2006 Supreme(Kar) 385

Karnataka High Court
Judges : B.PADMARAJ,S.ABDUL NAZEER
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ETC - Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH JADAV ETC - Respondent
C/W Cri. A 11 Of 2006
Decided On : 06/01/2006
Advocates Appeared :
B.V.Pinto, M.T.NANAIAH, S.Dorairaj

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Death sentence -Section 354(3) -Death sentence -Award of -Court should record special reasons therefor. [B. Padmaraj and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.] - In every incidence of murder, brutality is involved. Brutality, obviously would be an existing factor, but how the same did take place is the relevant and necessary material to be considered. It is no doubt true, that the measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct of the criminal etc., Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to the cry of the society of justice against criminals. Justice demands that Court should impose punishment befitting the crime, so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of criminals, but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. While it is true, punishment disproportionately severe ought not to be passed but that does not even sloth the law Courts, however, with an option to award the sentence which would be manifestly inadequate having due regard to the nature of the offence since an inadequate sentence would not sub-serve the cause of justice to the Society. In the contextual fact, we do not find the brutality of such a nature so as to exercise the discretion of passing an order of capital punishment-undoubtedly, brutality is involved but that brutality by itself will not bring it within the ambit of rarest of rare cases. Admittedly, this is a case which rests entirely upon the circumstantial evidence. The material evidence placed on record would indicate that the accused was a neighbor of PW-9. He has a wife and a male child aged about 4 or 5 years. The accused did not have a female child. He had a lot of affection and love towards the deceased child. The accused, at the relevant point of time, was a mason while his wife was engaged in preparing food in the house of others. The incident in question took place on 27.9.2004 and we are now in 2006. The accused was aged about 31 years at the time of this incident. The accused has a wife and a male child who may have to be maintained now out of the paltry earnings of the wife of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had any criminal antecedents. Court was conscious of the fact that none of these circumstances individually taken can be considered as sufficient to impose the lesser sentence, but cumulatively they leave different impressions in our mind more so when the case of the prosecution rests entirely upon the circumstantial evidence. Court came to the conclusion, but not without hesitation, that ends of justice will be met if the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence u/s. 302 of IPC. On the wake of the aforesaid and having regard to the nature of the offence and the methodology adopted, we are convinced that the punishment awarded to the accused here is in excess of the requirement of the Constitution and as such, while recording our concurrence as recorded by the Trial Court, in the Judgment impugned, as regards the guilt of the accused u/s 302 of the IPC, Court was inclined to modify the sentence of death to that of life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC against the accused.

       Indian Penal Code, 19860 -Circumstantial evidence -Sections 302, 392 & 201 -Circumstantial evidence -Evidence led by prosecution led to conclusion that accused was responsible for the overt act of murder -Order holding accused guilty is proper. [B. Padmarja and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.] - The Investigating Officer conducted a very investigation and to the best of his ability, he collected all the material relevant to prove the guilt of the accused. As we have already stated, the appellant-accused was arrested from his house at Harihar and the evidence against him is the recovery of MOs-l and 2 belonging to the deceased and also the pointing out of various places which have relevance to the crime pursuant to the voluntary statement made by the accused to the Investigating Officer P W25 during the course of interrogation. Further, the accused was found leaving the house with the suitcase MO.l2 and telling a lie that he would be going to shimoga though he is fact went to Davanagere where he had disposed of the two ornaments of the deceased child MOs-l and 2 at the shop of PW-10. All these circumstances which are brought on record by the prosecution would point out to the guilt of the accused. The accused has no satisfactory explanation as to how he came to be in possession of such articles MOs 1 and 2nd also as to how he came to know of all such places which are connected with the crime. The fact of with the other circumstances established by the prosecution would only lead to the conclusion that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased child. The removal of the articles MOs-1 and 2 from the person of the deceased child and concealment of the dead body of the deceased child in a gunny bag which was found abandoned in one of the compartment of the Inter City train, more so, when the accused has no case that he had come to possess MOs-l and 2 from some other person and that further he had come to know of such places for any other reason.

       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Death sentence -Section 354(3) -Death sentence -Award of -Court should record special reasons therefor. [B. Padmaraj and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.] - In every incidence of murder, brutality is involved. Brutality, obviously would be an existing factor, but how the same did take place is the relevant and necessary material to be considered. It is no doubt true, that the measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct of the criminal etc., Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to the cry of the society of justice against criminals. Justice demands that Court should impose punishment befitting the crime, so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of criminals, but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. While it is true, punishment disproportionately severe ought not to be passed but that does not even sloth the law Courts, however, with an option to award the sentence which would be manifestly inadequate having due regard to the nature of the offence since an inadequate sentence would not sub-serve the cause of justice to the Society. In the contextual fact, we do not find the brutality of such a nature so as to exercise the discretion of passing an order of capital punishment-undoubtedly, brutality is involved but that brutality by itself will not bring it within the ambit of rarest of rare cases. Admittedly, this is a case which rests entirely upon the circumstantial evidence. The material evidence placed on record would indicate that the accused was a neighbor of PW-9. He has a wife and a male child aged about 4 or 5 years. The accused did not have a female child. He had a lot of affection and love towards the deceased child. The accused, at the relevant point of time, was a mason while his wife was engaged in preparing food in the house of others. The incident in question took place on 27.9.2004 and we are now in 2006. The accused was aged about 31 years at the time of this incident. The accused has a wife and a male child who may have to be maintained now out of the paltry earnings of the wife of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had any criminal antecedents. Court was conscious of the fact that none of these circumstances individually taken can be considered as sufficient to impose the lesser sentence, but cumulatively they leave different impressions in our mind more so when the case of the prosecution rests entirely upon the circumstantial evidence. Court came to the conclusion, but not without hesitation, that ends of justice will be met if the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence u/s. 302 of IPC. On the wake of the aforesaid and having regard to the nature of the offence and the methodology adopted, we are convinced that the punishment awarded to the accused here is in excess of the requirement of the Constitution and as such, while recording our concurrence as recorded by the Trial Court, in the Judgment impugned, as regards the guilt of the accused u/s 302 of the IPC, Court was inclined to modify the sentence of death to that of life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC against the accused.