1. Brutal killing of four family members following a dispute — Conviction under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302, and 201 of the IPC and the SC/ST Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1197
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT, JJ.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SAKRU MAHAGU BINJEWAR AND ORS – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1791-1795, 1801, 1802 OF 2014
Decided On : 24-05-2019
Important Points
The judgment emphasizes the need for careful consideration of mitigating circumstances and adherence to the principles of proportionality and reform in sentencing.
Subject
Criminal Law - Death Penalty and Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
Death Sentence Commutation - Criminal Offences - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 302 and 201 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a brutal attack on a family resulting in the death of four individuals belonging to the Mahar caste. The accused were convicted of various criminal offences including murder and were sentenced to death or life imprisonment by the Special Court at Bhandara.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, considering the circumstances of the crime and the absence of a criminal record for the accused. The court also upheld the conviction of the accused based on medical and oral evidence.
Issues: (i) Commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment, (ii) Whether the case falls under 'rarest of the rare' category, (iii) Sustainability of the conviction of the accused in the cross-appeals
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab to determine the appropriateness of death penalty. It emphasized the need for careful scrutiny and consideration of mitigating circumstances. The court also relied on the Doctrine of Proportionality and the Doctrine of Reform and Rehabilitation in sentencing.
Final Decision: The appeals by the CBI and the convicts were dismissed, affirming the commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment and upholding the conviction of the accused.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) :R. Balasubramanian, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Suhasini Sen, Rahul Chitnis, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates
For Appellant(s) :R. Balasubramanian, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Suhasini Sen, Rahul Chitnis, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. CBI challenging commutation of death sentence — Convicts challenging conviction based on eye-witness inconsistencies, FIR delay, and medical evidence variance. (Para 1 , 12 , 26 )
3. Medical evidence confirms homicidal deaths — Eye-witness testimonies are credible — FIR delay explained — Case does not fall within the rarest of rare category for death penalty. (Para 19 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
4. High Courts and the Supreme Court may impose a special category of life imprisonment for a specific term as an alternative to the death penalty. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
5. Cross-appeals preferred by the investigating agency and the convicts are dismissed. (Para 31 )
6. What is the legal standard for awarding the death penalty in murder cases?
Death sentence is an exception reserved for the rarest of rare cases. Courts must draw a balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ensuring life imprisonment is an inadequate punishment and the crime is of extreme culpability. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. Can a court impose a specific minimum term of imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty?
Yes, the High Court and Supreme Court possess the power to impose a modified punishment providing for a specific term of incarceration, creating a special category of sentence beyond the application of remission, as an alternative to the death penalty. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
8. Does a delay in lodging an FIR or a witness's relationship to the victim invalidate prosecution evidence?
No. If the cause of delay in registering the FIR is satisfactorily explained, the prosecution case is not viewed with suspicion. Similarly, a witness's relationship to the victim does not per se affect their credibility. (Para 28 , 29 )
ORDER :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. This is a set of cross-appeals preferred by (i) Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”), and (ii) the convicts against the judgment dated 14th July, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby five criminal appeals have been decided by way of a common order. While the CBI is aggrieved by the commutation of death sentence, the convicts (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondents–accused’ in the lead case) have questioned their conviction by the Special Court as affirmed by the High Court.
2. Firstly, a very brief reference to the facts may be made. Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange was residing on the outskirts of Khairlanji Village called as ‘Toli’ with his wife Surekha, two sons, Sudhir and Roshan and one daughter, Priyanka. They belong to Mahar caste (Scheduled Caste). Siddharth Gajbhiye (PW-18) of nearby Village Dhusala was their family friend. Siddharth Gajbhiye came to the house of Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange in the morning when Accused no. 2 (Sakru) met him and demanded back wages on account of which there arose a dispute and Siddharth Gajbhiye slapped Sakru. In the evening when Siddharth Gajbhiye was proceeding towards Kandri, he was assaulted by some villagers. Upon hearing the news of the assault, Surekha Bhotmange and Priyanka rushed to the spot and brought Siddharth Gajbhiye to their house. After two days, Siddharth Gajbhiye lodged a report at Andhalgaon Police Station pursuant to which Crime No. 52/06 was registered. Surekha Bhotmange gave a statement identifying the persons who had assaulted Siddharth Gajbhiye. On the basis of that statement, the attackers were arrested. They were released on bail on 29th September, 2006.
3. On 29th September, 2006 itself, at about 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm, a group of about 40 persons surrounded the house of Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange with some of them loudly implying that they were falsely implicated by Surekha. On seeing the crowd, Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange ran from the house whereas Surekha Bhotmange came out of the house and set fire to her cattle shed probably to ward off the attackers. Then Surekha also tried to escape but she was chased and caught by the accused. She was assaulted with sticks, bicycle chains and kicks and fists. Sudhir, son of Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange, tried to run away but he too was caught and assaulted in the same manner as his mother. His body was dragged near the body of Surekha who had already died. All the accused then searched for other family members of Bhaiyyala Sudam Bhotmange. They traced Roshan in the nearby cattle shed. Roshan also tried to run away towards the hand pump but was unfortunately caught and he was assaulted in a manner alike his mother and brother. The accused thereafter caught hold of Priyanka and beat her in the same fashion as described above. Roshan and Priyanka also met with the same fate and they too died at the spot. The accused persons, thereafter, arranged for a bullock cart; took all four dead bodies therein and threw them in a canal.
4. Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange, after running from his house, went to Dhusala and met Sidharth and narrated the incident. Sidharth made a phone call to Andhalgaon Police Station. Thereafter, Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange, accompanied by the son of Siddharth, went to Andhalgaon Police Station but did not lodge any report as he was totally frightened. On the next morning, Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange went in search of his family members but could not trace them. He then went to Andhalgaon Police station and lodged the report. By this time, the police had received information that the dead body of a girl with a tatoo mark ‘Priyanka’ on the hand was found in a canal which was fished out. Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange identified the dead body of Priyanka. On the same day, a case under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was registered.
