the house of the accused, the accused and his father have given entry before the police station regarding missing of Puja and from the deposition of the witness which was examined by the accused it has come on record that the witness talked with Shaileshbhai for the compromised and stated that the child is very small and a feeding baby and in the interest of the child the witness has requested for the compromise, but this efforts failed. Latter on a notice was issued to the accuse for the maintenance and meanwhile the junior of Shaileshbhai named Phalguniben went to the accused with a divorce deed and handed over the copy of the divorce deed and to go through it and to reply about the same. So on one hand Puja went away from the house of the accused and there was a talk of compromise by the witness examined by the accused, but however efforts were in vein and during this time Shaileshbhai has sent a copy of the divorce deed to the accused through his junior Falguniben that all these aspects have come on record in the deposition of Phalguniben as well as Shaileshbhai and so that accused has lost his control over his mind and in the meanwhile the accused was served with a notice by Puja for the maintenance. All the circumstances put the accused in a state of confusion and was mentally disturbed and because of which he decided to enter the house of the Puja and Page 16 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT have a talk with her and with that intention he might have entered the house of Puja on the date of incident, but when the circumstances were not in the hands of the accused and more so ever when the accused was also assaulted by the deceased Dhaval by table which comes the injury of contusion below the cheek on the left eye of the accused the circumstance gave more provocation to the accused (the counter complain was given by the accused that has come on the record in the deposition of PSO Karunashankar and for which the accused was also treated by the doctors and before whom the history was given by the accused and that has come on record) and because of which the other 2 murders of Dhaval and Bhartiben was also committed in a heat of passion state by the accused, hence the situation the time of crime was not under the control of the accused since he was very much mentally disturbed and upset and more so when he was assaulted by the deceased Dhaval and because of which 3 persons were injured by the assault of the accused and they died during the treatment. So looking to the motive in which the commission of offence took place it is not the case where house of the victim is set on fire with intention to roast them alive in the house, or the victim were not subjected to act of torture was cruelty in order to bring about their death or the body of the victim are not cut into pieces or their body is not dismembered in a fiendish manner. Moreover, the murder was not with a motive which evinces total depravity and Page 17 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT meanness and that was not in order to inherit the property or to gain the control of the property or a person under the control of a murder or the said murder was not in the case for betrayal of the motherland. Moreover, it is not murder which was made with an intention to commit for the personal reasons on a member of schedule caste or minority community does not arise with social wrath and it was not in order to terrorize such person and threatening them to flee away from place in order to deprive or to make surrender them or hand their lands or benefits conferred on them with a view to reverse the past injustice. Moreover this was not a murder which was committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation, but in this case almost all members of a family of Shaileshbhai or large number of family of Shaileshbhai are put to death and in which 02 helpless women and 01 innocent child was there, however in discussing the aggravating and mitigating circumstance the court has to make the balance between them and maximum weightage is to be given to the mitigating circumstance which speaks in favour of the offender and in the present case the motive of commissions is not so brutal, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community for instance as discussed above moreover it is not for sake of money or to inherit property or gain control over the property or in the course of betrayal of the Page 18 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT motherland. Moreover it is also not a murder which was committed of a member of schedule caste or minority community with the intention to terrorize them to frighten them from fleeing from a place or in order to deprive them of, or make them surrender, lands or benefits, etc. and it is also not a murder which is committed in order to remarry that for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. No doubt most of the members o Shaileshbhai's family are murdered in the present case are put to death and in which 2 helpless women and 01 innocent child was there, but however in deciding this mitigating circumstance the maximum weightage is to be given to the mitigating circumstance which are in favour of the accused and at the time of deciding this the circumstances of the accused are also required to be considered and as discussed above because of the incidence stated above the accused was disturbed mentally because his month his 7 months child was without feeding from her mother, she left the accused and the child and was residing with her father. The attempt of compromise by the 3rd person were in vein and during which a copy of divorce deed as sent to the accused for his perusal and during that period a notice by Puja was also sent to the accused for maintenance all these aspects which gathered in the mind of the accused confused him and as discussed above he might have visited the house of Puja to take her along with him or to take revenge with her, but as discussed above because of the Page 19 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT circumstances which happened at place of incident more persons were injured then Puja and who all were succumbed to death because of the injuries sustained by them.

(15-sic-11) The Ld. Advocate of the accused have submitted that the accused is young and is the only son of his parents, his parents are old and no one is there to take care of them. But this circumstance does not lean in favour of the accused while deciding the factor of mitigating circumstances. Since the hon'ble supreme court in the case of Mahendranath Das @ Govinda Vs. State of Assam has turned down the plea of the accused has he was having 3 unmarried sisters ad old age parents by stating that the murder of the decease was cold blooded, gruesome and heinous. Since the accused has amputed right hand and severed head of the decease in one hand and blood dripping weapon in the other hand, and he moved magestically towards to police station . In the way in which the murder was committed it was held to be burtal, gruesome and heinous. And the plea of the old age parents of accused was turned down.

