2009 Supreme(SC) 1606

2009(6) Supreme 692
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M.Panchal,JJ.
Jagdish — Appellant
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeaal No. 338 of 2007
Decided on : 18-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence motive does have extreme significance but to say that in the absence of motive, conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot, in principle, be made is not correct.
2. The benefit of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code,1860 is available to a person who at the time when the act was done was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 – Conviction of appellant for causing death of his wife, four minor daughters and a minor son all between 1 and 16 years of age – Appellant sentenced to death by Additional Sessions Judge – On an appeal and reference to High Court, conviction and death sentence was upheld – Appeal – Case against appellant had been proved by evidence of PW1, his brother, PW3 and PW11 his neighbours, who had all seen the dead bodies with the appellant sitting beside them armed with a knife and he had in fact threatened that anyone else interfering would meet the same fate – Appellant and deceased family members being the only occupants of the room it was incumbent on appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt – The story that a thief was present in the room introduced by PW1 at the stage of the trial was doubtless an attempt to help appellant who was his brother – Medical evidence also supported the prosecution story in its entirety – Two doctors, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies, concluded that knife recovered at instance of the appellant could have been used to commit murders – Another extremely relevant circumstance pointing towards appellant’s involvement. was that , after arrest, he was found with injuries on his person –The doctor reported six superficial incised injuries on his person, some on neck and the others on the fingers, and opined that they could all be self suffered – This statement was further corroborated by the unrebutted testimony of PW3 who testified that appellant had told him that after killing his family he had attempted to commit suicide – All said circumstances, were so evidently categoric, that they constituted a chain even stronger than an eye – witness account – Conviction of appellant on charge of multiple murders held fully justified. (Para 8)

       Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 84 – Conviction of appellant for multiple murders –Appeal against conviction on plea that appellant was of unsound mind – The benefit of this provision is available to a person who at the time when the act was done was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law – The implication of this provision is that the offender must be of this mental condition at the time when the act was committed and fact that he was of unsound mind earlier or later are relevant only to the extent that they, alongwith other evidence, may be circumstances in determining mental condition of an accused on the day of incident – Before the trial court as well as in appeal in the High Court, no plea with regard to the appellant’s mental condition had been taken – It was only in this Court at the SLP stage when, shaken by the sheer brutality of the crime, this Court perhaps felt that only a person of unsound mind could commit such a horrendous crime, and it had thus been thought prudent to have the matter re–examined – However statements in the status report and affidavit did not advance the appellant’s case whatsoever (Para 7)

       Death Sentence – Delay of three years in execution of – Plea that due to delay, death sentence ought to be converted to one for life-Held incident in the instant case happened on 20.08. 2005 – The Additional Sessions Judge rendered his judgment on 24.04.2006 and the judgment was confirmed by High Court on 27.06. 2006 – This matter first came up in Apex Court on 1.09.2006 and was adjourned repeatedly on the request of the appellant’s counsel so as to find out if some material could be collected to substantiate his claim that he was unsound mind and it was on 12.03. 2007 that leave was granted limited to the question of sentence only –Matter was disposed of by in September 2009 – Hence held that there was no delay whatsoever in the said circumstances (Paras 16)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Appellant herein in the instant case was convicted for causing death of his wife, four minor daughters and a minor son all between 1 and 16 years of age .Appellant was sentenced to death by Additional Sessions Judge. On an appeal and reference to High Court, conviction and death sentence was upheld

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        1.Case against appellant had been proved by evidence of PW1, his brother, PW3 and PW11 his neighbours, who had all seen the dead bodies with the appellant sitting beside them armed with a knife and he had in fact threatened that anyone else interfering would meet the same fate. Appellant and deceased family members being the only occupants of the room it was incumbent on appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt. The story that a thief was present in the room introduced by PW1 at the stage of the trial was doubtless an attempt to help appellant who was his brother. Medical evidence also supported the prosecution story in its entirety. Two doctors, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies, concluded that knife recovered at instance of the appellant could have been used to commit murders. Another extremely relevant circumstance pointing towards appellant’s involvement. was that , after arrest, he was found with injuries on his person. The doctor reported six superficial incised injuries on his person, some on neck and the others on the fingers, and opined that they could all be self suffered. This statement was further corroborated by the unrebutted testimony of PW3 who testified that appellant had told him that after killing his family he had attempted to commit suicide. All said circumstances, were so evidently categoric, that they constituted a chain even stronger than an eye- witness account. Conviction of appellant on charge of multiple murders was held fully justified.

        2. On Appeal against conviction on plea that appellant was of unsound mind, it was held that the benefit of this provision is available to a person who at the time when the act was done was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. The implication of this provision is that the offender must be of this mental condition at the time when the act was committed and fact that he was of unsound mind earlier or later are relevant only to the extent that they, alongwith other evidence, may be circumstances in determining mental condition of an accused on the day of incident. Before the trial court as well as in appeal in the High Court, no plea with regard to the appellant’s mental condition had been taken. It was only in this Court at the SLP stage when, shaken by the sheer brutality of the crime, this Court perhaps felt that only a person of unsound mind could commit such a horrendous crime, and it had thus been thought prudent to have the matter re-examined. However statements in the status report and affidavit did not advance the appellant’s case whatsoever.

        3. Plea of appellant that due to delay, death sentence ought to be converted to one for life.It was held incident in the instant case happened on 20.08. 2005. The Additional Sessions Judge rendered his judgment on 24.04.2006 and the judgment was confirmed by High Court on 27.06. 2006. This matter first came up in Apex Court on 1.09.2006 and was adjourned repeatedly on the request of the appellant’s counsel so as to find out if some material could be collected to substantiate his claim that he was unsound mind and it was on 12.03. 2007 that leave was granted limited to the question of sentence only. Matter was disposed of by in September 2009. Hence held that there was no delay whatsoever in the said circumstances.

       Result : Appeal dismissed