Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 364, 302, 307 and 380 – Prosecution under – Murder of
6 persons – By kidnapping them and drugging them with sleeping tablets and then drowning them in a canal – Conviction by courts below – Death sentence imposed – On appeal, held: The prosecution has proved the case against the accused by cogent evidence – The case is proved by eye-witness, independent witness and the witness before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession – The witnesses are trustworthy and reliable – There are no material contradiction which may affect the prosecution case – The accused was last seen together with three of the deceased – Recovery of drug at the instance of the accused is proved – Recovery of cash and ornaments and key of the house of the deceased from the house of the accused at his instance prove the motive for the murder – The findings recorded by courts below are on appreciation of evidence, which are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record – Therefore, conviction is affirmed – The accused committed the murder of 6 innocent persons with extreme brutality in a planned manner – On striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, aggravating circumstances tilt in favour of capital punishment – Therefore, capital punishment/death sentence does not warrant any interference and is upheld – Sentence/Sentencing – Death Sentence.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution has proved the case against the accused by leading cogent evidence and examining PW-5, the eye-witness; PW-14, an employee of the canal department, who is an independent witness to whom PW-5 narrated the entire occurrence which was first in time; PW-8 the ex-Sarpanch; PW-9 before whom extra-judicial confession was made and also by examining several police witnesses, including PW-7, the investigating officer. By and large, these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. [Para 9.4] [461-E-F]
1.2 The accused was last seen together with deceased husband, mother and brother of PW5 on 25/26.06.2012 at about
2.30 a.m. Thereafter, the aforesaid three persons were not seen alive by anyone. The deposition of PW-5 having seen the accused last together with the aforesaid three persons, has been established and proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence and examining PW-8, the ex-Sarpanch. [Para 9.3] [461-D]
1.3 Minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. Every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. In the present case, the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution are trustworthy and reliable. There are no material contradictions which may affect the case of the prosecution. PW-5 is the eye-witness and also the victim. She has been fully cross-examined by the defence. But the defence has not brought out anything from her crossexamination which may affect the case of the prosecution and/or which may doubt her trustworthiness. PW-14 is an independent witness to whom the occurrence was narrated by PW-5. Even PW-8 and PW-9 are also independent witnesses. Nothing has been alleged against them. [Paras 10 and 11] [461-H; 462-A-E]
Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2007) 11 SCC 195: [2007] 5 SCR 1049 – relied on.
1.4 There are also recoveries of cash and ornaments from the house of the accused which were recovered at the instance of the accused. The recoveries regarding memos etc. have been proved by the prosecution. Even the keys of the house of the victims were found from the house of the accused. The ornaments and the cash have been identified by PW-5. Merely because, earlier there might have been search at the house of the accused and nothing was found at that time, cannot be a ground to discard the recoveries made subsequently which, as such, were made at the instance of the accused himself. The accused is the best person to know where he kept the ornaments/cash which he had taken from the house of the victims. There is no reason to doubt the recoveries. [Para 12] [462-F-H; 463-A]
1.5 The prosecution has been successful in proving the motive for the accused to commit the offence and to do away with the entire family, which is supported by the recoveries of cash and ornaments from the house of the accused. [Para 12.1] [463-B]
1.6 Even the recoveries of Anzilum 0.5mg tablets from the Maruti car belonging to the accused has been established and proved. Therefore, the prosecution case that he had given pills to the deceased persons and, thereafter, killed them has been established. Non-detection of the poison in the contents would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Where the pills are given in larger number, in that case only, the poison would be detected. [Para 12.2] [463-B-C]
1.7 The findings recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court are on appreciation of the evidence, which are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has rightly confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC having killed/committing the murder of six persons. [Para 13] [463-D-E]
2.1 So far as the capital punishment imposed by the courts below is concerned, the counsel of the accused is not in a position to point out any mitigating circumstance which warrants commutation of death sentence to the life imprisonment. The accused has killed six innocent persons, out of which two were minors – below 10 years of age. Almost, all the family members of PW-5 were done to death in a diabolical and dastardly manner. Only one person of the family of PW-5 could survive. The accused has killed six innocent persons in a pre-planned manner. The convict meticulously planned the time. He first kidnapped three persons by way of deception and took them to the canal and after drugging them with sleeping tablets, pushed them in the canal at a mid-night to ensure that the crime is not detected. That, thereafter he killed another three persons in the second stage/instalment. The case would fall in the category of the “rarest of rare case” warranting death sentence/capital punishment. The aggravating circumstances are in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. Therefore, striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the aggravating circumstance would tilt the balance in favour of the capital punishment. [Para 14] [464-A-C]
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1 : [2017] 6 SCR 1 – relied on.
2.2 There is no alternative punishment suitable, except the death sentence. The crime is committed with extremist brutality and the collective conscious of the society would be shocked. Therefore, the capital punishment/death sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, the death sentence of the accused is confirmed. [Para 14] [464-C-D]
3. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 307, 201 and 380 IPC is hereby confirmed. The conviction of the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and other offences is hereby confirmed and the capital imprisonment/death sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for having killed six persons is hereby confirmed. [Para 15] [464-E-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.