Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Navas @ Mula Navas on 9 February, 2010
Bench: R.Basant, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Death Sentence Ref..No. 4 of 2007()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NAVAS @ MULA NAVAS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTO
For Respondent :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
C.R.
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
D.S.R.No.4 OF 2007
&
CRL.APPEAL No.1620 OF 2007
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
(i) Has the guilt of the accused been established beyond doubt by the circumstances proved by the prosecution.
(ii) Is the instant case one that belongs to the category of rarest of rare cases, where the alternative options of punishment are unquestionably foreclosed and a sentence of death has to be imposed as laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)2 SCC 684.?
(iii) Does the decision in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008(13) SCC
767) raise the bar further in the attempt to identify the rarest of rare cases where a D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -2- sentence of death can be imposed and is liable to be confirmed?
These questions arise for consideration in this Death Sentence Reference and the Criminal Appeal, which we dispose of by this common judgment.
2. Navas @ Mulanavas, a person aged about 28 years has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 309 IPC. He faces a sentence of death for the offence under Section 302 IPC, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 449 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 309 IPC. Default sentences have also been imposed.
3. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had gained access into the house of the deceased persons - four in number, by making a hole on the eastern wall of the house on the night of 3/4.11.2005. He allegedly caused the death of Latha, a woman aged about 39 years, her husband Ramachandran aged about 45 years, their daughter Chithra aged about 11 years and her D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -3- mother- in-law, Karthiayani Amma aged about 80 years. The accused thereafter allegedly attempted to commit suicide by cutting the vein of his left wrist. Investigation commenced with suo motu FIR, Exhibit P23 registered by PW30, the local A.S.I. and culminated with the final report submitted by PW32, who completed the investigation.
4. The accused denied the offences alleged against him and thereupon the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 32 and proved Exhibits P1 to P45 series. M.Os.1 to 122 were also marked by the prosecution. The accused did not examine any defence witnesses; but proved Exhibits D1 to D5.
5. An appellate judgment must be read in continuation of the judgment of the trial court. We have been taken through the evidence of PWs 1 to 32, Exhibits P1 to P45 series and Exhibits D1 to D5. The relevant material objects have also been perused by us. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to attempt a re-narration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the prosecution and the defence exhibits.
D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -4-
6. The prosecution version which they attempted to substantiate by the evidence referred above can be summarised as follows.
7. Deceased Ramachandran and Latha were residing in the house which is the scene of occurrence. They have a child aged 11 years, by name Chithra. The mother of Ramachandran, Karthiayani Amma was also residing along with them. It is suggested that Ramachandran had some psychiatric ailments and was on medicines. It is further suggested that Latha had dissatisfactions in the marital life and that she was involved in extra marital relationships. The accused was known to the family. He had initially helped the family to get out of certain involvements which Latha had with certain others. He had gained the confidence of Latha and Ramachandran. Unfortunately, the relationship between Latha and the accused had drifted and it had entered prohibited zones/domains. She allegedly shared intimacy including physical intimacy with the accused. It is even suggested that Latha had become pregnant in the relationship between her and the accused. But that pregnancy had to be aborted. At some point of time, the accused D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -5- allegedly came to learn from Latha that Chithra, the child born was not really begotten in her relationship with Ramachandran; but Chithra was brought up as the child of the couple. When it came to the alleged pregnancy through the accused, Latha was allegedly not willing to continue the pregnancy and she had got it aborted.
8. At some point of time, according to the prosecution, the relationship had soured. It appeared as though the accused perceived that Latha was not willing to continue the relationship. She, he apprehended, was attempting to avoid him. Exhibits P9 to P11 suggest that on the complaint of Latha, the local police had registered a crime and had filed the final report alleging commission of offences by the accused against Latha. Consequently, the relationship turned from bad to worse and the accused allegedly was not getting opportunities to meet and interact with Latha as he allegedly used to do earlier.
9. We come to the date of occurrence, i.e., 3.11.2005. On that night, till 7 p.m., all the four deceased were found in the house hale and hearty by the local neighbours including PW1. On that morning i.e. at 7.30 am. on 4.11.2005 when PW1 went to D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -6- sweep the courtyard of that house and was so sweeping, she found that nobody came out of that house to open the door and that blood was flowing out through the outlet on the southern room on the ground floor. A commotion followed. People of the locality came. They informed the police. The local police also came. As there was no response from inside, the house was broken open and access was made into the house. They had also seen that a hole had been drilled on the eastern wall of the house, suggesting that someone had gained illegal access into the house. Persons who entered the house found that deceased Latha was lying dead on the ground floor with multiple injuries including stab injuries. Ramachandran and Chithra were lying dead on the northern room on the first floor with serious injuries. MO33 iron rod which was allegedly used to inflict injuries on Ramachandran and Chithra was also available in that room. Karthiayani Amma, the 80 year old mother of Ramachandran was found with injuries on the northern room on the ground floor. She was immediately shifted to the hospital for emergent medical attention. Later, seeing the trail of blood from the middle room to the southern room on the ground floor, the D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -7- police opened the southern room on the ground floor and there they found the accused with bleeding injuries on his left hand lying unconscious. He was also shifted to the hospital. Karthiayani Amma succumbed to the injuries. The accused was nursed and he ultimately recovered.
