http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

PETITIONER:

RAVJI @ RAM CHANDRA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995

BENCH:

RAY, G.N. (J)

BENCH:

RAY, G.N. (J)

NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:

1996 AIR 787 1996 SCC (2) 175

JT 1995 (8) 520 1995 SCALE (6)745

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

G.N. RAY,J.

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against judgment dated March

22, 1995 passed by the Division Bench, Rajasthan High Court

(Jodhpur Bench). By the impugned judgment, the High Court

affirmed the death sentence passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No. 122/93

against the appellant in D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No.

3/94 and dismissed D.B. Criminal (Jail). Appeal No. 602/94

preferred by the appellant before the High Court against the

conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of death

awarded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

in the said Sessions Case No. 122/93.

The appellant sent a special leave petition from the

Jail where he is lodged. Initially a learned counsel of this

Court was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the case

of the appellant. Later on, the appellant wrote a letter to

the Registry of this Court expressing his intention that one

of the three advocates mentioned by him in his letter may be

engaged to represent his case before this Court. Pursuant to

such request, Mr. Natarajan, a senior advocate of this Court

agreed to appear as amicus curiae in deference to the desire

of the appellant. We appreciate such gesture on the part of

Mr. Natarajan, for accepting the case of the appellant as

amicus curiae.

The appellant was committed to a Sessions Trial in

Sessions Case No. 122/93 before the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Banswara, on the charge of committing murder

of five persons including the wife and three minor sons of

the appellant and attempting to murder his own mother and

the wife of a neighbour. The trial court after relying on

the evidences of witnesses including injured eye-witnesses

inter alia came to the finding that the prosecution had

established by leading cogent evidence that the appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

was guilty of murdering five persons and he was also guilty

for attempting to murder his mother Smt. Mangi (PW 12) and a

neighbour's wife Smt. Galal (PW 4). Considering the fact

that the commission of the said murders was committed in a

brutal and barbaric manner, the trial court after convicting

the appellant under Sections 302 IPC sentenced him to death

penalty. Such sentence of death was referred to the

Rajasthan High Court for confirmation. The reference for

confirmation of death sentence was numbered as D.B. Criminal

Murder Reference No.3/94. The appellant also preferred an

appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 122/93. Such

appeal was numbered as D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.

602/94. Both the said Murder Reference No. 3/94 and Jail

Appeal No. 602/94 were disposed of by the High Court by a

common judgment dated March 22, 1995, dismissing the

Criminal Appeal No. 602/94 and confirming the death sentence

by allowing Murder Reference No. 3/94.

Mr. Natarajan, the learned senior counsel appearing as

amicus curiae for the appellant, has submitted that in the

instant case there is no direct evidence regarding the

allegation of murdering four persons by the appellant namely

his wife and three minor children. Admittedly, besides the

said dead persons, only mother of the appellant was present

in the house at the time of murdering wife and minor

children of the appellant. The mother of the appellant

herself was injured by the assailant who had murdered

appellant's wife and three minor children. But the mother

who was examined as PW 12 did not support the prosecution

case. She has deposed that some unknown person murdered her

daughter-in-law and three grand children and also injured

her. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. Hence,

there is no direct evidence that the appellant had murdered

his wife and three minor sons. The prosecution case has been

sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence. But motive

for murdering wife and three minor sons is totally absent.

In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes

considerable significance. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that

even if this court accepts the concurrent finding of the

courts below that appellant is guilty of murdering his wife

and three minor children besides murdering another man

Gulabji the absence of motive requires to be considered for

sustaining the death penalty. Mr. Natarajan has submitted

that there are eye-witnesses to prove the prosecution case

of murdering Gulabji and attempting to murder Smt. Galal.

The wife of Gulabji before whose eyes Gulabji was murdered

and Smt. Galal herself has deposed in support of the

prosecution case. The finding by the Courts below that the

appellant has murdered Gulabji cannot be said to be without

any basis and he fairly concedes that an attempt to assail

such finding may be an exercise in futility. Mr. Natarajan

has, therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case, it

will be only appropriate for him to confine his submission

on the question of sentence to be passed against the

appellant.

