1. Human sacrifice involving the beheading of a child by father and relatives — Conviction and sentencing under the Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1973 Supreme(SC) 314
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S.Sarkaria : V.R.Krishna Iyer
Paras Ram
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 698 , 678 of 1973
Date of Decision : 10/9/73
Important Points
The monstrosity of a crime or its basis in macabre superstition does not constitute legal insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code; such acts warrant condign punishment to ensure social deterrence and protect humanist values.
Subject
Criminal Law - Penal Code
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 84 - Insanity - The monstrosity of a crime, such as the ceremonial beheading of a child, does not per se provide sufficient proof of insanity to exculpate an offender. (Para 1)
(B) Punishment - Deterrence - Crimes resulting from macabre superstitions and anti-social piety, manifesting as inhuman and criminal violence, necessitate condign punishment to serve as shock therapy and protect humanist values. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A father and his relatives perpetrated the ceremonial beheading of a four-year-old boy during a morning bhajan to propitiate a deity. The offender sought to be exculpated on the grounds of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the nature of the crime itself proved such a state.
Findings of Court:
The court repudiated the contention that the monstrous nature of the crime established insanity. It observed that such acts are driven by pathological superstitions and that the judiciary must play a civilising role by inflicting severe punishment on dangerous deviants to deter similar anti-social violence.
Issues: Whether the commission of a monstrous crime based on superstition constitutes legal insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The monstrosity of a crime or the influence of macabre superstitions does not automatically equate to legal insanity; instead, such acts represent a social disease where deterrence through individual punishment is necessary to uphold humanist values.
Result: Special leave petitions rejected.
(B) Punishment - Deterrence - Crimes resulting from macabre superstitions and anti-social piety, manifesting as inhuman and criminal violence, necessitate condign punishment to serve as shock therapy and protect humanist values. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A father and his relatives perpetrated the ceremonial beheading of a four-year-old boy during a morning bhajan to propitiate a deity. The offender sought to be exculpated on the grounds of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the nature of the crime itself proved such a state.
Findings of Court:
The court repudiated the contention that the monstrous nature of the crime established insanity. It observed that such acts are driven by pathological superstitions and that the judiciary must play a civilising role by inflicting severe punishment on dangerous deviants to deter similar anti-social violence.
Issues: Whether the commission of a monstrous crime based on superstition constitutes legal insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The monstrosity of a crime or the influence of macabre superstitions does not automatically equate to legal insanity; instead, such acts represent a social disease where deterrence through individual punishment is necessary to uphold humanist values.
Result: Special leave petitions rejected.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the extreme nature of the crime constitutes proof of insanity sufficient to exculpate the offender under Section 84, IPC. (Para 1 )
3. Crimes driven by macabre superstitions and human sacrifice require deterrence through condign punishment to protect humanist values in a secular society. (Para 2 )
4. The monstrosity of a crime does not automatically prove insanity under Section 84, IPC; deterrence is necessary for crimes rooted in anti-social superstitions. (Para 1 , 2 )
5. Special leave petitions rejected; convictions and sentences upheld. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Does the extreme nature or monstrosity of a crime provide sufficient proof of insanity to exculpate an offender under Section 84, IPC?
No, the court held that the monstrosity of a crime, such as ceremonial beheading, does not provide sufficient proof of insanity to exculpate the offender under Section 84, IPC. (Para 1 )
7. How should courts approach sentencing for crimes committed in the name of human sacrifice or macabre superstitions?
Courts must administer shock therapy to anti-social piety through deterrence and condign punishment, as such crimes are manifestations of inhuman and criminal violence against humanist values. (Para 2 )
8. What is the role of the judiciary in addressing crimes committed by dangerous deviants driven by social diseases like superstition?
Judges have a sensitive, secular, and civilising role in suppressing grievous injustice to humanist values by inflicting condign punishment on dangerous deviants. (Para 2 )
(1) WHILE refusing special leave we wish emphatically to repudiate the contention persuasively presented by Shri Rana, learned counsel helping the court as amicus curiae that the very monstrosity of the crime the ceremo- nial beheading by the father and his relatives of a four-year old boy at the crescendo of morning bhajan provided the proof of insanity sufficient to exculpate the offender under S. 84, IPC.
(2) JUST one more observation relevant to the punishment. The poignantly pathological grip of macabre superstitions on some crude Indian minds in the shape of desire to do human and animal sacrifice, in defiance of the scientific ethos of our cultural heritage and the scientific impact of our technological century, shows up in crimes of primitive horror such as the one we are dealing with now, where a blood-curdling butchery of ones own beloved son was perpetrated, aided by other pious criminals, to propitiate some bloodthirsty deity. Secular India, speaking through the court, must administer shock therapy to such anti-social piety, when the manifestation is in terms of inhuman and criminal violence. When the disease is social, deterrence through court sentence must, perforce, operate through the individual culprit coming up before court. Social justice has many facets and judges have a sensitive, secular and civilising role in suppressing grievous injustice to humanist values by inflicting condign punishment on dangerous deviants. In discharge of this high duty, we refuse special leave in these applications against the correct convictions and sentences of the courts below.
(3) BOTH the special leave petitions are rejected.
