IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The heinous act of murder of four persons including an old aunt and two minor sons of his real brother and attempting also to kill his brother s wife and her daughter in a most cool and calculated manner by ensuring that none of the victim could offer any resistance because they were asleep at the time of being attacked, falls in the category of rarest of rare cases for which extreme penalty of death is fully justified.
2. Punishment must also respond to the society s cry for justice against the criminal and, therefore, while considering the punishment to be given to the accused, the Court should be alive not only to the right of the criminal to be awarded just and fair punishment, but also to the rights of the victims of the crime to have the assailant appropriately punished.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307 and 450-Conviction under-Death penalty-Challenged-Appellant s heinous act of murder of four persons including an old aunt and two minor sons of his real brother-Attempt to kill his brother s wife and her daughter in a most cool and calculated manner-Victims were asleep at the time of being attacked-Property dispute-All three brothers had been residing in one compound in their respective residential units-Quarrel between brothers a few days before the incident-No resentment between deceased and accused either immediately before or even proximately before the incident-From evidence adduced, it is revealed that accused, in a calculated manner intended to wipe out entire family of his brother-He chose to cut necks by a kassi when his victims were asleep- Accused was in full senses and committed murders of four close relations one after the other-He did not even feel remorsed-Crime committed by accused falls in category of rarest of rare cases-Penalty of death fully justified.
       Held that the appellant was not convicted for any other offence on any previous occasion. Such fact can hardly be considered as a mitigating factor in favour of the appellant that will outweigh all the aggravating factors and circumstances in which the crime of the murders had been committed. The murders had been committed very brutally and mercilessly of absolutely innocent persons, namely, the Bua and two minor sons of his brother with whom there was no occasion to come in conflict and to entertain any grudge or ill feeling. Even if it is assumed that there was still some property dispute between the brothers despite sorting out of such dispute at the intervention of the Sarpanch, for such common place property dispute between brothers particularly when the accused was not dispossessed from the possession and enjoyment of his demarcated landed property by the deceased brother, it cannot be reasonably held that the accused had a genuine cause to feel aggrieved for injustice meted out to him in the hands of his deceased brother which may impel him to cause the murder of his brother. In any event, there could not be any cause to take a decision to wipe out the entire family of the brother in a very cruel manner when being asleep they were absolutely helpless. The members of the family of his brother were absolutely innocent and two of them were even minors. Such murders and attempt to commit murders in a cool and calculated manner without provocation cannot but shock the conscience of the society which must abhor such heinous crime committed on helpless innocent persons. Punishment must also respond to the society s cry for justice against the criminal. While considering the punishment to be given to the accused, the Court should be alive not only to the right of the criminal to be awarded just and fair punishment by administering justice tempered with such mercy as the criminal may justly deserve, but also to the rights of the victims of the crime to have the assailant appropriately punished and the society s reasonable expectation from the court for the appropriate deterrent punishment conforming to the gravity of the offence and consistent with the public abhorrence for the heinous crime committed by the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view, that the crime committed by the accused falls in the category of rarest of rare cases for which extreme penalty of death is fully justified. (Para 19)
       (ii) CRIMINAL TRIAL-Sentence-Determination of just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence-Aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed-To be delicately balanced in a dispassionate manner-Punishment must respond to society s cry for justice against the criminal-Court should be alive not only to right of criminal to be awarded just and fair punishment but also to rights of victims of crime to have assailant punished. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant Surja Ram was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1991 for the offence under Section 302 IPC for murdering his real brother Raji Ram, Raji Ram s two sons Naresh and Ramesh and Niko Bai their Bua, and for an offence under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Sudesh, the daughter of Raji Ram and Phoola Devi the wife of Raji Ram and also for offence under Section 450 IPC for committing house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life. The learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded death sentence against the said accused Surja Ram for the offence of murder. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC and he was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 450 IPC.

3. Against such convictions and sentences, the accused Surja Ram preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 265 and 266 of 1995 before the Rajasthan High Court (JodhPur Bench). The said appeals were heard along with D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 1 of 1995 by the Rajasthan High Court and by the impugned common judgment dated January 18, 1996. The High Court dismissed both the appeals preferred by the accused Surja Ram and confirmed the death sentence passed against him.

4. Surja Ram filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 744 of 1996 through a learned counsel against his convictions and sentences before this Court. He also sent another special leave petition from Jail to the Registry of this Court which has been numbered as D.No. 1007 of 1996. His special leave petition was dismissed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel so far as the order of convictions passed against the said accused is concerned but notice was issued to the State of Rajasthan limited only on the question of sentences to be passed against the accused for his convictions for the offences aforesaid.

5. Mr. Rajiv Dutt, the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant Raji Ram has submitted that it is not a fit case calling for awarding extreme penalty of death sentence because sufficient grounds warranting such extreme penalty be holding it as one of the rarest of rare cases are not present. Mr. Dutt has submitted that certain facts, relevant for the consideration of appropriate punishment to be awarded against the accused appellant, should be noted.

6. The accused appellant and his two brothers Dalip Ram and the deceased Raji Ram had been living in one compound (Ahata) in their respective residential unit. The accused appellant used to reside in the middle portion of the said compound and the deceased Raji Ram and Dalip Ram used to reside respectively on the northern and southern side of the said compound. The parents of the accused and his brothers were residing in Punjab. There had been partition of joint property amongst the brothers. On such partition the accused and Dalip Ram each got 13 killa of land and the deceased Raji Ram got 14 killa.

7. There was some land dispute amongst the brothers about 6 to 7 months prior to the said incident of murder but such dispute is stated to have been sorted out at the intervention of Sarpanch Chandra Pal.

About 5 or 6 days prior to the incident, the accused expressed the desire to erect wire fencing in the compound but the deceased Raji Ram protested against such proposal of the accused.

8. The prosecution case as proved by the evidences adduced in the trial, is that on August 7, 1990 at about 9.00 P.M., the members of the family of the deceased Raji Ram retired after taking their dinner. The informant Dalip Ram, who is the other brother of the deceased and the wife of Dalip Ram were sleeping in their courtyard. Raji Ram and his two s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1537

Cases Referred (8)