10. The prosecution alleged that it was the accused who caused injuries on all the four deceased persons. It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 3.11.2005, PW3, an auto rickshaw driver had dropped the accused some where near the scene of the crime after 10.30 p.m. According to the prosecution the accused had, to gain access into the house, created a hole on the eastern wall and had crept into the house with his belongings including MO34 bag. He had gone to the southern room on the ground floor and had indulged in making writings on the wall and other surfaces in that room. According to the prosecution, these writings suggest that he was disappointed in love and had decided to commit suicide. According to the prosecution, he wanted to murder Latha and commit suicide. He wanted both of them to die together. Karthiayani Amma was occupying the northern room on the ground floor, whereas the couple along D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -8- with their child were occupying the northern room on the first floor. It is the case of the prosecution, though there is no eye witnesses for the occurrence, that the accused who reached the room by 12 mid night continued to remain in the southern room on the ground floor till 6.30 a.m. in the morning. He consumed alcohol there and smoked. He made all the writings seen in that room. When deceased Latha came down in the morning from the bed room on the first floor, the accused allegedly, attacked Latha and caused injuries to her. It is the inference of the prosecution that Ramachandran and Chithra came to know of the attack on Latha and they made a hue and cry. The accused then went up with MO33 iron rod and allegedly inflicted fatal injuries on Ramachandran and Chithra. He came down thereafter and went on inflicting multiple stab injuries on Latha with one of the two knives, which according to the prosecution, he had carried with him to the house (marked as MOs.29 and 30). Thereafter the mother-in-law of Latha, according to the prosecution, had also tried to come to the scene and she was deterred by him by kicking her forcibly. She fell, hit some surface and suffered the fatal injuries.
D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -9-
11. Thereafter, the accused allegedly in an attempt to commit suicide cut the vein of his left wrist. There was bleeding from that self-inflicted injury. He went to the southern room where he had already entered and made all the writings. He closed the room from inside. He fell unconscious there. It is the case of the prosecution that prior to that, the accused in that southern room had consumed alcohol, had smoked cigarette and had consumed Bombay gudka. It is the case of the prosecution that the totality of circumstances relied on by the prosecution unerringly points to the commission of the offence punishable under sections 449, 309 and 302 IPC by the accused.
12. The accused in the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses does not appear to have taken any specific stand. He was not able to engage a counsel of his own at the stage of trial, though he had earlier engaged a counsel. The services of a counsel of standing Shri P.P.Haris was made available to the accused as a State Brief counsel.
13. At the stage of 313 examination, after answering all the questions, the accused advanced a version by filing a statement. In that statement, the accused took an interesting D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -10- stand, attempting to explain all circumstances which were available in evidence at the close of the trial. The accused took up the stand that there was a pact between him and Latha to commit suicide. He had come to the house of Latha on that night with the intention that both of them shall commit suicide. He had brought with him MO25 audio cassette in which he had made a record in his own voice of all the circumstances and the relationship between him and Latha. Latha had kept the door open as usual and he gained entry into the house through such door which was kept open. After he entered the house, he found that Latha and others had all suffered death. On account of the grief, without much forethought, he had cut his left wrist for the purpose of committing suicide. It was thus that he was found available in the house in an unconscious state. His obvious suggestion is that someone else had gained access into the house by making a hole on the eastern wall and such miscreant must have caused the death of all the four deceased persons and as he found that they had died, he had proceeded to attempt to commit suicide.
D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -11-
14. The court below on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that all the four deceased persons suffered death at the hands of the accused, who had gained access into the house by creating that hole on the eastern wall of the house. The court further came to the conclusion that the accused had thereafter attempted to commit suicide.
15. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Vijayabhanu, Shri Gracious Kuriakose, the Special Prosecutor appointed in the Death Sentence Reference and Shri K.J.Mohammed Anzar, the learned Public Prosecutor have advanced their arguments.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused vehemently contends that the circumstances have not been established satisfactorily by the prosecution and the circumstances even if accepted in toto cannot lead to an unerring conclusion about the complicity of the accused. The circumstances cannot rule out his innocence also, it is contended. At any rate, the learned counsel argues that a D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -12- sentence of death is not warranted at all.
17. The learned Special Prosecutor who appeared in D.S.R.No.4/2007 and the learned Prosecutor who appears for the State in Crl.Appeal No.1620/2007 on the contrary contends that sufficient circumstances have been established by the prosecution pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused and excluding the innocence of the accused. The nature of the facts and circumstances of this case, according to the prosecution, clearly shows that this is an eminently fit case where the sentence of death is warranted, as the case belongs to the category of rarest of rare cases.