Mr. Natarajan has submitted that unfortunately in this

case, the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence as to

why the appellant suddenly killed his wife who was in

advanced stage of pregnancy and three minor children when

his wife and his three minor children were asleep in his

house. Mr. Natarajan has also submitted that the prosecution

has also failed to lead any evidence to indicate or even to

suggest as to what was or could be the motive that impelled

the appellant immediately after murdering his wife and three

minor children and injuring his own mother when she tried to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

prevent him from committing such crime, to rush to his

neighbour's house and to attempt to kill the wife of the

neighbour Smt. Galal (PW 4) who was admittedly then sleeping

with her daughter in their house. He has also submitted that

unfortunately, there is also no evidence from which any

motive can even remotely be inferred as to why the appellant

thereafter killed another neighbour, an elderly man with

whom appellant had no enmity, when the said old man Gulabji

was coming towards the house of Smt. Galal after hearing her

shrieks on being injured by the appellant.

Mr. Natarajan has submitted that there is no evidence

to suggest that the appellant had ever suspected the

fidelity of the wife or any extra marital relationship of

his wife with anybody or with the neighbour, namely the

husband of Smt. Galal. There is not even any whisper by the

prosecution witnesses that Smt. Galal had in any manner

caused annoyance to the appellant and had ever attempted to

disturb the conjugal life of the appellant so that there

might be an occasion for the appellant to entertain some

wrath or hatred against PW 4 Smt. Galal.

Mr. Natarajan has submitted that commission of crime is

perpetrated for some reason which may be even ill founded or

ill-conceived. Sudden fit of passion, anger etc. actuated by

various considerations like hatred, wrath, a sense of

revenge etc. often induce an accused to commit murder.

Mr. Natarajan has submitted that motive constituting

mens rea is a very relevant factor in the process of

delicate balancing between the gravity of the crime and

consequential sentence to be passed against an accused on

consideration of mitigating factors.

Mr. Natarajan has further submitted that there is no

material on record to justify a finding that the appellant

was insane at the time of commission of crime and he failed

to understand the implication of his misdeeds. The appellant

has also not taken any such plea. Even then, the sudden

impluse, without any plausible motive to kill his wife in

advanced stage of pregnancy and three minor children with

whom love was not lost and attempt to kill innocent old

mother who only tried to prevent the commission of crime of

murder of his own wife and children and above all taking a

mad rush to a neighbour's house and attempting to kill the

neighbour's wife while she was asleep and thereafter killing

another old neighbour Gulabji on the way, remains absolutely

inexplicable. Such wild behaviour of the appellant having a

fair standard of education and upbringing and exposure to

teachers training, only suggests that he was temporarily

seized of a gigantic psychic disorder. Why and how this

wretched transformation had happened remains a mystery. The

investigating officer, unfortunately, did not make any

sincere effort to cause enquiries in this regard. Mr.

Natarajan has submitted that this inexplicable sudden

psychic disorder as an important mitigating factor on the

question of awarding the extremely penalty of death has been

last sight of both by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

and by the High Court.

Mr. Natarajan has referred to a decision of this Court

in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar versus State of Gujarat

(1964 (7) SCR 361) for the purpose of contending that it is

a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an

accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore the burden

lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a

case of homicide should prove beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused caused death with the requisite intention

described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

general burden never shifts and always rests on the

prosecution. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that it has been

indicated in the said decision that although primarily an

accused has a burden to satisfy the existence of

circumstances to satisfy the test of a 'prudent man' that at

the time of commission of offence, by reason of unsoundness

of mind, the accused was incapable of understanding the

nature of his act, but if the materials placed before the

Court raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a Judge

whether the accused had requisite intention as laid down in

Section 299 I.P.C., he has to acquit the accused because in

that event, the prosecution will have failed to prove

conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict

between general burden which is always on the prosecution

and which never shifts and the special burden that rests on

the accused to make out a defence of insanity.

Mr. Natarajan has submitted that although no plea of

unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of offence has

been taken by the accused and no material in support of such

plea has been placed by the accused, but even then if on the

materials placed by the prosecution, a lurking doubt is

reasonably raised in the mind of the Judge about the

temporary psychic disorder of the accused thereby making him

incapable to understand the effect of his act, the accused

is entitled to the benefit of absence of mens rea under

Section 299 I.P.C. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that even if

the materials on record may not justify inference of such

complete incapacity of the accused to understand the

implication of his action but if the materials at least

justify probability of existence of some degree of psychic

imbalance at the time of commission of offence. The Court

must address to itself the probability of existence of such

factor in awarding the extreme penalty of death. Mr.

