Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Radheyshyam And Anr vs State on 1 July, 2019
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 64/2018
1. Radheyshyam S/o Sh. Balkishan, By Caste Brahmin,
Resident of Village Kunthal, P.S. Diwer, District-
Rajsamand (Raj.)
2.
Harish S/o Sh. Balkishan, By Caste Brahmin, Resident of
Village Kunthal, P.S. Diwer, District - Rajsamand (Raj.)
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent : Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon'ble Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
01st July, 2019 The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 36/2013 whereby, while acquitting the co-accused Prem Shanker from the offences under Sections 118 & 120-B of I.P.C. by extending him the benefit of doubt, the accused-appellants (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (2 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] Radhey Shyam and Harish were convicted and sentenced as under :-
Offence Sentence
U/s 449 I.P.C. Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs.
10,000/- each and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo 02 months' additional imprisonment.
U/s 324 I.P.C. 03 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' additional imprisonment.
U/s 326 I.P.C. 10 Years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 months' additional imprisonment.
U/s 307 I.P.C. Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months' additional imprisonment.
U/s 302 I.P.C. Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months' additional imprisonment.
U/s 498-A I.P.C. 03 Years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' additional imprisonment.
U/s 120-B I.P.C. Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months' additional imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently Briefly, the facts of the case are that Laxman (P.W. 7) submitted an oral report to the S.H.O. Police Station Amet, District Rajsamand on 20.03.2010 wherein it was stated that he was a resident of Amet. At around 6.00 P.M., he was present in his house along with his mother Chhagga Devi, sisters Leela, Kanta & Anita and brothers Suraj & Karan. His sister Leela's daughters Krishna, Kiran and one infant baby aged about 02 months were also (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (3 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] present in the house. They were talking with each other, when all of a sudden, his brother-in-law Radhey Shyam and his brother Harish came to their house holding big knives in their hands. While entering the house, they were exhorting that whosoever is present in the house, everyone should be killed and started inflicting injuries with knives to all of them. All the persons raised an alarm but nobody came to their aid. After assaulting all the family members, the accused left the place. In the assault, his mother Chhagga Devi, sisters Kanta & Leela and brother Karan sustained fatal grievous injuries on their person resulting into their death on the spot. He and his sister Anita and brother Suraj were taken to Amet Hospital by Lalaram. He sustained grievous injuries on palm of the right hand, elbow, left side of the cheek and left shoulder due to the assault made by the accused-appellants with knives. His brother and sister sustained multiple injuries on their body. A number of villagers gathered at the spot after the incident. He heard that there were 03 more persons along with Radhey Shyam and Harish who were standing outside their house. He did not see them. His father was not at home and had gone to Amet to get some household goods. The accused-appellants came to their house with an intention to kill and thus, assaulted his mother Chhagga Devi, sisters Kanta & Leela and brother Karan who died on the spot. His brother-in-law Radhey Shyam and his family members including the brother-in-law (Devar), the mother- in-law and the father-in-law of his sister Leela had been harassing her for the demand of dowry and were indulged in torturing her since long. His sister Leela had came to their house for delivery two months prior to the date of incident as her in-laws had turned her out of the matrimonial home. Since that day, the accused- (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
(4 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] appellants were bearing ill will with them and they had indulged in the assault owing to this motive.
On this report, a formal F.I.R. No. 45/2010 (Ex.P/67) was registered at Police Station Amet, District Rajsamand on 20.03.2010 for the offences under Sections 450/449, 324, 307, 302 & 498-A of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused-appellants Radhey Shyam and Harish on 21.03.2010 and co-accused Prem Shanker on 27.03.2010.
After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge- sheet against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 449, 324, 326, 307, 302, 498-A & 120-B of I.P.C. and against co-accused Prem Shanker for the offences under Sections 118 & 120-B of I.P.C.
Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 449, 324, 326, 307, 302, 498-A & 120-B of I.P.C. to the accused-appellants and under Sections 118 & 120-B of I.P.C. to the co-accused Prem Shanker. They pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 45 witnesses and exhibited documents from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/135 in support of its case.
The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the evidence adduced against them during the course of trial, which they denied and stated that the Investigating Officer informed them about involvement of 3-4 other persons but did not conduct any investigation qua them and falsely implicated them in the case. No evidence was adduced by the accused-appellants in their defence.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
(5 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, acquitted the co-accused Prem Shanker but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above vide judgment dated 23.02.2018. Hence this appeal.