18. The learned Prosecutors submit that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the explanation coming forth from the accused is of crucial and vital significance. The learned Prosecutors contend that if the explanation coming forth from the accused is not acceptable, sufficient and clinching circumstances are available to safely and unerringly come to the conclusion that all the four persons who had suffered injuries and who were inside the closed house, must have suffered injuries at the hands of the accused, who was the only other D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -13- person found inside the house, lying with suicidal injuries. The learned Prosecutors in this context places reliance on the decision in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006(4) KLT 638). It is not as though an accused person has no burden at all in a criminal trial. Where an accused person is found lying with suicidal injuries along with three other deceased persons and the 4th deceased with serious injuries inside a closed house, the accused has the burden to explain how and under what circumstances these injuries were suffered by himself and the others. That burden cannot be avoided by the accused by falling back on his purported right to silence, it is contended. We find merit in that contention.
19. It is in this context that the version of the accused assumes importance. According to him, he had entered the house on that night through a door which was kept open which he assumed must have been kept open by Latha with whom he was in love. It is his case that she used to keep the door open on many earlier occasions. When he entered the house, he found that death of Latha and others had taken place and then he went on to attempt to commit suicide. If this version is found to be D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -14- false, that will be one more circumstance against the accused adding to the chain of circumstances which the prosecution has chosen to rely on.
20. The accused and the deceased were known to each other and the accused and the deceased Latha had illicit intimate relationship. That is the case of the prosecution and that version is accepted by the accused. There has been some souring of that relationship and that is also indicated clearly by Exts.P9 to P11 as also Exhibit P3 which is a transcript of the audio tape, MO.24 which the accused carried with him to the house admittedly. All the four deceased persons were hale and hearty till the night of 3/11/2005 but on 4/11/2005 morning they were found with fatal injuries inside the closed house. Admittedly, the accused had come to the house later in the night. All the four deceased persons suffered homicidal injuries also. Till his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., nay till he chose to file a statement at the end of the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the present version was not advanced by the accused. Serious doubts are aroused about the genuineness and acceptability of the version of the accused. If that were a true D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -15- version, it is unlikely that he would not have advanced such a version earlier before the police, before the trial court or subsequently till the statement was filed after his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
21. The prosecution relies on various circumstances to drive home the charge against the accused and to disprove this very ingenious explanation which has been offered in the written statement filed at the end of 313 examination.
22. The learned Prosecutors have painstakingly narrated before us various circumstances that are available which would convincingly show that this version of the accused is an after- thought and cannot be swallowed by a prudent mind.
23. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the fact that while drilling the hole on the eastern wall, soil/powder was available at the site of that hole. MO.34 bag carried by the accused seized as per Exhibit P12 scene mahazar had identical soil/powder on it. MO.71 shirt belonging to the accused, which is also seized under Exhibit P12 has identical soil/powder on it. This is evident from the report of FSL. The prosecution further relies on an unexplained injury which the D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -16- accused had on his person when he was examined by the Doctor on 4/11/2005. PW18, the Doctor to whom Karthiayani Amma and the accused were rushed from the scene of the crime on that morning had examined the accused and had issued Exhibit P14 wound certificate. In that wound certificate in addition to the self inflicted injury on the left wrist, there was an abrasion 2 millimetre on the right hand (dorsal side) of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that this injury must have been suffered by the accused when he attempted to break open the house and that part of the body came into contact with the surface. The opinion of PW18, Doctor on this aspect has not been specifically elicited by the prosecution in the course of examination in chief. But the fact remains that the oral evidence of PW18 and Exhibit P14 clearly indicate that the accused had on his person one more injury which cannot be explained by the accused as an incidental self inflicted injury in the course of his attempt to commit suicide. But, perhaps, what is crucial on this aspect is that the nail clippings of the accused which were taken by PW31 on 14-11-2005 revealed that identical soil/powder were available in such nail clippings of the accused. The same was D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -17- sent to the expert and Exhibit P41(b) shows that the nail clippings had such soil/powder. The prosecution relies on this also as a crucial input in support of their case that it was the accused who gained access to the house through that hole.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused was taken from the scene of the crime on 4/11/2005 and the nail clippings were taken only on 14/11/2005. The gap of time between 4th and 14th November 2005 was relied on by the learned counsel to argue that crucial significance cannot be attached to the nail clippings and the report of the scientific expert issued after examination of those nail clippings. It is significant to note that the accused does not have a case at all that soil/powder similar to the one which was detected from the scene (of the hole) were planted on his nail clippings at any time by the investigating officer. We reckon this as a formidable circumstance to choose between the rival versions.
25. The prosecution relies on another very important circumstance. Writings on the wall and surfaces in the southern room on the ground floor have been identified to be that of the accused by the handwriting expert by Exhibit P42 report. This D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -18- aspect of the testimony of PW32 is not seriously challenged at all. In the nature of the materials available before the court, we have no reason whatsoever to doubt the prosecution version that these writings were made by the accused himself. On that aspect, we entertain not a semblance of doubt and in fact we note that there is no serious dispute on that aspect also.
26. The writings in the room offer crucial assistance to the court to choose between the rival versions. It is written that the accused was available in the house on that day at 12 midnight. Further, it is written that between 6 and 7 in the morning he is 'finishing'. This clearly shows that on his own version, available convincingly from the writings, he had spent about seven hours in that room. This is definitely inconsistent with his version that he saw Latha and others dead and proceeded to inflict suicidal injuries on him in grief. His presence for about seven hours in the room spending time to make the writings is inconsistent, totally with his version that Latha and others were found dead when he entered the room and he without forethought proceeded to inflict injuries on himself.
