SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 288

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K. GOSWAMI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Sarveshwar Prasad Sharma, Appellant
Versus
The State of M.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1977,
D/- 26-9-1977
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Mohan Behari Lal (Amicus Curiae), for Appellant; I. N. Shroff, Advocate for Respondent.

Advocates:
I.M.SHROFF, MOHAN BEHARI LAL

Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 - S. 354 (3) - death sentence-when awarded - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302.

       (2) Criminal trial-death sentence-when may be awarded.

       Law directs the course of the Courts. After enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1973, the judgment in a murder case ‘shall state the special reasons’ for a sentence of death. That is to say, there will be sentence of death only in special cases with recording of reasons so that they may be examined by the superior Courts. [Para 9

       Where the accused is convicted for the murder of the entire family of nine persons including two infants, for robbing them of their cash, ornaments and other valuables, and there was no mitigating circumstance the awarding of extreme penalty of law was not unjustified. 1977 JLJ 583 confirmed. [Paras 11 & 12

Judgment

GOSWAMI, J.:- We have granted special leave in this case limited to the question of sentence and heard the learned counsel, appearing as amicus curiae and also for the State.

2. These are gruesome murders wiping out an entire family of nine persons including two infants.

3. The accused (31), Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.), a qualified medical practitioner, was a close friend of one of the deceased, Ram Swaroop (40), who was an Upper Division Clerk in the Madhya Pradesh Girls N. C. Battalion at Gwalior. The accused lived only about a furlong away from the deceased. Deceased Ram Swaroop used to practise Homoeopathy as his hobby. There was thus a certain degree of common interest between the accused and deceased Ram Swaroop.

4. Ram Swaroop had his parents, aged 60 years, his wife (35), their two sons and three daughters of the age of 16, 13, 8, 5 and 3 respectively. As stated earlier, the entire family was exterminated. Cash, ornaments and other valuables were also removed at the same time.

5. Murder was committed on the night of 4th July, 1976 and the dead bodies were locked up inside the room and the house was locked from outside. On 6th July foul smell was emitted from the closed house and the police was informed. The house was broken open by the police and the nine dead bodies were recovered.

6. There is no direct evidence as to who actually committed the crime or even whether there was more than one person taking part in this dastardly crime. The accused stood convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence and his conviction is, now beyond question.

7. We have heard learned counsel of both sides on the question of sentence. The recent benign direction of the penal law is towards life sentence, as a rule, and death as an exception awarding of which must be accompanied by recorded reasons.

8. This Court has in several decisions indicated guidelines in this problem area of life and death as a result of judicial verdict but none of these guidelines can be cut and dry nor exhaustive. Each case will depend upon the totality of the facts, circumstances and other matters revealed.

9. Law directs the course of the court. After enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), the judgment in a murder case "shall state the special reasons" for a sentence of death. That is to say, there will be sentence of death only in special cases with recording of reasons so that these may be examined by superior courts.

10. The trial court dealing with the question of sentence observed as follows :-

"Even beasts do not show unfaithfulness but this case is a shining example of the heinous unfaithfulness. Firstly to commit nine murders and that too of small children committed by inflicting more than one injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature and therefore gravity of the offence has surpassed its last limit due to which it would be proper to say that the acts of accused are not only beastly but ghastly injoined with extreme greediness. There being total lack of extenuating circumstances the accused deserves to be punished with extreme penalty without hesitation".

11. The High Court dealing with the same question made the following observation :-

"The accused was a trusted friend of the deceased Ram Swaroop. But, for achievement of his vicious object to relieve him of his cash and valuables he not only killed Ram Swaroop but also exterminated his whole family including his aged parents, his wife and five children two of whom were infants aged five years and three years respectively. He committed these blood-chilling murders of the nine innocent persons for monetary gain and to destroy the evidence of the crime he had committed. It is difficult to find words strong enough to condemn these gruesome and dastardly murders. Ironically the accused chose not to spare even the two infant daughters of Ram Swaroop who dearly used to address him as Dr. Chacha and were incapable of giving evidence even if the



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top