SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Doraiswamy Raju : Arijit Pasayat
State Of Rajasthan
Versus
Kheraj Ram
Case No. : 830 of 1996
Date of Decision : 8/22/03
Advocates Appeared: Manish Singhvi : Bharati Upadhyay : V.N.Raghupathy : Doongar Singh : V.J.Francis
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Imposing of death sentence- Circumstantial evidence - Accused killed his wife, two daughters and brother in law- The trial Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC- Considering the brutal nature of the killing, death sentence imposed- The High Court held that circumstances were not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and directed acquittal- Undisputedly, accused was last seen in the company of the deceased persons in his house and also slept in that house- He went to the house of PW-9 and told him about the assaults on his children by some stranger- Nothing to show that he sustained injuries during the course of assaults on his wife, children and brother in law-The injuries were of very superficial nature and self-infliction . not ruled out- The observations of the High Court were confusing and without any plausible logic- High Court erred in setting s
Penal Code of India, Section 302- Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 360, 361 and 354-Imposing of death sentence-. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principles, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences-The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilised societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now a single grave infraction that is thought to call for uniformly drastic measures. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise- The entire chain of events and circumstances comprehended, inevitable conclusion that the accused acted in the most cruel and inhuman manner and the murder was committed in extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner- The victims were two innocent children and a helpless woman- Therefore death sentence imposed by the Trial Court upheld [22 to 26 and 45]
Arijit Pasayat, J.
In the Shakespearian epic Othello principal character Othello suspected his wifes fidelity because of the Machinations of villain Iago. The tragic consequences which followed have become literary history.
2. In the present case, according to the prosecution, suspecting infidelity on the part of his wife the respondent-accused Kheraj Ram had killed her, two children and brother in law on 10.10.1992. The deceased persons namely, Amru (wife of the accused) , Achla (brother-in-law of the accused) and daughters Kesi and Meera and fatally assaulted and suffered homicidal death. Law was set to motion by a First Information Report which was lodged on 10.10.1992 at about 7.30 a.m. and the alleged murders took place after mid-night of 9.10.1992 i.e. around 2.00 a.m. on 10.10.1992. The informant was one Daula Ram who was examined as PW-1. He lodged the FIR on the basis of what he had heard from Gaina Ram (PW-9) . According to the prosecution, the following is the factual background.
3. Accused woke up Gaina Rai (PW-9) 2.00 a.m. on 10.10.1992 telling that some one had given beatings to his children. When Gaina Rai (PW-9) asked him who the person was and what type of clothes he was wearing, the accused replied that he could not see his clothes but the person had run away. The accused told him that he was sleeping in the small room, and when he came out and started making uproar hearing the said person run away. On a query of the witnesses as to where the said person had gone, accused replied he did not know. The accused then informed the witness that not only his children, but also his wife and brother -in-law had been beaten. The witness went to the dhani of accused. The accused went inside. From the fencing line outside the dhani, the witness could see that Amru, Achla and Kesi were lying on the cots, and Meera was crying in pain that she was dying. The witness got perplexed. He asked accused to remain present in the house and went to call the neighbours namely, Khartha and Khumbha. He told them about what the accused had told them. Thereafter, the witness and Khartha went to the house of Khumbha, who was also told about the incident. Khartha and Khumbha were sent to the dhani of Kheraj, and the witness called one Daula (PW-1) who was sleeping in the gudal of his house. He disclose what he had heard and seen to Daula and he and Daula went to the dhani of Kheraj where Khumba and Khartha were sitting outside. Thereafter, the witness and Daula opened the back door and went inside and saw that all the four persons were lying drenched with blood. Immediately they entered inside, and found that except Meera, the rest three had died. He enquired from Meera as to what had happened, but she could not speak. At that time Kheraj was smoking chilam in the courtyard. The witness came out and sent Daula to lodge a report with the police. Subsequently, Meera also died. Then he sent Khartha to call Lalla and Sadula (brother of the accused) . After sunrise, they searched for footprint, if any. Though they noticed footprints of a person in the north side going to the dhani of Achla and returning from there, the footprints were of shoe-worn. The footprints were also present in the east of the dhani. The accused used to blame the deceased Amru for her alleged infidelity and was quarrelling with her. He was told by Kannu and Veero (PWs 5 and 6 respectively) that the accused and his wife had a quarrel in the night. The police investigated into the allegations, and came to the conclusion that accused was responsible for the for killings. Initially, a case was registered for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC) , and subsequently, it was modified to Section 302 IPC when all the four died.
4. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Considering the brutal nature of t
Referred : C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P.
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors.
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.
State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
H.Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.