1. Murder, robbery, and sexual assault of a family — Conviction under Sections 302, 376, and 394 read with Section 34, IPC — Appeal against death sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 11 , 13 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 325
Supreme Court of India
M.K. MUKHERJEE & S.S.M. QUADRI
Ronald James Alwaris
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 1997
Decided on: 05-03-1998
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 1064/97:-Mr. U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, Mr. A.P. Mayee, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 1065/97 :-Ms. Shilpa Malvankar, Mr. S.C. Paul, Mr. Anand Jain, Advocates for Mr. J.D. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:- Mr. I.G. Shah, Mr. M.S. Nargolkar, Senior Advocates with Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Advocate.
For the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 1064/97:-Mr. U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, Mr. A.P. Mayee, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 1065/97 :-Ms. Shilpa Malvankar, Mr. S.C. Paul, Mr. Anand Jain, Advocates for Mr. J.D. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:- Mr. I.G. Shah, Mr. M.S. Nargolkar, Senior Advocates with Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Advocate.
Identification in court is substantive evidence; a Test Identification Parade is corroborative and not mandatory if the witness had sufficient interaction with the accused. The death penalty is reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases involving extreme depravity.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 376, 394, 449, 467, 471, 201, 347 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 100(4), 166(3), 166(4) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 9, 114 - Murder, Robbery, and Rape - Identification of accused - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Search and Recovery - Quantum of Sentence - Rarest of Rare Case - Identification of an accused in court is substantive evidence, whereas evidence of identification in a TIP is only corroborative (Paras 18-20). If a witness had an opportunity to interact with the accused or notice distinctive features, identification in court can be relied upon even in the absence of a TIP (Paras 21-23).
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 100(4) - Search and Recovery - Evidence of a search cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the witness is not from the locality of the search or was brought by the investigating agency, provided the testimony is reliable and lacks serious infirmities (Paras 26-28).
(C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114, Illustration (a) - Presumption of guilt - Where stolen articles are recovered from the possession of the accused shortly after a murder and robbery, and the possession remains unexplained, a presumption can be drawn that the accused committed both the robbery and the murder (Paras 29-31).
(D) Sentencing - Death Penalty - Life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception, to be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases where the crime is gruesome, cold-blooded, and the culpability assumes extreme depravity (Paras 39-44). Where it is not possible to distinguish the specific role of each accused to justify the extreme penalty, the death sentence may be commuted to life imprisonment (Para 46).
Facts of the case:
Three individuals entered a residence under false pretenses, murdered three family members, sexually assaulted the mother, and robbed the house of valuables. The accused were later arrested, and stolen items were recovered. Forensic evidence, including semen and saliva stains on bedsheets and cigarette stubs, as well as fingerprints on a vehicle, linked the accused to the crime scene.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the convictions for murder, rape, and robbery, finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. However, it found no material to confirm the sentences for offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: (1) Whether identification of the accused in court without a prior TIP is valid; (2) Whether non-compliance with the requirement of calling local panch witnesses during search and recovery invalidates the evidence; (3) Whether the charge of rape was proved by medical and circumstantial evidence; (4) Whether the facts of the case justified the death sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: Identification in court is substantive; TIP is corroborative and not mandatory if the witness had sufficient interaction with the accused. Procedural lapses in selecting search witnesses do not invalidate recovery if the witness is credible. The "rarest of rare" doctrine requires extreme depravity; where individual roles cannot be distinguished to justify the extreme penalty, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence.
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Validity of court identification without test identification parade — Compliance with search and seizure procedures under CrPC — Substantiation of sexual assault charges — Justification for death penalty. (Para 16 )
3. Identification in court is substantive evidence; reliability depends on the witness's opportunity to observe the accused — Recovery of stolen property soon after crime attracts presumption of guilt. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
4. Identification in court is substantive evidence and may be relied upon without a test identification parade if the witness had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused. (Para 18 , 21 , 23 )
5. Convictions confirmed except under Sections 467 and 471, IPC — Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment — Sentence for sexual assault to run consecutively. (Para 35 , 46 , 47 )
6. Is identification of an accused in court for the first time without a test identification parade (TIP) admissible and reliable?
Yes. Identification in court is substantive evidence. While TIP is corroborative, court identification is reliable if the witness had an opportunity to interact with or observe the distinctive features of the accused, making the absence of a TIP immaterial. (Para 18 , 21 , 23 )
7. Does the failure to call independent local witnesses during a search under Section 100(4) CrPC invalidate the recovery of evidence?