Natarajan has submitted that in the absence of any material

which might have thrown light on the mysterious behaviour of

the accused in perpetrating the crime alleged against him,

the court may reasonably hold that for the inexplicable

reason, not attempted to be unearthed, the accused had been

suffering from a pyschic disorder for which the extremely

penalty of death for knowingly perpetrating a brutal and

ghastly crime, shocking the conscience of the society, is

not warranted.

Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the State of

Rajasthan has refuted the contentions of Mr. Natarajan and

has submitted that the charge of murder perpetrated on the

appellant's pregnant wife and three minor children and also

attempt to murder his own mother by the accused when she

tried to prevent the appellant from committing the said

heinous crime, has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, the mother of the appellant (PW.12) who

herself was injured, did not support the prosecution case

for which she was declared hostile. There are very strong

reliable and clinching evidence which clearly indicates that

it is the appellant and none else who was guilty of

murdering the wife and three minor children and injuring his

mother. From the deposition of the mother of the appellant

though declared hostile, it transpires that accused and the

deceased wife and minor children and the mother were present

at home at the time of commission of the murder and no other

person was present at home at that time. Both the mother and

the deceased wife and the minor children suffered injuries

caused by an axe and immediately after the said incident,

the accused also attempted to murder the neighbour's wife

Smt. Galal (PW 4) oy an axe and also murdered Gulabji,

father-in-law of Smt. Galal by the axe. There are eye-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

witnesses who had seen the accused attempting to kill Smt.

Galal and also murdering Gulabji by the axe. There is clear

evidence by the eye-witnesses that when the son of Gulabji

tried to apprehend the accused he fled away from the scene

of occurrence. Although murder of the wife and minor

children and attempt to murder his mother, further attempt

to murder Smt. Galal and the murder of Gulabji had happened

at three different places, all the said incidents had

happened in a quick succession and entire chain of incidents

really constitute one continuous course of action.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found the

evidences in support of the prosecution case as convincing

and reliable and by giving cogent reasons, has clearly came

to the finding that the entire prosecution case had been

established beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Bhati has submitted

that the motive for the crime is undoubtedly an important

factor for appreciating the correctness of testimony vis a

vis complicity of the accused with the crime alleged against

him. But human mind is so complex that at times it is not

always possible to precisely comprehend as to why and how a

man has reacted in a particular manner for committing a

crime. The learned counsel has submitted that law is well-

settled that if there is clear, clinching and reliable

evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, it is

immaterial that the motive for the commission of crime has

not been established.

Mr. Bhati has also submitted that the facts and

circumstances revealed from the depositions of the

witnesses, do not support the contention that the appellant

had been suffering from any psychic disorder for which he

momentarily failed to appreciate as to what he had been

doing at the time of committing the heinous crimes one after

the other. The learned counsel has submitted that it is true

that evidence has not been led as to what was or could be

the probable motive for committing the crime. But is has

been clearly established that the appellant in a cool and

calculated manner killed his wife who was in advanced stage

of pregnancy and being asleep could not offer any

resistance. The appellant similarly killed the three minor

children while they were sleeping in their house. The only

other person present at that time in the house was his

mother. The mother has not indicated that there was any

quarrel or altercation between the husband and the wife

immediately or shortly before the murders had taken place.

The facts revealed from the evidences adduced only indicate

that there was no occasion for any sudden provocation or a

fit of impulse which had impelled or could impel the

appellant to commit the said ghastly murder of his helpless

wife and three minor children. On the contrary, the

evidences point out that such heinous crime had been

perpetrated in a cool and calculated manner. When the poor

mother tried to prevent the appellant even did not spare his

own mother and also caused injuries on her person in an

attempt to kill her by the same axe with which the wife and

the three minor children had been murdered. The learned

counsel for the State has further submitted that the

appellant thereafter went to the house of his neighbour and

attempted to kill the neighbour's wife Smt. Galal who was

also asleep in her house. There is no evidence on record to

suggest that there was any occasion for the appellant to

harbour any ill feeling, hatred or wrath against Smt. Galal

which might have prompted him to murder her. The learned

counsel for the State has further submitted that the

appellant was quite keen in fleeing away from the place of

commission of crime and only when the father-in-law of Smt.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

Galal, namely, Shri Gulabji came on his way and enquired of

him as to what had happened, the appellant, in an attempt to

escape from the place, mercilessly murdered the old man by

giving a number of axe blows on his person. The son of

Gulabji and others on hearing the shouts came to the place

where Gulabji was murdered and tried to apprehend the

appellant but could not do so because the appellant

succeeded in escaping from the place and went to the next

village.