D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -19-
27. It is true that in MO.24 and its transcript,Exhibit P3 he describes that he loves Latha. There are many writings in the southern room on the ground floor which also indicates that he was in love with Latha. The question is not whether he was in love with Latha or not. The other writings available in the room clearly indicate that he had a grievance/grouse against Latha and it was he who decided that both should die . "In love we are one, in death also both must be together. This is certain" is one of the writings. It is also written that "Latha is responsible for my death. I, therefore, decided that Latha and me must die together. This is certain". The writings that he is in love with Latha is not at all inconsistent with a decision on his part to cause the death of Latha and commit suicide. It is true that in Exhibit P3 there is a reference that a joint decision has been taken by Latha and himself to end their lives together. This is only an assertion on the part of the accused and there is absolutely nothing otherwise available to show that on that date, i.e. on the night of 3/11/2005 Latha had agreed to commit suicide and had wanted him to go to her house to enable both of them to commit suicide together. A careful reading of Exhibit D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -20- P3/MO.24 must lead to the inference that the same was not prepared immediately prior to 3/11/2005. The indications therein about Latha wanting to commit suicide, definitely refer to an anterior point of time. There is nothing to indicate a decision taken immediately prior to 3/11/2005 by Latha and the accused to commit suicide.
28. Clinching indications are also available to show that Chithra could not have been dead when the accused entered the house. In fact, one of the crucial writings found in the room is that "Chithra knows all the truth". That convincingly indicates that Chithra had not died at the time when the writings were made by the accused after he entered the house. That he did not even know that Chithra was dead, when those writings were made is very evident. The theory of the accused that he found Latha and others dead when he entered the house is, in these circumstances, found to be not acceptable at all.
29. The learned Prosecutors rely on the evidence of Doctors (PWs.10,19 and 25) who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased to contend that death of Ramachandran, Chithra and Latha must have taken place only D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -21- after 12 midnight. Their unanimous opinion that death must have taken place 6 to 18 hours prior to 6.25 p.m. on 4/11/2005. Of course, the statement of the Doctors cannot be reckoned as precise and authentic as they can and have given only a time range. But the fact remains that the range of time given by them clearly shows that death could not have taken place prior to 12 midnight when the accused was admittedly available in the house as per the writings made by him available in the southern room of the ground floor.
30. The learned Prosecutors further pointed out that there are indications that death must have taken place only after 12 midnight going by the evidence of the postmortem doctors in respect of Latha, Ramachandran and Chithra who were found dead. Their stomachs were empty. Even though we do not have precise evidence about the time when they consumed their last meal, the Prosecutors argue that the indications suggest that death must have taken place 4 to 6 hours after the last meal as judged from the fact that the stomach was empty in respect of all the three deceased. The learned Public Prosecutors further rely on the fact that urinary bladders of all of them were found empty D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -22- and from this it is argued that all the three must have emptied the urinary bladder after getting up on that morning. This is also pressed into service as a circumstance broadly suggesting that death must have taken place only after the admitted arrival of the accused at the scene of the occurrence at about 12 midnight.
31. Perhaps the last and the crucial indication on this aspect, as we perceive the same, is available from what is not written in the room. Obviously the writings on the walls and other surfaces of the southern room on the ground floor are in the nature of parting messages of the accused, who had decided to commit suicide. If, as a matter of fact, the accused had seen Latha and others dead when he entered the house as contended by him, it is unlikely, nay impossible that he would not have mentioned in at least one of those writings that he is not responsible for the death of the deceased persons and that he had found them dead when he entered the house. What is not written is more eloquent and helps this court to rule out the version of the accused as unworthy and impossible.
32. The learned Public Prosecutors further submit that it is definitely possible to come to a conclusion that the accused was D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -23- responsible for the fatal injuries of Chithra, the child. Exhibit P3 clearly reveals that the accused had affection and love for the child. From the scene on the body of the child/Chithra, the investigators had obtained strands of hair which on analysis was found to be similar and identical to the hair of the accused. The hair strands found on the body of Chithra clearly reveal that the accused was near Chithra after she suffered injuries.
33. It is also important to note that the accused, who was very close and near to the family has not been able to suggest any circumstance to indicate that any other person was at the relevant time entertaining any grouse or grievance against the family. That also is one of the circumstances which points to the inference of guilt against the accused when taken along with other circumstances.
34. Totality of the circumstances clearly point to the complicity of the accused. From Exhibit P3, it appears that the accused did not have any particular motive against Ramachandran, Chithra and Karthiayani Amma, the other deceased persons. But even the case of the prosecution is not that the accused had any motive or plan to cause the death of D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -24- the other three persons. The obvious intention was to cause the death of Latha and to die with her by committing suicide. The accused was obviously under great mental strain and stress and the injuries/death caused to Ramachandran, Chithra and Karthiayani Amma cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be pre-meditated or with motive. The absence of specific motive for the accused to act against Chithra, Ramachandran and Karthiayani Amma cannot in the circumstances of the case contra indicate or disprove the prosecution case. The totality of circumstances persuade us to concur with the conclusion of the court below that it was the accused who gained access into the house of the deceased which was closed from inside by making a hole through the eastern wall. After gaining access, we agree with the court below, the accused remained in the southern room on the ground floor and made all the writings. Thereafter, when deceased Latha came down, he attacked her and caused multiple injuries on her. He caused injuries to Chithra, Ramachandran and Karthiayani Amma also. Subsequently, he attempted to commit suicide.
