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

1995 Supreme(SC) 379

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE DR A.S. ANAND AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
SHEIKH ISHAQUE AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 600-601 of 1994 {From the Judgment and Order dated 18-8-1994 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 215 of 1992 and Death Reference No. 5 of 1992}
Dcided on 10-3-1995
Advocates appeared:
Shakil Ahmed Syed, M. Taiyab Khan and Shad Anwar, Advocates, for the Appellants; H.L. Agrawal, Senior Advocate (B.B. Singh, Advocate, with him) for the Respondent.

Advocates:
B.B.Singh, H.L.Agrawal, M.T.KHAN, SHAD ANVAR, SHAKEEL AHMAD SYED

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302/34 - Sections 436/34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 154 - Section 354(3) – Murder Offence – Bombs, Gunshots, Burnt To Death - Life Imprisonment - Complainant was sleeping on roof of his house and his two sons were sleeping in shop-house along with elder brother of complainant - On hearing noise of a bomb explosion, complainant woke up and went towards his shop-house - Chowkidar who was present there was raising alarm - Some members of complainants family also came out and rushed towards scene of occurrence and when they reached near house of Banarsi Shah, they heard exhortation of accused party that family members of Ram Sunder Bhagat would be finished on that day - Complainant could identify Sheikh Ilyas Ansari and Sheikh Ishaque Ansari by their voice - On reaching near shop, complainant saw four-five persons standing in lane and shouting that nobody should be left alive and that all of them should be burnt to death - In meanwhile, complainant saw smoke coming out of shop-house - Instantly, two bombs were exploded and some gunshots were also fired - Villagers rushed to place of occurrence and indulged in brick batting to scare away assailants, who then fled away - Assailants, included four appellants herein - After assailants ran away, complainant entered his house which had by then got engulfed in smoke - His son PW 3 after breaking a window, entered shop-house and found Durga Bhagat, Ram Sunder Bhagat and Pankaj Bhagat having been burnt to death - Gulabi Paswan was sent to inform police at police station - On learning about occurrence, police arrived at scene of occurrence - On statement of complainant PW 10, Ex. 2 First Information Report was recorded – Held, Mitigating circumstances which we have noticed above make it imperative to say that present case in spite of fact that three persons lost their lives, is not one of "rarest of the rare cases" in which four appellants deserved to be sentenced to death - An eye for an eye approach is neither proper nor desirable - Mandate of Section 354(3) CrPC does not approve of it - Courts must be conscious of change brought about in matter of award of capital punishment by legislature by enacting Section 354(3) CrPC limiting award sentence of death only in "rarest of the rare cases" and that too after recording "special reasons" for awarding same, keeping in view guidelines given by this Court in various judgments - Appropriate sentence, in facts and circumstances of case would be imprisonment for life – Court accordingly, set aside sentence of death imposed upon appellants and instead sentence each one of them to suffer life imprisonment for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC - No separate sentence was passed by High Court for offence under Sections 436/34 IPC and Court also do not propose to pass any separate sentence for said offence – Appeal Dismissed.

JUDGMENT

DR A.S. ANAND, J.- On the night intervening 14-7-1990 and 15-7-1990, the complainant was sleeping on the roof of his house and his two sons Ram Sunder Bhagat and Pankaj @ Kapil Dev Bhagat were sleeping in the shop-house along with Durga Bhagat, the elder brother of the complainant. On hearing the noise of a bomb explosion, the complainant woke up and went towards his shop-house. Chowkidar Gulabi Paswan who was present there was raising alarm. Some members of the complainantsfamily also came out and rushed towards the scene of occurrence and when they reached near the house of Banarsi Shah, they heard the exhortation of the accused party that the family members of Ram Sunder Bhagat would be finished on that day. The complainant could identify Sheikh Ilyas Ansari and Sheikh Ishaque Ansari by their voice. On reaching near the shop, the complainant saw four-five persons standing in the lane and shouting that nobody should be left alive and that all of them should be burnt to death. In the meanwhile, the complainant saw smoke coming out of the shop-house. Instantly, two bombs were exploded and some gunshots were also fired. The villagers rushed to the place of occurrence and indulged in brickbatting to scare away the assailants, who then fled away. The assailants, included the four appellants herein. After the assailants ran away, the complainant entered his house which had by then got engulfed in smoke. His son Jitender Kumar Bhagat PW 3 after breaking a window, entered the shop-house and found Durga Bhagat, Ram Sunder Bhagat and Pankaj Bhagat having been burnt to death. Gulabi Paswan was sent to inform the police at the police station. On learning about the occurrence, the police arrived at the scene of occurrence. On the statement of the complainant Baldev Bhagat PW 10, Ex. 2 First Information Report was recorded and further investigation was taken in hand.

2. Eleven accused were sent to face their trial for various offences including the offence of murders of Durga Bhagat, Ram Sunder Bhagat and Pankaj Bhagat.

3. The motive for the commission of the crime according to the prosecution is that the appellants had earlier committed dacoity and the son of the complainant had identified them at the trial in that case and on that account they bore a grudge against the complainant party. After being released from jail they (appellants herein) had threatened that the entire family of the complainant would be done to death for implicating them in the earlier dacoity case.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case to connect the appellants and seven others with the crime. The trial court after analysing the evidence came to the conclusion that the case against the appellants and seven others stood proved beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted all the eleven of them for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 436/34 IPC. While the four appellants, namely, Sheikh Ishaque, Sheikh Ilyas, Sheikh Shamim and Sheikh Rustam were sentenced to death, the remaining seven accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. No separate sentence was passed against either of the accused for the offence under Sections 436/34 IPC. The convicts filed two appeals in the High Court. The learned trial court also made a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence of death imposed upon the four appellants. Vide its judgment, dated 18-8-1984, the High Court acquitted the seven co-accused of the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt but the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and their conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and the sentence of death imposed upon each of them was maintained. The reference made by the trial court was accepted. Through this appeal by special leave, the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence.

5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the relevant evidence and the judgments of the courts below.

6. Baldev Bhaga














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