Mr. Bhati has therefore, submitted that the appellant

was quite conscious as to what he had been doing and he was

neither confused nor stupified for what he had done but

being fully conscious of the gravity of the offence

committed by him, wanted to flee away from the place of

occurrence. Mr. Bhati has also submitted that the appellant

was not remorseful even after the incident. He did not

attend the funeral of his wife and minor children who had

been brutally murdered by him. The appellant did not go to

the hospital to see her ailing mother. There is recovery at

the instance of the accused, of the blood stained vest of

the accused and the axe with which the murders had been

committed. There are eye-witnesses in support of the

prosecution case of attempting to murder Smt. Galal and

murdering Gulabji. In the aforesaid circumstances, both the

learned Additional Sessions Judges and the High Court had no

hesitation in finding that the appellant had committed the

murder of five persons and attempted to kill two others in a

brutal and cruel manner.

Mr. Bhati has submitted that the evidences adduced in

the case clearly establish that the appellant had murdered

his helpless wife and three minor children without any

provocation whatsoever in a very cruel manner. The said

helpless wife and the minor children had been murdered by a

person who had a duty to protect them. Such dastardly crime

perpetrated in a brutal manner cannot but shock the

conscience of the society. Mr. Bhati has also submitted that

it is an act of gravest unkindness that the appellant even

attempted to kill his own mother who only tried to prevent

him from committing the said heinous crime. Mr. Bhati has

submitted that the appellant even then did not become

remorseful but attempted to kill the neighbour's wife while

she was sleeping and also killed another elderly neighbour,

Gulabji without any provocation whatsoever. Gulabji was

hacked to death by the appellant by giving successive blows

with the axe thereby killing him on the spot, before the

eyes of his wife. Mr. Bhati has submitted that both the

learned Additional Sessions Judges and the High Court very

carefully considered the question of sentence after being

fully alive to mitigating circumstance if any in favour of

the appellant. As in the instant case, the appellant without

any provocation committed murder of five persons in a very

cruel and barbaric manner in a cool and calculated manner

and also attempted to kill two others including his own

mother, the enormity and brutality of the crime had been

taken note of by the courts below and in the absence of any

mitigating factor the extreme penalty of death has been

awarded against him. In this connection Mr. Bhati has

referred to a decision of this Court in Shankar @ Gauri

Shankar and others Versus State of Tamil Nadu (1994 (4) SCC

478). After referring to a number of decisions of this Court

on the question of sentence and in particular the death

sentence to be awarded in a case of murder, it has been

indicated in the said decision that :

"the choice as to which one of the two

punishments provided for murder is the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

proper one in a given case will depend

upon the particular circumstances of

that case and the Court has to exercise

its discretion judicially and on well-

recognised principles after balancing

all the mitigating and aggravating

circumstances of the crime. The Court

also should see whether there is

something uncommon about the crime which

renders sentence of imprisonment of life

inadequate and calls for death sentence.

The nature of the crime and the

circumstances of the offender should be

so revealing that the criminal is a

menace to the society and the sentence

of imprisonment of life would be

inadequate. The sentence of death should

be reserved for the rarest of rare cases

after a due consideration of both

mitigating and aggravating

circumstances. What circumstances bring

a particular case under the category of

rarest of rare cases vary from case to

case depending upon the nature of the

crime, weapons used and the manner in

which it is perpetrated etc."

Mr. Bhati has also referred to another decision of this

Court in Jashubha Bharatsingh Gohil and others versus State

of Gujarat (1994 (4) SCC 353). It has been indicated in the

said decision that the protection of society and deterring

the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is

required to be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.

The change in the legislative intendment relating to award

of capital punishment notwithstanding the opposition by the

protagonist of abolition of capital sentence, shows that it

is expected of the Courts to so operate the sentencing

system as to impose such sentence which reflects the social

conscience of the society. The sentencing process has to be

stern where it should be.

Mr. Bhati has also submitted that although the motive

of the heinous crime committed by the appellant has not been

established but such motive looses its importance when the

prosecution case is totally proved beyond reasonable doubt.

When there is a direct evidence, it is not necessary to find

out the motive for the offence. For the said contention Mr.

