Back
2012 (2) Supreme 161
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Brajendrasingh — Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.113-114 of 2010
Decided on : 28-2-2012
Offence of murder-Award of death sentence-If justified-Held subsequent to the commission of crime, he was in such a mental state that he wanted to commit suicide and even inflicted injuries to his own throat and also went to the bye-pass road with the intention of committing suicide, where he was stopped by PW4, Head Constable and taken to the Police Station wherein he lodged the FIR -. Appellant felt great remorse and was sorry for his acts- He informed the Police correctly about what he had done- Still another mitigating circumstance was that as a result of commission of crime, appellant himself was the greatest sufferer- He had lost his children, whom he had brought up for years and also his wife- Besides that, it was not a planned crime and also lacked motive- It was a crime which had been committed out of suspicion and frustration- It was not a case which fell in the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases where imposition of death sentence was imperative - Death sentence awarded to accused commuted to one of life imprisonment (Paras 25 to 28)
Circumstantial evidence –Scope and ambit of-It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained-The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused- The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution- There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court- Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. (Para 16)
Circumstantial evidence - The circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of accused alone- In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person- Rule which needs to be observed by Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits- The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively- The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt (Para 16)
Facts of the Case :
A.Appellant accused was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of his three children and wife by assaulting them with a knife and thereafter setting them on fire. Trial Court while convicting appellant accused awarded him death sentence. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
B. Present Appeals have been filed against said order of conviction and award of death sentence.
Findings of the Court :
A. Case was based on circumstantial evidence-.Circumstances proved against appellant were that couple used to quarrel on the issue of deceased speaking to their neighbor even after appellant having restrained her from doing so. The three children were sleeping at the time of occurrence. The injury on their necks just below the jaw w as caused by a knife which was recovered and exhibited as article ‘L’ in accordance with law. It was mentioned in Doctor’s report that there were number of burn injuries on the body of deceased and the injuries on the throats of all the deceased. The cause of death was common to all, i.e., excessive hemorrhage.Circumstantial evidences read with statements of prosecution witnesses and statement of appellant himself proved one fact without doubt, that accused had certainly murdered his wife.
B. Defence plea of accused was that his deceased wife inflicted knife injuries on his children. However unnatural conduct of accused in not making an effort to protect the children and exhibiting helplessness created a serious doubt and rendered the entire case put forward by defence as unreliable and of no credence.
C. Hence appellant was held guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife and three minor children.
D. Prior to the commission of the crime, none of the prosecution witnesses, including the immediate blood relations of deceased, made any complaint about his behaviour or character. On the contrary, it was admitted that he used to prohibit deceased from speaking to PW10 about which she really did not bother- His conduct, either way, at the time of commission of the crime was unnatural and to some extent even unexpected. However, subsequent to the commission of crime, he was in such a mental state that he wanted to commit suicide and even inflicted injuries to his own throat and also went to the bye-pass road with the intention of committing suicide, where he was stopped by PW4, Head Constable and taken to the Police Station wherein he lodged the FIR .. Appellant felt great remorse and was sorry for his acts. He informed the Police correctly about what he had done.
E. Still another mitigating circumstance was that as a result of commission of crime, appellant himself was the greatest sufferer. He had lost his children, whom he had brought up for years and also his wife. Besides that, it was not a planned crime and also lacked motive. It was a crime which had been committed out of suspicion and frustration. It was not a case which fell in the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases where imposition of death sentence was imperative. Death sentence awarded to accused was commuted to one of life imprisonment. Appeals were partly allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and definite chain of events leading to the incident. The facts forming part of this chain should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and should not be mere possibilities (!) (!) .
The statement of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used as evidence against him if it supports the prosecution's case. However, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless it aligns with other evidence (!) (!) .
The case was primarily proven through circumstantial evidence, including the accused's own statement, which was consistent with the prosecution's narrative. The evidence demonstrated that the accused had certainly murdered his wife and children (!) (!) .
The conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident was examined. His unnatural behavior, such as not attempting to prevent the murder of his children and subsequent remorse, was considered significant in assessing his guilt and the appropriateness of the sentence (!) (!) .
The evidence indicated that the accused inflicted fatal injuries on his wife and children, and the circumstances did not support the defense that the wife was responsible for the injuries. The accused's conduct and the evidence on record pointed conclusively to his guilt (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The principle of ‘rarest of rare’ cases is crucial in deciding whether the death penalty is justified (!) (!) .
The court found that this case did not qualify as a ‘rarest of rare’ case, and the death penalty was not warranted. The circumstances suggested that the crime was committed in a moment of passion or suspicion, lacking premeditation or extreme depravity (!) (!) .
As a result, the death sentence originally imposed was commuted to life imprisonment, reflecting the court's discretion and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or further assistance.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of imposition of extreme penalty of death by the Trial Court.
2. The disaster that can flow from unchastity of a woman and the suspicions of a man upon the character of his wife cannot be more pathetically stated than the facts emerging from the present case. As per the case of the prosecution, a man suspecting his wife of having illicit relations with his neighbor, killed his three young children, namely, Varsha, Lokesh and Mayank, who were asleep, sprinkled kerosene oil on his wife and put her on fire. However, when called upon to make a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), the accused rendered the following explanation :
“There was illicit relationship between my wife, the deceased Aradhna and Liladhar, when on 27.02.2005 I came from the factory, at that time it was 11.00 - 11.30 O’clock at night, there was no fixed time coming and going from the factory. When I came to my house the door of the house was opened. My wife was not at the house and then I searched her here and there. I heard her voice in the house of Liladhar Tiwari, the voice of male was also coming. My children were sleeping in my house, when I shouted loudly and I hit the door of Liladhar Tiwari with foot, then the door opened then I saw that both were naked and then she came out then I threw her on the ground after catching her hair and then she started shouted and speaking cohabitedly and said that she would go with Tiwari Jee only and if I would stop her from meeting Tiwari Jee then she would kill the children and she would kill me also. Thus quarrel went on. After some time she came with knife from the kitchen and she inflicted injuries in the necks of the three children. I tried to snatch the knife from her and the in that process in my neck also the knife inflicted injury and then after taking that very knife I inflicted injury on the neck of deceased because she had inflicted the injury in the necks of children, Aradhna fell down on the back after being hit by the knife. My mental balance was upset and I put the kerosene oil kept there at myself, that some of that kerosene oil fell on me and some on the deceased, I was standing nearby. I ignited the match stick and at first I burnt myself and the match stick fell on the deceased, due to which she was also burnt and then in the burning condition after extinguishing the fire taking the knife I went towards the Bye-pass. After some time, I saw that one truck was coming, I was going to commit suicide under that truck but in the meantime police came there and the police brought me to the police station. I got the report written but as I had said in the report it was not written like that. I have not killed the children.”
3. From the above statement, it is clear that the accused neither disputes the attempt to murder, nor the consequent death of his three young children and wife, Aradhna. What this Court has to examine, with reference to the evidence on record, is as to which of the two versions is correct and stands established beyond reasonable doubt, i.e., whether the case of the prosecution is to be accepted as proved beyond reasonable probability or whether the defence of the appellant is to be accepted by the Court.
4. Before we dwell upon the issues before us, it will be appropriate to refer to the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as stated by the prosecution. The facts, as given, as well as the conduct of the appellant are somewhat strange in the present case as the appellant who is accused of this heinous crime, is himself the informant of the incident. Laconically, the factual matrix of the case that emerges from the record is that the appellant had lodged a report in respect of the commission of the crime at the Police Station, Industrial Ar
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
