2020 Supreme(SC) 341

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE, M. R. SHAH, JJ.
Manoj Suryavanshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ……….. OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8682 of 2014]
Decided On : 05-3-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) For deciding on issue of sentence, aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances must be located and right balance must be adopted.
(2) Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in statements of prosecution witnesses and minor lacuna in investigation led by Police cannot be a reason for discarding entire prosecution case, if evidence is otherwise sufficient and inspiring to bring home guilt of accused.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 364 – Kidnapping and murder of three children – Death sentence – Accused was last seen together with deceased minors – Dead bodies which were found from places shown by accused – Accused has failed to give any explanation on the same in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Accused has failed to explain his conduct in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about his missing from house and even village after incident of kidnapping – Prosecution has been successful in establishing and proving that accused was having enmity with father of three deceased minor children – Phone-calls made to accused has been established and proved by prosecution by examining Investigating Officer and by producing call details from mobile company – Conviction of accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 IPC upheld. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 364 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Kidnapping and murder of three children – Death sentence – For deciding on issue of sentence, aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances must be located and right balance must be adopted – Only aggravating circumstance pointed out by State is that manner in which incident took place and three minors were brutally killed – Except that, no other aggravating circumstances pointed out on behalf of State – Striking balance between aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, in facts and circumstances of case, more particularly, mental condition of accused at the time of commission of offence and that accused was under extreme mental disturbance due to his wife eloped with uncle of deceased and his children were deprived of company of their mother, mitigating circumstances are in favour of accused to convert death sentence to life imprisonment – Death penalty converted to life imprisonment – There shall not be any remission till accused completes 25 years of imprisonment. (Paras 25.4, 25.6 and 26)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 235(2) – Sentence – Object and purpose of Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. is that accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against sentence to be imposed on him – Sub-section (2) of Section 235 satisfies a dual purpose; it satisfies rule of natural justice by affording to accused an opportunity of being heard on question of sentence and at the same time helps court to choose sentence to be awarded – There is no absolute proposition of law that in no case there can be conviction and sentence on same day – If accused is ready to submit his arguments on this aspect on the very day of pronouncement of judgment of conviction, it is open for Trial Court to hear parties on sentence on same day after passing judgment of conviction. (Para 23)

(D) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in statements of prosecution witnesses and minor lacuna in investigation led by Police cannot be a reason for discarding entire prosecution case, if evidence is otherwise sufficient and inspiring to bring home guilt of accused – Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence – Different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless; some start wailing while some others run away from scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that wrong should be remedied – It depends upon individuals and individuals – There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive. (Para 21)

Facts of the Case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2013 and Criminal Reference No. 05 of 2013, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant-original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and death sentence awarded by Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for having killed the three minor children of the complainant and also for offences punishable under Section 364 of the IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.

Findings of the Court:

Striking the balance between aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the mental condition of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence and that the accused was under extreme mental disturbance due to his wife eloped with the uncle of the deceased and his children were deprived of the company of their mother, the mitigating circumstances are in favour of the accused to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.