Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sukhlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2018
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1563-1564 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos. 9558-9559 OF 2014)
SUKHLAL APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals are filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 11.08.2014 confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore vide its judgment in Sessions Trial No. 464/2013 dated 30.05.2014. The appellant has challenged both the conviction and the sentence.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows. The appellant was working as a Mali (gardner) in the house of Sharad Agrawal and Jyoti Agarwal at the time of incident. The incident is alleged to have taken place about 4 or 5 p.m. of 20.03.2013. A few days before the incident, the appellant had suffered a cut Signature Not Verified injury by a glass splinter on his foot while cleaning Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date: 2018.12.05 17:16:58 IST Reason: the bath room. The injury had become septic and on the date of the incident the appellant was demanding 2 from deceased Jyoti Agrawal money for treatment of his injured foot. This led to some acrimony between the appellant and deceased Jyoti Agrawal, as also deceased Sharad Agarwal, who had come in the meantime. This was witnessed by Asha Thakur (PW-11) (domestic help). Later on, at about 8.30 p.m. Asha Thakur after going out of the house returned and was shocked to see blood stains from the entry door to the hall. Being panic stricken she rushed out of the house and while doing so she saw accused hiding behind a curtain near dining table; the appellant accosted her but she refused and went away from the house. She returned at 1 a.m. (at night) to the house to find a crowd gathered.
The criminal machinery was set into motion by filing FIR at the Police Station Rajendra Nagar by Ravindra Gujjar, Constable (PW-1). The trial court after appreciating the entire evidence placed on record and examining of the witnesses found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to death by hanging under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) for the death of both Sharad Agarwal and Jyoti Agarwal as also sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was further convicted for 10 years R.I. under Section 394 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- 3 with default stipulation of six months R.I. on failure to pay the fine.
On appeal, the High Court after reappreciating the entire evidence placed on record, the Medical evidence and taking into consideration the circumstances accepted the evidence of Asha Thakur (PW-11) and held that the charges under Section 302 IPC are proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Insofar as charges under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the IPC are concerned, the High Court has also upheld the findings of the lower court in this behalf. On the aspect of sentence, the High Court opined that it would come in the category of rarest of rare cases and therefore the appellant deserves to be given capital sentence on this count. Resultantly, the High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellant and maintained the convictions and affirmed the sentence of death and other sentences awarded to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the High Court has erred in not considering that Asha Thakur (PW-11) is not an eyewitness to the incident. She did not inform the police immediately despite claiming to have seen the appellant at the scene of the crime. The conduct of Asha Thakur (PW-11) is not natural and cannot be the basis for conviction of the appellant. It is also submitted by 4 the learned counsel for the appellant that the statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be the basis to hold that the appellant is guilty under Section 302 of the IPC. Insofar as award of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court has erred in not considering that the present case does not fall within the ambit of the test of rarest of rare cases as laid down by this Court. The High Court has also not considered that the appellant was only 23 years of age at the time of the incident and has no criminal history and therefore it cannot be held that there is no reason to believe that the appellant cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue to be a menace to the society. While upholding the findings of the trial court, the High Court has not considered the tests laid down by this Court in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 684 that the death sentence should be awarded only when the option of awarding the sentence of life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed. Learned counsel further submits that there is absolutely no material to suggest that this is the position in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel pointed out that after pronouncement of the judgment of conviction, the appellant was asked if he had anything to say on the 5 question of sentence, the Order of death sentence was also passed on the same day by the Additional Sessions Judge in violation of the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh (supra) and the appellant should have been given sufficient time to adduce evidence in mitigation and thereafter to be heard on the question of sentence. Hence award of death sentence by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is contrary to law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the High Court has rightly relied on the testimony of Asha Thakur (PW-11), the CCTV footage and also other circumstantial evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact upholding the conviction of the appellant as also confirmed the sentence of death punishment awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the reason behind Asha Thakur (PW-11) did not inform the authorities promptly because she panicked and became nervous on seeing so much blood in the house, hence the delay is incumbent to happen in normal circumstances. She further submits that insofar as the CCTV footage is concerned, though the faces of the persons therein are not clear, but the person wearing white Jerkin is none other than the accused or appellant herein. The finger prints of the appellant herein were found on the scene of the crime 6 supports the prosecution case and links to the circumstantial chain which led to the conviction of the appellant. Therefore, the entire chain of the prosecution case is complete and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as also the evidence placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that insofar as the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned that is rightly arrived at by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court as the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading satisfactory evidence by the prosecution.
However, insofar as award of death penalty by the Sessions Court, which has been upheld by the High Court, is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has erroneously affirmed death penalty without correctly applying the law laid down by this Court in Bachan Singh (supra). Time and again, this Court has categorically held that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception and even when the crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the category of rarest of rare. The decision to impose the highest punishment of death sentence in this case does not fulfil the test of 7 “rarest of rare case where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”. Bachan Singh (supra) in no unequivocal terms sets out that death penalty shall be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases where life imprisonment shall be wholly inadequate or futile owing to the nature of the crime and the circumstances relating to the criminal. Whether the person is capable of reformation and rehabilitation should also be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty.
In view of the above, while upholdling the conviction of the appellant awarded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court, we commute the death sentence to that of life imprisonment with a cap of 18 years.
The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
…...…................J. (A.K. SIKRI) …...…................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) …...…................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 20, 2018 8 ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9558- 9559/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-08-2014 in CRLAN No. 946/2014 11-08-2014 in CRLRN No. 1/2014 passed by the High Court of M.P. At Indore) SUKHLAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) [TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES] DEATH CASE (IA No. 651/2015- PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES) Date : 20-11-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Yash S. Vijay, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Gharote, Adv.
Mr. George Thomas, Adv.
Chritarth Palli, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv.
Mr. R. Sethupathy, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv.
Mr. Gagan Narang, Adv.
Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed Order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA) (RAJINDER KAUR)
AR-CUM-PS BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)