Bhati has referred to the decisions of this Court in Tarseem

Kumar versus Delhi Administration (1994 (Suppl. 3) SCC 367),

Jamna and Others versus State of U.P. (1994 (Suppl. 1) SCC

185) and Kuriakose and Another versus State of Kerala (1994

(Suppl. 1) SCC 602). Mr. Bhati has submitted that although

Mr. Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, has very strongly contended that it was quite

likely that the appellant was suffering from psychic

disorder otherwise such facts, without any motivation could

not have been perpetrated and likelihood of sudden psychic

disorder ought to be considered as a mitigating factor in

awarding the extreme penalty of death, there is not an iota

of evidence regarding sudden psychic disorder of the accused

appellant at the time of commission of the said crime. The

evidences on the contrary reveal that in a cool and

calculated manner, and without any provocation whatsoever,

he committed one after the other the said dastardly crime in

a very brutal and ghastly manner. Mr. Bhati has submitted

that the number of murders in one continued course of action

and attempt to kill two others including the mother of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

appellant cannot but shock the conscience of the society.

The offence committed by the appellant is one of the rarest

and there is no mitigating circumstances which warrant

punishment of life imprisonment instead of capital

punishment. He has, therefore, submitted that the order of

death sentence is wholly justified in the facts of the case

and no intereference is called for.

After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and

circumstances of the case and the evidence on record through

which we have been taken and after considering the judgments

passed by the courts below, it appears to us that the

commission of crimes by the appellant, namely, murdering

five persons including the wife and three minor children of

the appellant and attempt to murder two others has been

clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. Although the

mother of the appellant who herself was injured while

attempting to prevent her son from committing the murder of

wife and three minor children, has not supported the

prosecution case and has been declared as a hostile witness,

the evidences adduced in this case are so clear that the

courts below had no difficulty in holding that the appellant

was guilty of murdering his wife and three minor children

and injuring his own mother in an attempt to kill her. In

our view, such finding has been made on the basis of the

reliable and clinching evidence adduced in the case and we

find no reason to take a contrary view. The prosecution case

that the appellant had murdered Gulabji and also attempted

to kill Smt. Galal has also been established by

unimpeachable, convincing and reliable evidences. Smt. Galal

who herself was injured has deposed and the wife of Shri

Gulabji who has seen the commission of murder of Gulabji has

also deposed in the case. Therefore, the finding that the

appellant is guilty of the offence of attempting to kill

Smt. Galal and he is also guilty of murdering Gulabji is

wholly justified and no interference is called for with such

finding.

Mr. Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing as amicus

curiae for the appellant has ingeneously contended that no

evidence has been led in the case which may suggest that

there was some occasion for the appellant to bear suspicion,

hatred or grudge against his wife or Smt. Galal or her

husband which might have induced the appellant to commit the

offences. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that normally for

every crime there is some motive and even though conviction

can be based if there is reliable evidence about the

commission of crime without establishing any motive for such

crime, such motive, according to Mr. Natarajan, assumes

significance in awarding the sentence particularly in a

murder case.

Mr. Natarajan has contended that the appellant appears

to have suddenly lost the equillibrium of his mind and

behaved in a strange manner thereby committing murder of his

wife and three minor children apparently without any

provocation and even attempting to kill his own mother when

she tried to restrain him. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that

in the absence of any evidence suggesting harbouring of

hatred, grudge or ill feeling against the wife or Smt.

Galal, the sudden spree of murderous assault unusual to the

social and educational background of the appellant, becomes

inexplicable and such strange behaviour only suggests that

he must have been seized of psychic disorder momentarily.

Mr. Natarajan has also submitted that the evidences do not

reveal that the appellant was insane at the time of

commission of the crime and such plea of insanity has also

not been taken by the appellant. Hence, the appellant may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

not claim the benefit of absence of mens rea. But the

possibility of temporary psychic disorder requires to be

considered in awarding the extreme penalty of death. Such

contention of Mr. Natarajan though ingeneous does not appeal

to us.

