SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Dattu, CJI., R.K. Agrawal, Arun Mishra, JJ.
Mofil Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1795 of 2009
Decided On: 09.10.2014
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 449 r/w 34 – Criminal Trial – Offence of Assault and Murder – Appeal against conviction – deceased was offering Namaz in mosque accused-Appellants and others who are none other than deceased’s brothers and nephews, approached him and started assaulting him with sharp-edged weapons such as sword, tangi, bhujali and spade - Deceased succumbed to injuries inflicted by accused persons - Leaving deceased at spot, accused-Appellants and others proceeded towards the house of deceased where, upon hearing the cries of their father, deceased’s sons had come out on street - Accused-Appellants assaulted the two unarmed brothers with aforesaid weapons due to which two brothers collapsed and died in front of their house - Thereafter accused-Appellants and others entered house of deceased and committed murder wife of deceased and his four sons - After committing murder of six persons, accused-Appellants threatened other members of household including their mother, (PW-2) of meeting same fate if they inform police about incident and thereafter left house taking away certain documents relating to lands, Pass-book, jewellery etc - Held, Court considered view, "rarest of rare" case exists when an accused would be a menace, threat and antithetical to harmony in society - Especially in cases where an accused does not act on provocation, acting in spur of moment but meticulously executes a deliberately planned crime inspite of understanding probable consequence of his act, death sentence may be most appropriate punishment - Keeping in view said principle of proportionality of sentence or what it termed as "just-desert" for vile act of slaughtering eight lives including four innocent minors and a physically infirm child whereby an entire family is exterminated, we cannot resist from concluding that depravity of Appellants offence would attract no lesser sentence than death penalty – Court agreement with reasons recorded by Trial Court and approved by High Court while awarding and confirming death sentence of accused-Appellants - Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Death Reference No. 01 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1103 of 2008, dated 02.07.2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction, dated 01.08.2008 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the two accused-Appellants and two others for offence Under Sections 302 and449 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the Indian Penal Code"). The High Court while confirming the order of death sentence, dated 05.08.2008 passed by the Trial Court in respect of the accused-Appellants, has thought it fit to modify the sentence awarded to the other two accused persons, Saddam Khan and Wakil Khan, to life imprisonment.
2. At the outset, the learned amicus, Shri Bimal Roy Jad, appearing for the two accused-Appellants has only assailed the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court and restricted his arguments to the quantum of punishment awarded. Therefore, the scope of this appeal is restricted to the determination of appropriate sentence that requires to be awarded to the accused-Appellants. Further, since other accused persons in the instant case are not in appeal before us, the discussions hereinafter would be confined to the fact relevant for the disposal of present appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief is, on 06.06.2007 at about 8:30 p.m., one Haneef Khan (referred to as "the deceased" hereafter) was offering Namaz in the mosque at village Makandu, Jharkhand. The accused-Appellants and others who are none other than the deceased's brothers and nephews, approached him and started assaulting him with sharp-edged weapons such as sword, tangi, bhujali and spade. The deceased succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the accused persons. Leaving the deceased at the spot, the accused-Appellants and others proceeded towards the house of deceased where, upon hearing the cries of their father, the deceased's sons Gufran Khan @ Pala and Imran Khan had come out on the street. The accused-Appellants assaulted the two unarmed brothers with the aforesaid weapons due to which the two brothers collapsed and died in front of their house. Thereafter, the accused-Appellants and others entered the house of the deceased and committed murder of Kasuman Bibi, wife of the deceased and his four sons, namely, Anish Khan (aged about 5 years), Danish Khan (aged about 8 years), Yusuf Khan (physically disabled and aged about 18 years) and Maherban Khan (aged about 12 years). After committing murder of the six persons, the accused-Appellants threatened other members of the household including their mother, Jainub Khatoon (PW-2) of meeting the same fate if they inform the police about the incident and thereafter left the house taking away certain documents relating to the lands, Pass-book, jewellery etc.
4. On 07.06.2007, at about 6:00 a.m., father of the deceased, Gaffar Khan (PW-1) upon being informed reached the village and saw the dead body of the deceased lying at the mosque, the dead bodies of his grand sons, namely, Gufran Khan @Pala and Imran Khan were lying in front of the house and the dead-bodies of his daughter-in-law, Kasuman Bibi and her four sons were lying inside the house. There he was informed by his wife-PW2 of the manner in which the accused-Appellants alongwith others had committed the offence. Meanwhile, Chowkidar of Village had informed the Police of the incident telephonically, upon which sanha was entered on the station diary and the officer in-charge, Shambhu Nath Singh (PW-13), reached the place of occurrence and recorded thefardbeyan of the informant, PW-1. Thereafter, P.S. Case No. 80 of 2007 was registered and an FIR was drawn. The police authorities carried out the investigation and held inquest on the bodies of th
Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. v. Dharmendra Singh
Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan
Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra
Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India
Surendra Koli v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra
Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
Sushil Sharma v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul
Brajendrasingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhanna v. State of West Bengal
Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab
Mahesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.
Jagmohan Singh v. The State of U.P.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab
Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral v. State of Maharashtra
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sattan @ Satyendra and Ors.
Govindasami v. State of Tamil Nadu
Ajay Kumar Pal v. State of Jharkhand
Shobhit Chamar v. State of Bihar
Sunder Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Holiram Bordoli v. State of Assam
Saibanna v. State of Karnataka
State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram
Om Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.