Back
2003(5) Supreme 466
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju and H.K. Sema, JJ.
Babu S/o Raveendran -Appellant
versus
Babu S/o Bahuleyan & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1996
With
Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 1996
Decided on 11-8-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : E.M.S. Anam, John Mathew, Advocate for K.R. Sasiprabhu, Advocate.
For the Respondents : M.P. Vinod, U.U. Lalit and Deepak Prakash, Advocates.
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Trial Court awarded death sentence in a view that deceased being just 21 years got married to accused and had reposed faith for security of her life but her life was ruthlessly nipped in bud- Would the case fall within ambit of rarest of rare case? No.
Held: This Court also formulated the following guidelines, which would have to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposition of death sentence arises:
(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime .
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
(iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.
In the present case, in our view, though the murder is gruesome, but taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, the crime committed by the accused does not satisfy the above tests and it is difficult to say that it falls within the ambit of the rarest of rare cases. In our view, therefore, the sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 would be adequate. The accused is, accordingly, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. (Para 22 and 23)
JUDGMENT
Sema, J.-These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order of the High Court dated 29-11-1994 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 1994 and R.T. No. 2 of 1994 and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 270 is preferred by the defacto complainant (PW-1), the brother of the deceased. Criminal Appeal No. 271 is preferred by the State of Kerala.
2. The facts of this case as unfolded by the prosecution are brief but horrendous, which shock human conscience. The marriage of the deceased-Sujatha with accused Babu was solemnised on 2-2-1993. Thereafter, the couple stayed together in the parental house of the bridegroom. The deceased seems to have elicited information from PW-3 Lekha, wife of the younger brother of the accused, that the accused had a pre-marital affair with one Omana @ Vavachi (PW-2). The deceased could not tolerate the information so elicited about the extra marital connection of her husband with Omana. She became repulsive and adopted an unresponsive attitude towards the overture approach made by the accused and she succeeded by keeping him at bay on the bridal night. It appears that the deceased had adopted the same stiff attitude towards the accused on the second night also i.e. 3-2-1993, which had enraged the accused. On being unable to sustain the lust for sex, persistently prevented by the deceased, the accused decided to end the life of the deceased, strangulated her and killed her. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was lifted and taken to an unused well, situated about 17 metres away from the house of the accused and dumped. It is also alleged that at about 2.30 a.m., the accused had woken up the inmates of the house and disclosed to them that his wife was missing and in a hectic search that followed, the body of the deceased was spotted inside the well and was brought out from the well. First Information Report was lodged by PW-1, the brother of the deceased and it was registered as a case of unnatural death. After the receipt of result of the autopsy, it was confirmed that Sujatha died due to strangulation. The FIR was, accordingly, converted into a case of murder.
3. In this case the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. None of the DWs were examined on behalf of the accused. PW-2 Omana is a lady who was alleged to have had extra marital relation with the accused was declared hostile. PW-3, Lekha is the wife of the accused s elder brother. PW-4 Sasidharan is the husband of PW-3 and elder brother of the accused who was declared hostile. PW-5 Rathesh Kumar was also declared hostile. PW-6 Bahulayan is the father of the accused.
4. After the trial, the learned Trial Judge, held the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and imposed the extreme penalty of death sentenced.
5. On appeal, the High Court set-aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted him. The High Court has also dismissed R.T. No. 2 of 1994. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the death is homicidal and not suicidal. The question, therefore, need not detain us any longer.
6. Parties are heard at length. Mr. John Mathew learned counsel for the appellant - State in Crl. A. No. 271 of 1996 and Mr. EMS Anam, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 270 of 1996, contended that the circumstantial evidence well proved unerringly point to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further contended that the High Court was in error in holding that the testimony of PW-6 was a mistake. Per contra Mr. MP Vinod, learned counsel for the respondents contended that circumstantial evidence do not led to the guilt of the accused. It is his further contention that there is no direct evidence and the acquittal recorded by the High Court may not be disturbed.
7. The case of the prosecution entirely rests on circumstantial evidence. The High Court has considered the following circumstances appearing against the accused:-
(1) Sujatha died of murder and the dead body was i
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