We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants vehemently and fervently argued that there was no reliable evidence produced by the prosecution which shows that the accused-appellants were involved in the present case. The testimony of P.W. 7 - Laxman, P.W. 9 - Anita and P.W. 25 - Krishna (child witness) is not worth credence and trustworthy because, being the close relatives of the deceased persons, they were interested in falsely implicating the accused-appellants in the case because of inimical and hostile relationship between the two families i.e. complainant and the accused-appellants.
Learned counsel further submitted that the recoveries effected in the case are planted by the investigating agency in connivance with the complainant as the witnesses of recovery did not support the prosecution case and were turned hostile.
He further submitted that there was no motive on the part of the accused-appellants to commit the murder of four persons. As per the oral information given by Laxman (P.W. 7), there were 3-4 other persons present outside the house but neither they were named nor any investigation was carried out against them, which shows that the prosecution did not come out with a true story and thus, the accused-appellants were falsely implicated in the case. (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
(6 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] He further submitted that nothing has come on record as to what specific demand of dowry was made by the accused- appellants and at what point of time, the said demand was raised.
Learned counsel on the strength of these arguments urged that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants were guilty of the murders of Smt. Chhagga Devi, Smt. Leela, Kanta and Karan and causing grievous injuries to injured Laxman (P.W. 7), Anita (P.W. 9) and Suraj and therefore, the learned trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants for the alleged offences as above vide Judgment dated 23.02.2018 and thus, the accused-appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while supporting the judgment dated 23.02.2018 submitted that it was a case in which 04 persons of the family were brutally murdered by the accused- appellants. The eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 7 - Laxman, P.W. 9 - Anita and P.W. 25-Krishna affirmatively deposed that all the family members present in the house were assaulted by the accused- appellants by sharp edged weapons i.e. knives. The brutal assault made by the accused-appellants resulted into instantaneous death of four persons, namely, Chhagga Devi, Leela, Kanta and Karan on the spot while 03 others, namely, Laxman (P.W. 7), Anita (P.W. 9) and Suraj were grievously injured who were taken to the hospital. The testimony of the injured - eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 9 - Anita and P.W. 25 - Krishna as well as the first informant P.W. 7 - Laxman is reliable, unwavering, unambiguous and cannot be doubted. The strong and unflinching ocular evidence is corroborated by the recovery of bloodstained weapons of offence (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (7 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] i.e. knives and the medical evidence clearly establishing that the charges levelled against the accused-appellants were proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the learned trial court, after evaluating the entire facts and evidence on record, came to the only possible and logical conclusion of the guilt of the accused-appellants and rightly convicted them for the offences alleged in the case vide Judgment dated 23.02.2018, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
We have considered the submissions made at bar and minutely gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as the judgment dated 23.02.2018 impugned herein.
The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the testimony of 03 injured - eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 7 - Laxman, (first informant), P.W. 9 - Anita and P.W. 25 - Krishna.
P.W. 7 - Laxman deposed before the learned trial court that the accused-appellant Radhey Shyam is his brother-in-law being husband of his sister Leela and the accused-appellant Harish is brother of Radhey Shyam. On 20.03.2010 at around 6.00 P.M., while he, along with his sisters Leela, Anita & Kanta, mother Chhagga Devi, brothers Suraj & Karan, niece Krishna & Kiran and an infant baby of 02 months were sitting in their house and were gossiping, at which point of time, his brother-in-law Radhey Shyam and his brother Harish came to their house shouting that all present in the house should be killed. They were carrying big knives in their hands and assaulted all the members of the family. He tried to intervene and sustained number of injuries during the incident. His mother Chhagga Devi, sisters Leela & Kanta and brother Karan died on the spot as a result of the sharp injuries (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (8 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] inflicted by the accused. His sister Anita and brother Suraj also sustained injuries. He became unconscious. The accused- appellants left the place after assaulting them. The villagers took them to the hospital. His father was not at home as he had gone to Amet to bring some household goods. Radhey Shyam is the husband of his sister Leela. The accused-appellants harassed his sister for demand of dowry and often indulged in assaulting and misbehaving with her. She was turned out of the matrimonial home and therefore, she was staying with them for last two months. He reported the matter at the Police Station Amet and signed the memos prepared by the police during the investigation. Nothing significant was elicited during the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt the credibility or veracity of the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief.