D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -25-
35. In these circumstances, we uphold the finding that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 449, 309 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The challenge against the verdict of guilt and conviction is, in these circumstances, rejected.
36. What is the sentence to be imposed? This is the next question to be considered. The court below has chosen to impose a sentence of death on the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We are satisfied that the sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 449 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code are absolutely justified and they do not warrant any interference. The question is only whether the sentence of death imposed on the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. deserves to be confirmed or not. We shall now specifically advert to this aspect.
37. We shall now make a balance sheet of the extenuating and aggravating circumstances which have been pointed out to us in this case. Bachan Singh(supra) obliges the courts to make a balance sheet of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before taking a decision on the crucial question. D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -26-
38. The aggravating circumstances are that there obviously was prior planning. As many as four lives were snuffed out by the accused. An entire family has been wiped out. The deceased persons include a minor child aged 11 years, an old woman aged 80 years and a sick individual - Ramachandran, husband of Latha. All the deceased persons were unarmed and defenceless. No provocation/resistance is seen offered by them. The offence has been committed after mischievously planning the operation and after gaining access to the closed house in that night by making a hole on the wall. A dare devil attitude on the part of the miscreant is evidently indicated. The nature of the weapons used - MOs.29, 30 and 33 can also be entered on the aggravating side of the balance sheet. The nature and number of the injuries inflicted on deceased Latha,(43 of which 38 are stab injuries) is again an entry on the debit side. Prior instance of involvement in crimes is also against the accused. The learned Public Prosecutors point out that in MO.24/Exhibit P3, there is a veiled threat to many others. The initial relationship itself was objectionable and contumacious - that is the relationship which the deceased struck with Latha, a married D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -27- woman having husband and child. The accused has no passion for life as can be seen from his conduct of attempting to put an end to his own life. That makes him potentially dangerous. The learned Prosecutors contend that these circumstances would bring the case within the sweep of the precedents including Bachan Singh(supra) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)3 SCC 470) and this would be a fit case where imposition of death sentence would be justified.
39. The learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has marshalled circumstances which fall under the category of mitigating circumstances. He points out first of all that there is no semblance of any element of gain, profit or advantage for the accused. Rightly or wrongly the accused was labouring under an impression of deprivation in love. He was in an extremely agitated and excited state of mind when he committed the capital offences. Counsel points out that MO.24/Exhibit P3 must suggest that at least at some earlier point of time, Latha herself had suggested commission of suicide together. The accused had no motive whatsoever against Ramachandran, Chithra and Karthiayani Amma. In fact, the D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -28- materials suggest that he had great affection and love at least for Chithra. He refers to Ramachandran in Exhibit P3 in endearing terms. He had not used any weapon against Karthiayani Amma, the mother of Ramachandran. He did not make any attempt to flee from justice. He imposed on himself the capital punishment of death by attempting to commit suicide. He is a young man aged about 28 years only, going by the age shown in the passport, though the driving licence suggests that he is four years elder. He was dragged by circumstances into an improper relationship with a woman much elder to himself - elder at least by a decade. There was no element of pre- meditation to cause the death of the other three. Pre-meditation even if any could only be to die along with the said Latha. There is no requirement of any deterrence in a rare incident like the instant one. He cannot be termed a menace to society. He is still young and is not lost to civilisation and humanity. His liquidation would be totally unnecessary and uncalled for. The learned counsel for the accused, in these circumstances, contends that the court may be pleased not to confirm death sentence and may choose to impose the lesser D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -29- punishment of imprisonment for life.
40. Under Section 302 I.P.C., two alternative sentences alone are possible. The graver sentence is the sentence of death whereas the lesser option is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life. Constitutional validity of the sentence of death has been considered by the Supreme Court. The last decision on the point is the decision in Bachan Singh (supra) The constitutional validity of the sentence of death has been upheld by the Supreme Court. In paragraph 209 of the said decision, the law on the point is stated succinctly as follows:
"A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed."
41. The Supreme Court had upheld the constitutional validity by insisting that a sentence of death can be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases. The true clue to find out the rarest of rare cases for imposition of the death sentence is also D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -30- given in the said paragraph 209. Litmus test is that the "alternative option must be unquestionably foreclosed". That is the test to find out the rarest of rare cases in which alone imposition of a sentence of death would be justified. Only two options were then available - a sentence of death or a sentence of imprisonment for life. That lesser alternative option must be unquestionably foreclosed, insisted Bachan Singh (supra).
