2023 Supreme(SC) 1119

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Madan – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1381-1382, 1790 of 2017
Decided On : 09-11-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Past conduct does not necessarily have to be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty.
(2) Advance age is one of mitigating circumstances in favour of convict.
(3) Though motive could be an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in case of direct evidence, motive would not be that relevant.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148 and 449, Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149 read with Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 – Murder of six persons – Life imprisonment – Merely because some of witnesses are interested or inimical witnesses, their evidence cannot be totally discarded – Only requirement is that their evidence has to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection – Merely because there are certain inconsistencies in evidence of witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded – Present case is a case of direct evidence – Though motive could be an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in case of direct evidence, motive would not be that relevant – Evidence of eye witnesses is consistent, reliable, trustworthy and cogent – Merely because there are certain lacunae in investigation, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve testimony of eye-witnesses. (Paras 39, 44 and 47)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148 and 449, Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149 read with Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Murder of six persons – Sentence – Aggravating circumstances and Mitigating circumstances – Normal rule is that offence of murder shall be punished with sentence of life imprisonment – Court can depart from that rule and impose sentence of death only if there are special reasons for doing so – Such reasons are required to be recorded in writing before imposing death sentence – In present case, appellants along with other accused came behind innocent persons and exhorted and started firing indiscriminately – Four innocent persons were shot from behind – Act of appellants and other accused would certainly be one which shocked collective conscience of society and fall in category of rarest of rare cases – While sentencing, Court is not required to apply only ‘crime test’ but also ‘criminal test’ – Appellant is currently 64 years old – He has been in prison for 18 years 3 months – During this entire duration, he has no history of any kind of prison offence – Present case is not a case wherein it can be held that imposition of death penalty is the only alternative – Advance age is one of mitigating circumstances in favour of convict – Past conduct does not necessarily have to be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty – Interest of justice would be met by converting death penalty into life imprisonment i.e.actual imprisonment for a period of 20 years without remission. (Paras 52, 57, 67, 69, 73, 76, 77 and 78)

Facts of the case:

Trial court held accused persons guilty of committing murder of six persons and accordingly convicted appellants herein along with accused Ishwar for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 449, Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC, while accused Ishwar was also additionally convicted for offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. Vide impugned judgment, High Court confirmed judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court in respect of appellant-Madan, while commuting sentence of capital punishment to life imprisonment in respect of appellant-Sudesh Pal.

Findings of Court:

If judgment of High Court is maintained, it would lead to an anomalous situation. Whereas appellant Sudesh Pal would be entitled for consideration of his case for remission and pre-mature release on completion of a particular number of years in accordance with relevant rules, appellant Madan will have to face death penalty.

Result : Criminal Appeals partly allowed.