P.W. 9 - Anita Sharma being sister of the deceased Leela and Kanta stated almost on the same lines as P.W. 7 - Laxman. This witness categorically deposed that the accused-appellants assaulted all the members of the family present in the house with big knives and inflicted multiple brutal injuries to almost everyone, which resulted into death of her sisters Leela & Kanta, mother Chhagga Devi and brother Karan, whereas, she, her brother Laxman and Suraj were grievously injured in the incident. Nothing contrary to what was stated in the examination-in-chief was deposed by this witness during the cross-examination.
P.W. 25 - Krishna being a child witness and daughter of the accused-appellant Radhey Shyam and deceased Leela rightly identified the accused-appellants in the Court. She stated that her father Radhey Shyam and uncle Harish were staying at Mumbai. Her mother Leela, aunt Kanta, maternal-grandmother Chhagga (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (9 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] Devi and maternal uncle Karan died in the incident. They were murdered by her father Radhey Shyam and uncle Harish by assaulting them with big knives. The incident took place at around 6.00 P.M. at the house of her maternal grandmother. She saw the incident as she was present in the house at that time. Her aunt Anita, maternal uncle Laxman and Suraj also sustained injuries in the incident. The deposition made by her in the examination-in-chief remained uncontroverted and unshaken during her cross-examination.
P.W. 15 - Narain identified the accused-appellants in the Court. He stated that while he was sitting at his shop, the accused-appellants and Prem Shanker came on a motor-cycle, which was being driven by Harish and stopped in front of the house of Roshan Lal. Thereafter, the accused-appellants went inside the house and Prem Shanker went away on the motor- cycle. After 5-10 minutes, Laxman (P./W. 7) came outside the house crying for help. He was profusely bleeding from his mouth. He heard hue and cry from the house of Roshan Lal, therefore, they went towards the house of Roshan Lal and saw Radhey Shyam and Harish coming out of the house with bloodstains on their clothes. He along with some other persons went inside the house and saw all the members of the family of Roshan Lal lying on the floor of the house. They came to know that the accused- appellants had assaulted the family members after trespassing into the house of Roshanlal. The police reached the place of occurrence after some time. Nothing significant was elicited during the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt the credibility or veracity of the deposition made by him in the examination-in- chief.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
(10 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] P.W. 27 - Dr. Nishit Kumar, the Medical Officer, C.H.C., Amet, deposed that on 20.03.2010, he examined the injured Suraj, Laxman and Anita and prepared and issued their injury reports (Ex.P/47, Ex.P/15 & Ex.P/48), respectively, under his signatures. He described the multiple injuries sustained by the injured Suraj, Laxman and Anita. He further stated that on the same day, he conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased Kanta and described the dimensions and place of injuries sustained by her. He further stated that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock resulting from ante mortem sharp weapon injuries sustained by the deceased Kanta.
P.W. 28 - Dr. Rajkumar Yadav, the Junior Specialist (Medicine) C.H.C. Amet, who conducted the autopsy upon the dead bodies of the deceased Chhagga Devi and Leela described the dimensions and place of injuries sustained by them. He further stated that the cause of death was "haemorrhagic shock caused by loss of blood from lungs and heart due to sharp weapon injuries" and "haemorrhagic shock caused by blood loss due to cutting of major upper arm vessel and the associated wounds"
sustained by the deceased Chhagga Devi and Leela, respectively.
P.W. 34 - Dr. Jasvendra Gill, the Junior Specialist (Surgery), C.H.C. Amet, who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased Karan described the dimensions and place of injuries sustained by him. He further stated that the cause of death was "hypovolemic shock due to massive left haemothorax, which lead to cardiorespiratory failure & death" sustained by the deceased Karan.
P. W. 44 - Ramratan, S.H.O., Police Station Amet, District Rajsamand, the Police Officer, conducted investigation of the (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (11 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] matter and stated that he recorded statements of the witnesses, effected recoveries, collected samples and after completion of the investigation, as prescribed in law, submitted the report before the court of competent jurisdiction.