(16-sic-12) Further he is submitted by the Lrd. Advocate of the accused that the accused is having a child of 8 years who is taken care off by grandfather and grandmother who themselves are not in a position to take care of themselves. Moreover he has stated that the child id required to be taken care of for his education and his further is depending upon the Page 20 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT care which is to be taken by the accused and for this he has requested the Court for taking lenient view and for the minimum penalty prescribed in the law. On the other hand the Ld. APP have submitted that the accused has not taken care of all there circumstances when he committed murder, he did not think of his child or its future when he committed murder he did not think of his child or its future when he committed murder he did not think of that all the family members of Shaileshbhai are no more and in these old days he is residing alone and the agony which this victim is facing is also required to be taken into consideration and no leniency can be shown towards the accused and maximum of death penalty has been requested by him which can be awarded to this accused."

9. The aggravated and mitigating circumstances against the accused and in his favour can be as under on the basis of the facts of the case:-

Sr. Aggravated Circumstances Mitigating Circumstances No. 1 The accused murdered almost all As per the cause of death, deceased Puja the members of victim Shaileshbhai left her infant child aged 7 months at and destroyed his family. the house of the accused and came to her father's house and the child was deprived of mother affection since two months and all the efforts of compromise went in vain.

2 The deceased persons included two Under such circumstances, PW No.2 women and one male member of sent divorce deed of his daughter Puja same family who are incapable to (deceased) to accused and Puja served Page 21 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT defend themselves. notice to the accused due to which accused was provoked and under this provocation, he lost power to reason. 3 That murder of Puja was It is proved from the record that the committed in preplanned manner. accused first attacked Puja, but thereafter, as deceased Dhaval inflicted blow with table under the left eye of the accused on face, accused first assaulted Dhaval and thereafter, Bhartiben. 4 Looking to the way murder has been committed, the act cannot be defined as diabolical.

5 The child of the accused is eight years old and his mother and father are also elderly persons aged about 65 and 70 years. The accused does not have any brother who would look after his child Aarav. Due to this act of the accused, the child has lost the protection of his mother and at present, the father alone is the caretaker of the child. If capital punishment is awarded to the accused, the child will also lose the protection of his father and the child will be orphaned and without any support. Moreover, if the accused is given capital punishment, the child will be deprived of the love of his father. It will cause serious effect on the mind of the child.

6 This does not mean that accused should be set free in society. However, it should be considered that if the accused remains alive, the child will feel that his Page 22 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT father is alive and the child can meet his father occasionally and the accused can satisfy the need of his paternal love.

10. This Court therefore finds that the mitigating circumstances in the facts of the present case as established on record are outweighing the aggravating circumstance and that the Sessions Court has taken into consideration all the aspects and deliberated upon the facts of the case as well as the principles in this regard laid down by various precedents. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the appeal for enhancement of the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for life (till the last breath of life) to death penalty.

11. We are supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Nisar Ramzan Sayyed, reported in (2017) 5 SCC, 673, where in almost identical situation, i.e. to say in a crime of triple murder arising out of matrimonial dispute and the husband was held guilty of murder of his pregnant wife and minor boy, in such facts, the Apex Court held as under:-

"16. The various circumstances pointing out to the guilt of the respondent and the respondent alone have been enumerated by us hereinbefore. From our discussions, it is evident that each Page 23 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT of the circumstances had been established, the cumulative effect whereof would show that all the links in the chain are complete and the conclusion of the guilt is fully established. Therefore, in our considered opinion the respondent herein is guilty of the offence causing death of his pregnant wife and minor child.

17. The next question, however, is as to whether in a case of this nature death sentence should be awarded. A life is at stake subject to human error and discrepancies and therefore the doctrine of "rarest of rate cases"m which is not res integra in awarding the death penalty, shall be applied while considering quantum of sentence in the present case. Not so far but too recently, the Law Commission of India has submitted its Report No.262 titled "The Death Penalty" after the reference was made from this Court to study the issue of death penalty in India to "allow for an up-to- date and informed discussion and debate on this subject". We have noticed that the Law Commission of India has recommended the abolition of death penalty for all the crimes other than terrorism related offences and waging war (offences affecting National Security). Today when capital punishment has become a distinctive feature of death penalty apparatus in India which somehow breaches the reformative theory of punishment under criminal law, we are not inclined to award the same in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, confinement till natural life Page 24 of 25 R/CR.A/407/2018 JUDGMENT of the respondent-accused shall fulfill the requisite criteria of punishment in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case."

12. In view of the aforesaid and the reasons recorded by the Sessions Court as well as the reasonings afforded by this Court, insofar as the present appeal for enhancement is concerned, no interference is called for.

The appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(M.R. SHAH, J.) Sd/-

(A.Y. KOGJE, J.) SHITOLE Page 25 of 25

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court