Back
P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Prajeet Kumar Singh - PETITIONER
Versus
State of Bihar - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1621 OF 2007
Decided On: 02/04/2008
Indian Penal Code , 1863 - Section 302 - Section 307 - Section 34 - Proceedings in matter arose in following facts - In it is said that accused, a friend was living in house Town for last four years and was also taking his meals for which he was paying Rs - 500/- per month - However, for last several months, he had not paid amount and owed Rs -4,000/- altogether as rent for house and for food to informant for which informant was making demands regularly - Four-five days before incident, when informant made a demand, accused said that he was going home to bring money and thereafter he went home - Day before incident, accused came back at 3 -00 pm - After having dinner, when informant asked accused for dues, accused told him that he should accompany him to his home where he would be paid his money - Thereafter, informant and his wife went to sleep in their room which was on third floor of house - accused also went to sleep in adjoining room on third floor - All children of informant were sleeping on second floor - At night, informant and his wife heard noise of crying from second floor and they suspected that children had been quarrelling - Both of them came down and saw that accused having picked up dab from house, had murdered their younger son - When accused noticed informant and his wife, he caused injury to them and their elder son, daughter and niece, using same dab - During course of investigation, involvement of three more persons came to light to investigating agency and chargesheet was submitted against four persons, namely, accused father of accused as well brother of accused No -1 relative of accused No -1 - During course of trial, two accused remained absent and their cases were separated - Trial proceeded against two persons only, namely, accused- appellant and his father – Held , In present case, accused-appellant was living as a family member of PW-3 and PW-2 and was provided with shelter and meals, although for a sum of Rs -500/- per month, being a friend of PW-1 - He lived with family not for a month or two, but for a continuous period of four years - There does not appear to be any apparent provocation or reason for committing ghastly brutal murder of three innocent defenceless children who were aged 8, 15 and 16 years – Court can safely assume that time at which incident happened, children must be asleep and were not in a position to defend themselves - It has come in evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that accused-appellant had assaulted them when they were running here and there to save themselves - Medical evidence led by prosecution indicates brutality in commission of crime - Several incised wounds were caused to deceased persons - victims apparently did not have any weapon with them - When PW-3 and PW-2 on hearing noise came down to find out cause for it and entered room, they were also brutally attacked without slightest of consideration by accused-appellant that he had lived with them for four years - Not only that, when his friend on whose account he was accommodated in house reached place of incident on hearing noise of his brother and sisters, he was also attacked and seriously injured - It is clear from material placed on record by prosecution that all these persons were unarmed and accused- appellant was only person in room having deadly weapon in his hand - He could have escaped from place giving threat to persons without causing any harm to witnesses, but he acted in a different manner - Enormity of crime is writ large - Accused-appellant caused multiple murders and attacked three witnesses - Thus, all members of family who were present on that day in house became victims of accused - Brutality of act is amplified by manner in which attacks have been made on all inmates of house in which helpless victims have been murdered, which is indicative of fact that act was diabolic of superlative degree in conception and cruel in execution and does not fall within any comprehension of basic humanness which indicates mindset which cannot be said to be amenable for any reformation - Appeal is dismissed
J U D G M E N T
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.:
1. This appeal arises out of the order of confirmation in Death Reference No. 1 of 2004 & order in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2004 filed by the accused-appellant, whereby the High Court was of the view that in the facts and circumstances the case falls under the purview of `rarest of the rare case' and, thus, the death sentence imposed on the accused-appellant is completely justified.
2. The proceedings in the matter arose in the following facts: In the fardbeyan of Pawan Kumar Thakur (PW-3), it is said that the accused Prajeet Kumar Singh, a friend of Prakash Kumar (PW-1) (son of the informant), was living in the house of PW-3 at Supriya Road in Mirja Toli of Bettiah Town for the last four years and was also taking his meals for which he was paying Rs. 500/- per month. However, for the last several months, he had not paid the amount and owed Rs.4,000/- altogether as rent for the house and for food to the informant for which the informant was making demands regularly. Four-five days before the incident, when the informant made a demand, the accused said that he was going home to bring money and thereafter he went home. The day before the incident, the accused came back at 3.00 p.m. After having dinner, when the informant asked the accused for the dues, the accused told him that he should accompany him to his home where he would be paid his money. Thereafter, the informant and his wife went to sleep in their room which was on the third floor of the house. The accused also went to sleep in the adjoining room on the third floor. All the children of the informant were sleeping on the second floor. At night, the informant and his wife heard the noise of crying from the second floor and they suspected that the children had been quarrelling. Both of them came down and saw that the accused having picked up dab (dagger like weapon) from the house, had murdered their younger son Deepak Kumar. When the accused noticed the informant and his wife, he caused injury to them and their elder son Prakash Kumar, daughter Kiran Kumari and niece Pooja Kumari, using the same dab. During the course of investigation, the involvement of three more persons came to light to the investigating agency and chargesheet was submitted against the four persons, namely, accused No.1 (the appellant herein) Prajeet Kumar Singh, accused No.2 Ram Badai Singh, father of accused No.1 as well as Ajit Singh, brother of accused No.1 and Chandra Bhushan Pandey, relative of accused No.1. During the course of trial, two accused Ajit Singh and Chandra Bhushan Pandey remained absent and their cases were separated. The trial proceeded against two persons only, namely, the accused- appellant and his father.
3. The accused-appellant has been charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") for committing the murder of informant's son Deepak Kumar, aged about 16 years, daughter Kiran Kumari, aged about 15 years and niece Pooja Kumari, aged about 8 years, and further under Section 307, IPC for attempting to commit the murder of the informant Pawan Kumar Thakur (PW-3) and his wife Geeta Devi (PW-2). The Session Court found him guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to death penalty. He was also found guilty of the offence under Section 307, IPC. However, as the extreme penalty of death was imposed on the accused-appellant, the Session Court did not impose a separate sentence under Section 307, IPC. Father of the accused-appellant, Ram Badai Singh, has been charged for the offences under both the Sections read with Section 34, IPC. However, he was acquitted of the charges framed against him as the evidence of the witnesses that when the accused fled away from the place of incident after jumping from the top floor, they saw in the light the other accused also present
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