42. How is the court to find out such a case. In Machhi Singh(supra) and in many other subsequent Supreme Court decisions, attempts were made to categorise the circumstances which can be pressed into service to identify the rarest of rare cases in which alone a sentence of death can be imposed. It is unnecessary for us to advert to all those precedents. Suffice it to say that in Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal (2007) 12 S.C.C.230, the Supreme Court after adverting to the course adopted by the Supreme Court itself in various cases lamented that different Benches had reacted differently in different decisions in their attempt to identify the rarest of rare cases. That was a decision by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Later, a three Judge Bench in Swamy Shraddananda D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -31- (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008)13 S.C.C.767 stated thus about the attempts made by the Supreme Court.
"49. In Aloke Nath Ddutta v. State of W.B. (2007)12 SCC 230, Sinha.J. gave some very good illustrations from a number of recent decisions in which on similar facts this Court took contrary views on giving death penalty to the convict (see SCC pp.279-87, paras 151-
78 : Scale pp.504-10, paras 154-82). He finally observed (SCC para 158) that "courts in the matter of sentencing act differently although the fact situation may appear to be somewhat similar" and further "it is evident that different Benches had taken different view in the matter" (SCC para 168).".
(emphasis supplied)
43. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda(supra), proceeded to observe in paragraph 51 as follows:
D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -32-
"51. The truth of the matter is that the question of death penalty is not free from the subjective element and the confirmation of death sentence or its commutation by this court depends a good deal on the personal predilection of the Judges constituting the Bench".
(emphasis supplied)
44. That appears to us to be a fair assessment of the history of application of the Bachan Singh (supra) doctrine by courts subsequently, including the Apex Court.
45. We have no hesitation to agree that the personal element has to be eliminated totally and completely while considering the two alternative sentences permissible under Section 302 I.P.C. The law on the point is clear to us. In the rarest of rare cases alone, such a sentence can be imposed. In the attempt to identify such a rarest of rare case the true test is whether the lesser alternative is unquestionably foreclosed or not. Conscious of the alternatives available; considering the extenuating and mitigating circumstances; having the objectives which the sentence has to serve in the particular D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -33- case in mind and liberating oneself from personal prejudices and predilections a decision has to be taken on the crucial question.
46. We would repeat that courts must be satisfied that the lesser options available (to the graver option of imposing a death sentence) must be unquestionably foreclosed before they choose to impose a death sentence. We will remind ourselves that Judges dealing with this sublime area of criminal adjudication can neither be retentionists nor abolitionists. Subject to the law as declared in Bachan Singh(supra) and subsequent decisions, the court will have to consider all available circumstances without importing individual and personal concepts of the need to retain death sentence or abolish the same. It is true that the constitutional validity of the death sentence has been upheld but before imposing/confirming such sentence the court has to alertly consider the very purpose of punishment and decide whether in the facts and circumstances of the case imposition of the graver alternative is necessary and unavoidable.
47. We have already extracted the relevant portion in Bachan Singh (supra) which gives the quintessence of the law D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -34- in paragraph 209. The lesser option must be unquestionably foreclosed for the Court to identify the rarest of rare cases. In this context, we feel that the decision in Swamy Shraddananda (supra) is of vital relevance.
48. The three Judge Bench in Swamy Shraddananda (supra) took the view that a sentence of imprisonment for life simplicitor is not adequate in that case. The three Judge Bench realistically took note of the prevalent situation where the sentence of imprisonment for life gets boiled down virtually to a sentence of imprisonment for 14 years, subject to remission, commutation, etc. The learned Judges of the three Judge Bench felt that to avoid a sentence of death, it is possible for the courts to devise a graver form of sentence of imprisonment for life which will virtually ensure that the society is insulated from the criminal for such period as the court may specify including the entire rest of his life. The court in its ingenuity has now raised the bar to make sure that even in a case where the lesser alternative of an ordinary sentence of life is found to be grossly inadequate, the court has the option to impose a graver sentence of life with appropriate stipulations to be specified by the court. D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -35- The following passages appearing in paragraphs 92 to 94 according to us is of very great significance in this ultimate and sublime exercise of discretion between life and death by the courts. In paragraph 92, the court after observing the inadequacy of a sentence of life limited to imprisonment for 14 years, proceeded to observe that:
"........... a far more just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the court, i.e., the vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death."
The court proceeded in paragraph 94 to lay down the dictum that such a graver sentence of imprisonment for life with appropriate directions can be imposed. Paragraph 94 reads as follows:
" 94. In the light of the discussions made above we are clearly of the view that there is a good and strong basis for the Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment or by a term in excess of D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -36- fourteen years and further to direct that the convict must not be released from the prison for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified in the order, as the case may be."
49. In devising or inventing such a mode of graver sentence above the ordinary term of imprisonment for life but below the sentence of death, the Court has realistically found that insistence on imposition of death penalty can be further reduced. The alternative option must be foreclosed. The court has in fact increased the alternative options available. The only alternative option prior to Swamy Shraddananda (supra) was a sentence of life without any rider. The courts are now given the option to suitably modulate and prescribe the manner in which a life sentence can and ought to be executed. In Swamy Shraddananda (supra), the court proceeded to direct that the accused in that case who was guilty of a very heinous and horrendous crime can be saved from the sentence of death by imposing this modified version of a life sentence - with a rider/ direction that the accused shall not be released from prison for the rest of his life.
