1994 Supreme(SC) 473

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 47-50 of 1994 etc. etc.
Decided On: 22.04.1994
Anshad and Ors. Appellants
Vs.
State of Karnataka Respondent
WITH
Shashi alias Shashidharan Appellants
Vs.
State of Karnataka Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Naresh Kaushik, Shankar Divate and Lalit Kaushik, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: P.S. Poti, Senior Adv. and Malini Poduval, Adv.

Headnote:

Punishment for dacoity – Attempt to murder - profession developed acquaintanceship with deceased a widow aged about sixty years when he was engaged to paint a name board for a school which deceased wanted to open - He had later on also painted a scenery in portion of house occupied by her son - Since school did not function properly it was closed about six months prior to date of occurrence which took place - Deceased requested to find a tenant for building in which school was functioning and indicated rent she expected as well as amount of rent to be received in advance - Deceased was living in second floor of a three storeyed building called at Kumara Park West of Bangalore - There were three tenants living in basement while ground floor was vacant and first floor was occupied by son of deceased - Ground floor which was lying vacant had in fact been allotted in a family arrangement by to her second son - Deceased was living on second floor of house along with two maid-servants - Second deceased in case is grand son of being son of her daughter - He was aged about years and had come to stay with her - Had been introduced to deceased by while were introduced to about one week prior to occurrence - On coming to know that school building was intended to be let out met in house of deceased and introduced to deceased as Cardamom Estate owners of Kerala and told her that they were interested in striking a deal regarding renting of school building -Whether he would decorate dome of Temple with a flower painting - Whether had reached house - Held, Court shall now take up case of to - Prosecution case regarding their complicity in crime has been brought out from evidence of prosecution witnesses including injured witnesses - Their testimony with regard to involvement of in crime has remained totally unshakened during cross examination - Order evidence led by prosecution including manner in which falsely introduced to deceased and how taking advantage of confidence he had built up with her he not only secured his entry but also entry of into her house and gave their false introduction to her has been proved in case beyond every reasonable doubt - Medical evidence of finger print expert and evidence of recovery of property belonging to deceased directly and positively connects with crime - Court have perused reasons given by High Court for awarding sentence of death - Apart from referring to some of aggravating circumstances like betrayal of confidence of deceased by and murder for committing robbery on a helpless widow High Court only referred to some of judgments of this court and then almost abruptly came to conclusion that sentence of death was calling for in instant case - Court notice with regard that High Court did not take into account any of mitigating circumstances at all - Courts are expected to exhibit sensitiveness in matter of award of sentence particularly sentence of death because life once lost cannot be brought back - This Court has in cases more than one emphasised that for determining proper sentence in a case like this while court should take into account aggravating circumstances it should not over look or ignore mitigating circumstances - Manner in which crime was committed weapon used and brutality or lack of it are some of considerations which must be present to mind of court - Of course High Court has power and jurisdiction to enhance sentence of life imprisonment to death but that power has to be sparingly exercised in rarest of rare case for special reasons to be recorded - Courts must be alive to legislative changes introduced in through Section 354(3) Cr. P.C - Death sentence being an exception to general rule should be awarded in rarest of rare for special reasons to be recorded after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances in facts and circumstances of a given case - Number of persons murdered is a consideration but that is not only consideration for imposing death penalty unless case falls in category of rarest of rare cases - Courts must keep in view nature of crime burtality with which it was executed antecedents of criminal weapons used etc - It is neither possible nor desirable to catalogue all such factors and they depend upon case to case - Appeal Dismissed