The postmortem reports of the deceased Kanta, Chhagga Devi, Leela and Karan are Ex.P/49, Ex.P/50, Ex.P/51 & Ex.P/88, respectively, wherein the cause of death was stated as under :-
Name of the Cause of death
deceased
Kanta (Ex.P/49)
haemorrhagic shock resulting from ante
mortem injuries
Chhaga Devi
(Ex.P/50) haemorrhagic shock caused by loss of blood
from lungs and heart due to injuries
Leela (Ex.P/51)
haemorrhagic shock caused by blood loss
due to cutting of major upper arm vessles
and aforementioned wounds
Karan (Ex.P/88)
hypovolemic shock due to massive left
haemothorax, which lead to cardiorespiratory failure & death The injury reports of the injured Laxman, Suraj and Anita are Ex.P/15, Ex.P/47 and Ex.P/48, respectively. The arrest memos of the accused-appellants Radhey Shyam and Harish are Ex.P/100 & Ex.P/101, respectively. The recovery memos of bloodstained weapons of offence i.e. knives are Ex.P/32 (Radhey Shyam) & Ex.P/33 (Harish), which were recovered pursuant to the information supplied by the accused-appellants under Section 27 (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (12 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/113 & Ex.P/116), respectively. The F.S.L. Report is Ex.P/132.
The testimony of the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 7 - Laxman, P.W. 9 - Anita and P.W. 25 - Krishna depicts the gruesome act of the accused-appellants brutally assaulting the members of the family, in which 4 persons died on the spot while 03 became grievously injured.
While going through the record of the learned trial court, we have seen the photographs of the place of incident. The act committed by the accused-appellants has shocked our conscience. The accused-appellants played havoc and inflicted indiscriminate and innumerable knife blows to almost all the members of the family present in the house on the fateful day. The entire house was covered in blood. We are of the opinion that those who survived in the incident were also grievously injured and by sheer luck, they saved themselves in the incident.
A close look at the statements of P.W. 27 - Dr. Nishit Kumar, P.W. 28 - Dr. Rajkumar Yadav and P.W. 34 - Dr. Jasvendra Gill coupled with the postmortem reports of the deceased Kanta, Chhagga Devi, Leela and Karan (Ex.P/49, Ex.P/50, Ex.P/51 & Ex.P/88), respectively, and the injury reports of the injured Laxman (P.W. 7), Anita (P.W. 9) and Suraj show that the accused- appellants virtually became barbaric and inhuman while assaulting the entire family with intention to kill and eliminate all the members of the family. The intention is also reflected from the fact that while entering the house, they were shouting that each member of the family should be killed. They also acted in the same fashion.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
(13 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018]
Taking into consideration the ocular evidence being
corroborated from the medical evidence in the shape of
statements of P.W. 27 - Dr. Nishit Kumar, P.W. 28 - Dr. Rajkumar Yadav and P.W. 34 - Dr. Jasvendra Gill, recovery of bloodstained weapons of offence i.e. knives on the information supplied by the accused-appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/132), we are convinced that the accused- appellants have rightly been convicted by the learned trial court for the offences alleged in the case.
After going through the entire evidence and the proceedings of the learned trial court, we are of the view that vehemence and barbaric act of the accused-appellants needs to be dealt with iron hands. It needs to be reminded that in the civilized society, such barbaric acts should not be repeated by the persons like the accused-appellants and therefore, a message is required to be given to such persons that in the event of such incident, they will be dealt with appropriately by the courts of law.
The argument of the learned counsel for the accused- appellants that the testimony of P.W. 7 - Laxman, P.W. 9 - Anita and P.W. 25 - Krishna is not trustworthy being interested witnesses is not convincing and noted to be rejected. Merely because they are close relatives of the deceased, there is no reason for us to discard their testimony. These are the injured - eye-witnesses whose presence in the house was very natural and therefore, merely because the relationship between the two families was hostile, it cannot be presumed that they will depose against the accused-appellants to falsely implicate them. We have no reason to doubt the trustworthiness of the testimony of these eye-witnesses.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
(14 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] Our view is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganapathi & anr. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2018(2) R.C.C. (S.C.) 652 wherein it has been held in Para 12 to 15 as under :-
"12. The evidence of ocular witnesses, PWs 1 and 2, father and brother of the deceased, clearly exhibits the way in which the accused took away the life of deceased Murugan. Their evidence narrates the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and corroborates with that of the medical evidence. Dr. Danraj (PW12) who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Murugan, had pointed out as many as 10 cut injuries out of which injury Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are fatal which were possible by sickle and capable of causing death whereas injury Nos. 7 and 9 were possible by knife. It appears that there were two independent witnesses (PWs 5 and
6) projected by the prosecution, but they have turned hostile. In several cases, only the family members are present at the time of incident, then the case of the prosecution will be based only on their evidence. When their evidence is the only evidence available, Courts should be cautious and meticulously evaluate the evidence in the process of trial and we are not able to appreciate the contention on behalf of the accused that the non-
examination of independent witnesses and conviction based on the evidence of family members is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
13. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested' [See: State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752].
14. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
(15 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made [See : Maranadu and Anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2008) 16 SCC 529].
15. Here in the case, PWs 1 and 2, though father and brother of the deceased, are natural witnesses and there is no bar in law in examining family members or any other person as witnesses. Their testimonies provided clear picture of the attack carried on by the accused over the deceased. We find from the record that the evidences of PWs 1 & 2 are consistent and inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. The Courts below have also properly scrutinized their evidence before taking them into account and there is nothing unusual in believing their testimonies. Apart from that, the prosecution has examined the independent witnesses PWs 5 & 6 who turned hostile. The prosecution has taken all possible steps to bring home the guilt of the accused. Hence conviction based on evidence of PWs 1 & 2 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution."
We find no contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, however, mere infractions of trivial nature in the testimony of the witnesses cannot vitiate their evidence, much less, when the testimony of the eye-witnesses is getting due corroboration from the medical evidence, recovery of the bloodstained weapon of offence and the F.S.L. Report.
The argument of the learned counsel that the recovery witnesses have been declared hostile is also of no consequence as there is ample ocular evidence on record which being substantive in nature proves the charges levelled against the accused- appellants beyond all shadow of doubt. Therefore, mere declaration of the recovery witnesses as hostile in the present case is of no consequence.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
(16 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] The argument of the learned counsel that there were 3-4 other persons present outside the house but neither they were named nor any investigation was carried out against them is also of no relevance as the accused-appellants were clearly identified by the injured - eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 7 - Laxman, P.W. 9 - Anita and P.W. 25 - Krishna as the persons who assaulted the members of the family of Roshan Lal.
The argument with respect to non-mentioning of particular date and time of any specific demand of dowry is of little importance in the present case as it had been established beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the accused- appellants entered the house of complainant and assaulted each member of the family resulting into death of 04 persons and grievous injuries inflicted to 03 persons.
In the present case, four persons i.e. mother, two daughters and one son lost their lives while three persons sustained grievous injuries and therefore, in our view, the case does fall within the category of rarest of rare case in which the accused-appellants mercilessly, brutally and barbarically murdered Kanta, Chhagga Devi, Leela & Karan and inflicted injuries to P.W. 7 - Laxman, P.W. 9 - Anita and one Suraj but the learned trial court did not consider this case to be one falling in the category of rarest of rare case for the purpose of awarding death sentence. There is no appeal against the Judgment dated 23.02.2018 filed by the complainant or the State for enhancement of sentence, therefore, we cannot modify or alter the same. But, in our view, taking into consideration the vehemence and hostility towards the entire family and the fact that other members of the family are still alive, there is an imminent danger to their life and therefore, in the (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (17 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] peculiar circumstances of the case, while explaining the sentence, we are inclined to hold that for appellants, the imprisonment for life shall be the imprisonment in prison for the rest of their lives. They shall not be entitled to any commutation or premature release under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Prisoners Act, Jail Manual or any other statute and the Rules made for the purposes of grant of commutation and remissions. The other sentences awarded by the learned trial court are maintained as per the judgment dated 23.02.2018.
Our view is supported by the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Subash Chander and ors. Vs. Krishan Lal anr ors. reported in A.I.R. 2001 SC 1903 wherein it has been held as under :-
"23. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, apprehending imminent danger to the life of Subhash Chander and his family in future, taking on record the statement made on behalf of Krishan Lal (A1), we are inclined to hold that for him the imprisonment for life shall be the imprisonment in prison for the rest of his life. He shall not be entitled to any commutation or premature release under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Prisoners Act, Jail Manual or any other statute and the Rules made for the purposes of grant of commutation and remissions."
In view of discussion made above, we are of the firm opinion that the judgment dated 23.02.2018 passed by the learned trial court convicting and sentencing the accused- appellants for the offences under Sections 449, 324, 326, 307, (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM) (18 of 18) [CRLAD-64/2018] 302, 498-A & 120-B of I.P.C. deserves to be upheld except for the modification as above for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed as such. However, the judgment and order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the learned trial court is upheld except for the modification in sentence as above for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused-appellants shall undergo imprisonment in prison for the rest of their life for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
6-Inder/-
(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 09:58:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)