D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -37-
50. To avoid the possibility of any confusion for the subordinate courts, we would like to clarify that under Section 302 IPC, there are only two sentences permissible. They are a sentence of death and a sentence of imprisonment for life. Courts do not have the option to impose any other sentence. Swamy Shraddananda (supra) only permits the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life with the rider that the accused shall not be released from prison invoking the jurisdiction for commutation/reduction of sentence for a specified number of years or for the rest of his life. Swamy Shraddananda (supra), we may clarify, does not permit courts to impose a sentence of imprisonment for any specified number of years above 14 years. A sentence of death or imprisonment for life has to be imposed under Section 302 IPC in every case invariably.
51. Abolitionists, according to us, have won a major battle in the war against death sentence by the dictum of the three Judge Bench in Swamy Shraddananda (supra). This has been achieved by increasing the options that are available to the court. It is the bounden duty of the court now to consider whether the worst form of a sentence of imprisonment for life is D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -38- also unquestionably foreclosed. Only when such a definite conclusion is reached, can the court choose to impose the death sentence now. We reckon this as a definite instance of raising the bar much higher than it was available prior to Swamy Shraddananda(supra). The court has to consider not only the ordinary sentence of life as the lesser option. It has to consider the graver sentence of life permitted under Swamy Shraddananda (supra) and a conclusion must be reached that even the gravest permissible alternative is unquestionably foreclosed in the facts and circumstances of the given case. So reckoned, the burden on the Court now becomes heavier. Before imposing the death sentence, it has to be considered whether the option of a life sentence with the gravest rider is also unquestionably foreclosed.
52. It is perhaps of great relevance to note that in paragraph 93 of Swamy Shraddananda (supra) the three Judge Bench specifically observes that such an approach will have the great advantage of having the death penalty on the statute book but to actually use it as little as possible - really in the rarest of rare cases only. We extract paragraph 93 below to ensure that D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -39- we are properly guided on this aspect.
93. Further, the formalisation of a special category of sentence, though for an extremely few number of cases, shall have the great advantage of having the death penalty on the statute book but to actually use it as little as possible, really in the rarest of rare cases. This would only be a reassertion of the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh besides being in accord with the modern trends in penology."
53. This is not to say that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh (supra) is in any way obliterated. Death sentence remains on the statute book. It is for the Court, without importing personal norms in favour of retention or abolition to consider dispassionately whether the given case is one belonging to the rarest of rare cases where, even the graver options of life sentences with rider (ranging from an ordinary life sentence which for all intents and purposes boils down to a D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -40- sentence of imprisonment for 14 years to any specified minimum number of years above 14 below the entire life and a sentence of imprisonment with no release for the rest of life of the accused as indicated in Swamy Shraddananda (supra)) is unquestionably foreclosed. We totally agree with the learned Prosecutors that in spite of Swamy Shraddananda (supra) there is space for a certain narrow category of cases which still belongs to the category of rarest of rare cases - call it the rarest of rarest of rare cases if necessary, wherein also a sentence of death permitted by Statute can be and will have to be imposed. But, in identifying that case, the "lesser option" referred to in Bachan Singh (supra) must be understood realistically. Till Swamy Shraddananda (supra), there was only one alternative option of sentence of life without prescribing any further restrictions or guidelines. Now, we have not one alternative option; but various alternative options taking advantage of the "vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and imprisonment till death". All Courts called upon to choose between the sentence of death and the alternative options now available can impose a death sentence only when the Court is convinced and D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -41- satisfied that none of the other alternatives available in the wake of Swamy Shraddananda (supra) are sufficient and those options are unquestionably foreclosed. We have no hesitation to opine that the imposition of death sentence can now be made only in such graver cases, where all the other options are found to be insufficient. The bulk of such cases shall stand considerably and substantially reduced now -after Swamy Shraddananda (supra).
54. A question still remains whether the instant case is one in which the graver alternatives of a life sentence are also unquestionably foreclosed. We have rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs. We are unable to agree that all the options now available can be said to be unquestionably foreclosed in the given circumstances. In every case of death sentence, the court must consider the purpose of the sentence. The theory of reformation will have no place whatsoever in a case of imposition of death sentence. In a case like the instant one, the consideration of compensation/ restoration cannot also have any place, as all the members of the family have been liquidated by the conduct of the accused. The D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -42- purpose of a death sentence - of eliminating the menace to the society in the form of a hardened criminal and to save society from the activities of such criminal may not also have much role, given the alternative option of a life sentence which will ensure that the accused does not come into contact with the society thereafter. The learned Prosecutors point out that there may be jail breaking or natural calamities which may lead to escape of prisoners from the jail and such convicts may still come into contact with the members of the society. We do not think that, that contingency is one which can be taken into account by the court ordinarily while considering whether the possibility of the hardened criminal being exposed to society is eliminated by a graver sentence of life as permitted under Swamy Shraddananda(supra). The argument that tax payers' money will have to be spent unnecessarily for supporting a life in prison with no tangible relevance or purpose for the society does not impress us at all as that argument is virtually directed against the prescription of a sentence of imprisonment for life by the legislature. A refined civilization wedded to the ideal of respect to life and its dignity must be happy to spend money to avoid D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -43- liquidation of life when there is an alternative available.