It has been clearly revealed from the evidences adduced

in the case that the appellant was in his house with his

wife, mother and three minor children. There is no evidence

that there was any altercation between the husband and wife

either immediately or shortly before the commission of

murder of wife and three innocent minor children of the

appellant. From the evidence it clearly transpires that the

appellant in a cool and calculated manner wanted to kill the

wife and three minor children while they were asleep and had

no occasions to give any resistance whatsoever. It is also

revealed from the evidence that he was fully determined to

commit the crime of murder and was conscious of the nature

of the crime being committed by him. Precisely for the said

reason, when his mother wanted to prevent him from

committing such heinous crime he even did not spare his

mother and also injured her with the axe in an attempt to

kill her also. There is no evidence that the appellant was

found in a confused state of mind. On the contrary, it

transpires from the evidence that he silently went to the

neighbour's house and attempted to kill Smt. Galal who was

also asleep. It appears to us that in a cool and calculated

manner the appellant wanted to kill Smt. Galal who being

asleep was not capable of giving any resistance. It is also

quite apparent that the appellant being conscious of the

enormity of the crime committed by him, wanted to flee away

from the place of occurrence and when the poor old man

Gulabji came on his way and enquired as to what had

happened, he immediately hacked Gulabji to death in an

extremely brutal manner and thereafter fled away from the

place of occurrence and tried to hide himself. Such facts,

in our view, clearly indicate that the appellant committed

all the said heinous crimes in a conscious state of mind and

in a calculated manner. Hence, case of temporary psychic

disorder as sought to be canvassed by Mr. Natarajan cannot

be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana versus State of West

Bengal (1994 (2) SCC 220) it has been indicated by this

Court that :

"some criminals get very harsh sentences

while many receive grossly different

sentence for an essentially equivalent

crime and a shockingly large number even

go unpunished thereby encourage the

criminal and in the ultimate making,

justice suffer by weakening the system's

credibility."

It has also been indicated that :

"In imposing sentences in the absence of

specific legislation, Judges must

consider variety of factors and after

considering all those factors and taking

an overall view of the situation, impose

sentence which they consider to be an

appropriate one. Aggravating factors

cannot be ignored and similarly

mitigating circumstances have also to be

taken into consideration. The measure of

punishment in a given case must depend

upon the atrocity of the crime; the

conduct of the criminal and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

defenceless and unprotected state of the

victim. Imposition of appropriate

punishment is the manner in which the

courts respond to the society's cry for

justice against the criminal. Justice

demands that courts should impose

punishment befitting the crime so that

the courts reflect public abhorrence of

the crime. The courts must not only keep

in view the rights of the criminal but

also the rights of the victim of crime

and the society at large while

considering imposition of appropriate

punishment."

In our view, in the facts of the case, it has been very

clearly established that the appellant has committed one of

the most heinous crimes by killing his poor wife who was in

advanced stage of pregnancy and three minor children for no

fault on their part. The appellant had a solemn duty to

protect them and to maintain them but he has betrayed the

trust reposed on him in a very cruel and calculated manner

without any provocation whatsoever. The appellant did not

even soare his mother who very rightly tried to prevent him

from committing such unpardonable crime. The appellant also

attacked his mother with the axe which he had used to kill

his wife and minor children and caused injuries on her

person with an intention to kill her. The brutality and

cruelty with which the crimes have been perpetrated cannot

but shock the conscience of the society. After killing the

wife and three minor children and injuring the mother he did

not become remorseful and desist from committing any further

crime. But like a blood thirsty demon, in a cool and

calculated manner he went to one of the neighbour's house

and attempted to kill the wife of the neighbour while she

was asleep and as such utterly helpless to give any

resistance. When in his attempt to flee away from the place

of occurrence, the poor old Gulabji came on his way, the

appellant did not hesitate to kill him in extremely brutal

manner before the eyes of his wife. All the said heinous

crimes were committed without any provocation. The appellant

was not even remorseful after the said incident of

successive five murders and attempt to kill two others

including the appellant's mother. The appellant did not go

to see the ailing mother injured by him and did not also

attend the funeral of his wife and even his three innocent

minor children. The crimes had been committed with utmost

cruelty and brutality without any provocation, in a

calculated manner. It is the nature and gravity of the crime

but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of

appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will

be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not

awarded for a crime which has been committed not only

against the individual victim but also against the society

to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to

be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should

conform to end be consistent with the atrocity and brutality

with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of

the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond

to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. In

our view, if for such heinous crimes the most deterrent

punishment for wanton and brutal murders is not given, the

case of deterrent punishment will loose its relevance. We,

therefore, do not find any justification to commute the

death penalty to imprisonment for life. The appeal therefore

must fail and is dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11