Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has urged before us that the deceased was four months' pregnant at the time of incident; the incident has taken place in the background of demand of the appellant for money in order to purchase plot; that the appellant used to ill-treat and beat the deceased since said demand was not met. He submitted before us that on the date of incident, the appellant was on leave and he was in the house, the door was bolted from inside; that when Prashant and Vishal (P.Ws.) knocked the door, the appellant opened the door and subsequently made a drama that the deceased was unconscious; the theory of suicide taken by the appellant was never conveyed to any of the neighbours or Prashant and Vishal (P.Ws.) who came to the spot; that the appellant absconded after the commission of the crime and was arrested only at 6.00 p.m. at a place which is seven to eight kilometres away from the place of incident. According to the learned A.P.P., the recovery has been duly proved through the Investigating Officer even though the Punch witnesses did not support the prosecution case. He also pointed out that the contrary stand has been taken in the written statement vis-a-vis 313 statement and that the false explanation given is an additional link to determine the culpability of the appellant. It is further submitted by him that the circumstances on record totally ruled out the theory of suicide and that the prosecution has proved that it was the appellant alone who had murdered his wife. On the question of death penalty, the learned A.P.P. urged before us that this is a cold blooded murder on account of non-fulfilment of the amount sought by the appellant; the appellant was in a dominating position; that the murder in question has shaken the conscience of the society and in every case of bride burning or dowry death, death penalty should be awarded. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a number of authorities of the Apex Court to which we shall make reference at the appropriate stage.

24. Learned A.P.P. has also placed reliance on Kailash Kaur v. State of Punjab, , and argued that in bride burning for dowry where the offence is clearly proved, Courts must award death sentence as a deterrent. He has also placed reliance on Lehna v. State of Haryana, reported in I (2002) SLT 502=I (2002) CCR 101 (SC)=2000(3) SCC 76, wherein the guidelines which emerge from Bachan Singh case (supra) have been noted down which are as follows :

(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
(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-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in position of trust; or murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the mother land.
(3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community, etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstance, 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.

Learned A.P.P. specifically placed reliance on para 3 above and submits that the death punishment imposed on the appellant should be confirmed.

25. First of all, we must point out that the reasons given by the Trial Court can by no stretch of imagination be said to be special reasons. The first reason given in para 32 of the judgment is survival of the accused after life imprisonment is also not helpful to his son. The second reason given is found in para 34 of the judgment that the intention to cause death was specific and the time was selected by the accused when none was in the house. The Trial Court also refers to the fact that volume of tape recorder and T.V. set was usually kept high whenever quarrel takes place. In this case also, those articles were in operation. We do not find any material to support this conclusion. The crime was pre-planned and cold-blooded and that whenever there is bride burning dowry case where the offence proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court should deal in most severe and strict manner and award maximum penalty. We do not find that any of these reasons can be said to be special reasons for imposing death sentence inasmuch as intention to cause death is there in all murders. Many of the murders are pre-planned and cold-blooded. We do not find that the crime in question and circumstances are such so as to fall within the guidelines of rarest of rare cases. Every second or third case which this Court is dealing is dowry death or bride burning and the normal sentence imposed is life imprisonment which is the rule. State, which is the repository of the conscience of the community has hardly approached this Court for imposition of death penalty in such cases. Death sentence has to be imposed where life imprisonment appears altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime. There is nothing uncommon about the crime so as to call for death sentence and it cannot be said that the case under consideration is such where the collective conscience of the community is so shocked that death penalty is the only solution. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the crime in question does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases and as such death punishment in this matter is not called for.