Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

38. Then comes the last question as to what should be the appropriate punishment. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to a few authorities in this behalf and considered the factors for and against awarding the death sentence before deciding upon the death sentence. It is a settled position in law that though death sentence can be awarded in the evident of murder, as held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1982 S.C. page 898 (Para-206), life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. That is also the view reiterated later-on by the Apex Court in the case of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab . Ms. Kejariwal, learned APP, submitted that the present case should be considered as one from the rarest of rear category, wherein death sentence is to be awarded. She submitted that an innocent child, who had reposed full faith in the Accused, has been killed inspite of the Accused collecting the ransom which showed a depraved state of mind. She emphasized that the child was way-laid and kidnapped and taken to a farm adjoining to the village and strangulated over there by using a nylon strip. The manner in which the child was killed should also be a factor to be considered. She submitted that it must also be borne in mind that the Accused was charged for kidnapping and murder of a child in one more case. (Sessions case No. 10 of 2001 at Satara).

39. Ms. Kejariwal relied upon three judgments of the Apex Court to submit that in the case of kidnapping and murder of children, death sentence was apt. Firstly, she relied upon the judgment in the case of Henry Westmuller Roberts v. State of Assam . That was a case wherein Henry and three others entered into a conspiracy to kidnap the minor children in three districts of Assam with a view to extort ransom. Three of them were employees of ONGC and fourth one was an employee of a contractor under ONGC. (Para 5 of the judgment). In that case, a child named Sanjay was kidnapped by Henry during a festival outside a temple. Evneafter the child was murdered, the father of the child was made to believe that the body was alive, and was asked to pay the ransom. It is only when Henry went to make one such phone call that he was arrested near the Public Call Office. The Apex Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to Henry. One of the conspirators Sunil was convicted under Section 365, Indian Penal Code and the plea that he should also be sentenced to death, was turned down. The other Accused were acquitted.

40. The second judgment relied on by Ms. Kejariwal was in the case of Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu . That was a case wherein the two Accused conspired to entice innocent boys from affluent families for ransom and to murder them. They executed four such murders in a span of five years. In view of the depravity and hardened criminality, the Apex Court confirmed the death sentence, though a plea was made that they were young and the bead winners of the family.

41. Ms. Kejariwal lastly relied upon a judgment in the case of Mohan and Ors. v. State of T.N. . In that case, four Accused kidnapped a young boy for ransom and brutally murdered him. Even after killing the boy and disposing of the dead body in a brutal manner, accused No. 1 went on to demand and succeeded in collecting the ransom from his father. (Para 2 of the judgment). The Apex Court confirmed the death sentence of two of the Accused but other two conspirators, who had lesser role, were sentenced to imprisonment for life.