No. Evidence cannot be rejected solely because the witness is not from the locality or was brought by the police, provided the testimony has intrinsic merit and is not discredited during cross-examination. (Para 26 , 27 )
8. When does the presumption under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act apply to link a possessor of stolen goods to a murder?
The presumption applies when stolen property is recovered from the accused soon after the murder and robbery, and the accused fails to explain the possession, suggesting the crimes were part of the same transaction. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 )
9. What factors are considered when commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment in gruesome crimes?
The court considers mitigating factors like age, family dependencies, and the possibility of reform. If the specific role of each accused cannot be distinguished, commuting the sentence to life imprisonment may serve the ends of justice. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 46 )
Judgment
S.S.M. Quadri, J.
1. The appellants [Nitin Anil Swargey (A-1), Ronny Ronald James Alwaris (A-2) and Santu Santosh Balkrishna Desai (A-3)], in these three appeals, have been found guilty of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and are condemned to death; they are also awarded different punishments under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code on their trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 574 of 1992 vide Judgment dated April 28/29, 1995. In regard to sentence of death awarded to the three appellants, the learned Additional Sessions Judge referred the case, Confirmation Case No. 1 of 1995, to the High Court of Bombay, which was heard along with three appeals filed by the above said three appellants. They were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment dated March 27, 1996, confirming the conviction of and sentences awarded to the appellants. Against the said judgment, by special leave, these appeals are filed.
2. The case set up by the prosecution is as follows:
A new colony, Varsha Park Society, is situate at Baner Road near Pune. Among newly constructed houses are two bungalows, `Rooman Bungalow' of Mr. Mohan Ohol, the President of, and `Rohini Bungalow' of Mr. Vyankat Krishnan, the Secretary of the Society, which are separated by a kutcha road. In Rooman Bungalow a well placed family of Ohols was residing. The family comprised of four members, namely, Mr. Mohan Ohol, a Mechanical Engineer, who was working as Executive Officer in Kirloskar Pneumatic Company at Hadapsar, Pune; Mrs. Ruhi Ohol, Ph.D., a research scholar, who having worked as Head of the Department of Master Degree in Business Management (M.B.A.), had started working with the Tata Management Institute as visiting Professor and was organising seminars for M.B.A. students; a seventeen years old son Mr. Rohan Ohol, a student studying in the last year of the Computer Engineering course and a sixteen years old daughter, Ms. Reina Mohan Ohol, who was doing course of diploma of Hotel Management and Catering Technology. To undergo practical training programme of two months, on July 8, 1992, she left Pune for Bombay where she was staying in MLA hostel. Out of the relations of Mr. Mohan Ohol, his brother, Mr. Vijay Ohol who was working as Assistant Commissioner Revenue, his sisters, Mrs. Mandakini Gaekwad and Mrs. Rajni, his nephews Viren S/o Mr. Vijay Ohol, Nitin Anil Swarga (A-1) S/o Mrs. Rajni and niece Rhoda D/o Mrs. Mandakini and Mrs. Viola Muzaffar (mother of Mrs. Ruhi Ohol) who was a cancer patient and was undergoing treatment in Ruby Hospital, need be mentioned.
3. Nitin Anil Swargey (A-1) and his two friends, Ronny and Santu, A-2 and A-3 respectively, are residents of Bombay; A-1 and A-3 reside at Borivili, Bombay, whereas A-2 resides at Vassai, Distt. Thane, Bombay. They went to Pune on July 18, 1992. There they contacted Tulsi Bhagwan Shetty (PW-46), a partner of Natraj Hotel for a room. For obtaining the room, A-1 signed, what is known as A Form (Article 98). They were given Room No. 16 in that hotel. It appears A-1 left the hotel but A-2 and A-3 stayed there till the morning of 20th July. Ramesh Madhavakar (PW-47), a room boy, took them to that room and looked after them during their stay. After A-1 joined them on 20th July, they left. They paid the charges of the hotel under receipt (Article 97). They asked PW-46 about tourist vehicle to go to Panchgani. He suggested them to approach Deccan Luxury Service, near Deccan Gymkhana, Pune. They went there and contacted Dadasaheb Bhagaji Dhumal (PW-69), Manager of the said Deccan Luxury Service. As no vehicle was available with Deccan Luxury Service, he arranged Maruti Van No. MH-15A-263 of Sri Babar, a sub-contractor, whose driver was paid Rupees two hundred. The name of the hirer was noted as Sunil Desai of 1312, Shivaji Nagar, Pune on the chit (Article 89) (Exhibit 258) for booking the vehicle, which was signed by A-1. They then went to the
