2009 Supreme(SC) 1365

2009(6) Supreme 228
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpukar and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Sushil Kumar — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2009
Decided on 01.08.09

IMPORTANT POINT
There have to be very special reasons to record death penalty and if mitigating factors in the case are stronger then it is neither proper nor justified to award death sentence and it would be sufficient to place it out of “rarest of rare category”.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302, 309 – Prosecution of appellant accused for committing murder of his wife and two children by strangulating them with a plastic rope – Conviction by Trial Court awarding capital punishment to appellant – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – Apart from minor discrepancies which are bound to appear in a natural course of conduct of a normal human being, there were no serious material discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses warranting to completely discard their evidence – No reason to doubt the credibility of all said prosecution witnesses – Apart from that , no reason why they would falsely try to implicate the appellant, more so, when they had already lost deceased and her children – Nothing on record that these witnesses were having strained relations with the appellant – Plea of alibi taken by appellant had not been found to be truthful – Dead bodies were found from the house of appellant where he was also living with them – Blood stained bed sheets, clothes, pillows were recovered from the bed room, where the dead bodies were found which was shared by the appellant too – Knife and rope were recovered from the same place-Appellant was last seen by (PW-4) at 5.00 a.m., while he was coming out from his house in a perplexed condition – Couple was having strained relations and was passing through bad financial conditions-In view of totality of the facts and features of the case and keeping in view the evidence available on record, held that the offence was committed by the appellant and appellant alone. (Paras 28 to 36)

        Death Sentence – Extreme poverty had driven the appellant to commit the gruesome murder of three of his very near and dear family members, His wife, minor son and daughter – Nothing on record to show that appellant was a habitual offender – He appeared to be a peace loving, law abiding citizen but as he was poverty stricken, he thought in his wisdom to completely eliminate his family so that all problems would come to an end- No witness had complained about his bad or intolerable behaviour in the past – Many people had visited his house after the incident was indicative of the fact that he had cordial relations with all – He was about 35 years of age and there appeared to be fairly good chances of the appellant getting reformed and becoming a good citizen – Hence not a fit case where it would fall within the category of “rarest of rare case” – Death sentence as awarded to him by trial Judge and confirmed by High Court held liable to be set aside and quashed – Appeal disposed of. (Paras 37 to 46)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Life or death is the question involved in this appeal. Sole appellant had been awarded death sentence, by Additional Sessions Judge, holding him guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife, son and daughter. High Court on appeal affirmed conviction and sentence.

        2. Present Appeal has been filed against order of High Court only against Murder Reference.

       Findings of the Court :

        Extreme poverty had driven the appellant to commit the gruesome murder of three of his very near and dear family members - his wife, minor son and daughter. Nothing on record to show that appellant was a habitual offender. He appeared to be a peace loving, law abiding citizen but as he was poverty stricken, he thought in his wisdom to completely eliminate him family so that all problems would come to an end. No witness had complained about his bad or intolerable behaviour in the past. Many people had visited his house after the incident was indicative of the fact that he had cordial relations with all. He was about 35 years of age and there appeared to be fairly good chances of the appellant getting reformed and becoming a good citizen. Hence not a fit case where it would fall within the category of “rarest of rare case”. Death sentence as awarded to him by trial Judge and confirmed by High Court was held liable to be set aside and quashed. Appeal was disposed of.

       Result : Appeal disposed of.