Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrugendra Singh Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 30 August, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
Cr.A. No.2007/2013.
30.8.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent no.1-State.
Heard on admission.
This criminal appeal has been preferred by victim Mrugendra Singh Bundela under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the inadequate sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.168/2010, by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal on 30/05/2013, whereby respondent nos. 2 and 3 namely Ashok Veer Vikram Singh alias Bhaiyaraja and Bhupendra Singh alias Halke Bhaiya, have been sentenced only to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for their conviction respectively under Section 302 read with 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). In addition, Ashok stands convicted under Sections 25(1B)(a) & 27 of the Arms Act, while Bhupendra has been convicted under Sections 120B and 201 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent nos. 2 and 3 hatched a criminal conspiracy to kill Vasundhara alias Nishi Bundela (since deceased), and in pursuance thereof, on 11/12/09 at about 12.45 hours, respondent no.3 shot Vasundhara dead in the field of one Mukesh Meena by his country made pistol. Information was telephonically given by Mukesh Meena at Police Statioin Misrod on 11/12/09, to the effect that dead body of an unknown woman was lying in the field. Upon the said information Dehati Morgue Intimation (Ex.P/1) was recorded and thereafter morgue intimation (Ex.P/5) was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate, argued that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment awarded by learned trial court is not sufficient and it should be enhanced and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 should be punished with death sentence. While dealing with the principle of proportion between crime and punishment, the Supreme Court in Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76 made the following observations with regard to imposition of death penalty -
"23.In rarest of rare cases when the collective conscience of the community is so shocked, that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances:
(1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(2) When the murder is committed for a motive, which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland.
(3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of 'bride burning' or 'dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.
(4) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.
(5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-à-
vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.
A bare perusal of the conspectus of the case in hand goes on to show that it does not fall within any of the categories enumerated above. Moreover, respondent no.2 is an old man of 63 years, while, respondent no.3 is a young boy.
We, are, therefore, of the considered opinion that trial Court has not committed any illegality in awarding the sentence of life imprisonment.
The appeal, sans merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)