55. Deterrence is the other possible concern which has to be taken note of. As to how many criminals can be deterred from committing the crime because of the severity of the death sentence is itself a very uncertain area. Statistics, it appears to us, cannot be of any crucial assistance on this aspect. We have no hesitation to observe that more criminals can be deterred from crimes by the conviction that immediate and certain punishment shall follow rather than the impression that he may be visited with a graver capital punishment on some uncertain future date. Immediateness and certainty of reasonable punishment and not the severity of the same serves the cause of deterrence best in our assessment. In a situation where the society comes across certain types of crimes frequently (like bride burning or terrorist machinations or crimes by personnel of the protection (armed) forces like body guards, etc..), deterrence may certainly have a place. But to deter persons from committing a crime like the instant one, we are of the firm opinion that imposition of death sentence on an offender like the accused herein may not have much significance. D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -44-
56. The theory of retribution is the other concern. Refined and civilised states have altogether given up the theory of retribution as a theory in itself justifying imposition of a sentence. But the theory of retribution has indirect influence on the doctrine of proportionality. "To each what he deserves"
according to us is the most acceptable definition of justice. In that view of the matter, a person who has deprived another of his right to live may, under the doctrine of proportionality or on the doctrine of moral entitlement, have to face a sentence of death. Cry for justice from society is also relevant. The court must translate into its decision the abhorrence with which the enlightened society views a crime. No Judge can afford to be more liberal, more refined, more tolerant or more civilised than what the society, from which he hails can afford and accept. If there is unbridgable gap between the norms prevalent in the society and the liberal attitude of the Judges, the system would run the risk of the ugly head of private vengeance being raised. But, this is not to say that the judges must ride the crest of populist sentiments and attitudes. The Judge also has a duty to refine society. He can lead the society in civilisation and D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -45- refinement. The judge need not wait to be the last die hard to convert, transform, assimilate and imbibe liberal ideals. But it will have to be ensured that he is only ahead of them and not far removed from them in attitudes and norms. In this view of the matter, in appropriate cases death sentence will certainly have to be imposed.
57. Courts at all levels will have to ensure that subjectivity is eliminated altogether while choosing to impose or not choosing to impose the death sentence. Life is such a precious commodity and the Constitution cherishes the human right of right to life so much that personal prejudices and predilections of the individual judge have to be eliminated completely in the decision to judicially terminate and liquidate life. There cannot be benches that are pro death sentences and anti death sentences. Of all the arguments against the retention of the death sentence, none is more effective and disturbing than the thought that the choice between life and death may depend on the personal attitude and vagaries of the judge before whom the case may comeup. The observation in Aloke Nath and Swamy Shraddananda (supra) to which we have already adverted to D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -46- suggest that the Indian legal system has not yet been able to acquit itself creditably on this aspect even during the post Bachan Singh period. This imposes a great amount of responsibility on the Judges called upon to perform that sublime responsibility of choosing between the graver and the lesser options. One of the surest ways to correctly identify the fit case to impose the death sentence or to put it better to identify that case where all the alternative options are unquestionably foreclosed, is to ascertain whether all unbiased trained judicial minds without doctrinaire prejudices and predilections are likely to unanimously endorse and answer the question in favour of death sentence. Then and then alone can the graver option of death sentence be preferred by a court.
58. Having considered all circumstances, we are of the definite opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence of death is not warranted. A sentence of imprisonment for life, subject to the safeguards/directions as permitted by Swamy Shraddananda (supra) shall serve the ends of justice, we are of the very definite opinion. D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -47-
59. Let it not be assumed that this court does not perceive the instant one to be a serious and dastardly crime. We, to say the least, are convinced that the offence committed calls for societal abhorrence and disapproval. But, the totality of circumstances instill in us the satisfaction that this is not a case where the range of further options available to the court after Swamy Shraddananda (supra) are unquestionably foreclosed. Placing fetter on the powers of the Executive under Section 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. for a prescribed period (and with due caution administered that the powers under Article 72 and Article 161 should not be lightly invoked to get over the prescription of such period fixed by this Court) a sentence of imprisonment for life which shall ensure that the offender does not get exposed to society for a period of 30 years can be imposed. We are not prescribing the 'entire rest of the life' as the period, as fixed by their Lordships in Swamy Shraddananda (supra), considering the totality of circumstances and because of the optimistic faith in the infinite capacity of the human soul to repent and reform. D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -48-
60. In the result:
(a) this appeal is allowed in part.
(b) the verdict of guilty and conviction of the appellant under Sections 449, 309 and 302 IPC are upheld.
(c) The sentence imposed on the appellant/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections 309 and 449 IPC are upheld.
(d) The death sentence reference is answered against the prosecution. The sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified and reduced to imprisonment for life. It is further directed, as permitted by the decision in Swamy Shraddananda (supra) that the accused shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 (thirty) years including the period already undergone with set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. alone.
D.S.R.No.4/07 & CRL.A.No.1620 /07 -49-
(e) Needless to say, even thereafter, if the question of release is being considered, the same must be done only after careful consideration and evaluation of all circumstances.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn