Back
2011 (2) KCCR 1201
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SREEDHAR RAO & THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE B.V. PINTO
High Court of Karnataka, Rep. by Register General
Versus
Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Others
CRL. RC. NO. 2 OF 2008 C/W CRL. A. NOS. 833 of 2008, 855 of 2008 & 864 of 2008
Decided on : 08-09-2010
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 354(3): [K.Sreedhar Rao & B.V.Pinto,JJ] Penology - Held, The sentencing policy under the Indian Penal Code and Section 354(3) of Cr.P.C. is highly irrational and inequitable. In the scheme of IPC, Section 302, IPC is not the only offence punishable with death sentence. The offence off waging war against the Government of India under Section 121, giving or fabricating false evidence with an intent to indict innocent person convicted for a capital offence under Section 194, kidnap for ransom under Section 364-A and dacoity with murder under Section 396 are all punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life.
In the majority of the cases that are come for trial before the Sessions Court are offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. Normally, the murder is committed by the accused for the reason of infidelity of the wife, domestic quarrels, land dispute, property disputes etc. The majority of the convictions recorded pertain to the offence of murder committed for the above reasons. In view of Section 354(3), the accused in such cases is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The accused in the said type of cases are all well behaved social beings to the entire society at large, except to the victim of crime. The motive for such murder is not diabolical to the society could be indiscriminate target of crime. The offenders who commit murder for trivial reasons cannot be equated with the offenders who commit murders for gainful motives indiscriminately targeting the society at large and it would be unjust to weigh both of them in the same scale. In other words, if both the categories of offenders are punished with imprisonment of life, there would be no rational discrimination in the sentencing policy.
The accused whose criminal propensity is limited only to individuals and the accused whose criminal propensity is harmful to the society at large should not be treated alike in the matter of sentence. In a case of robbery with murder, dacoity with murder, waging war against the Government of India punishable under Section 121, giving or fabricating false evidence with an intention to indict innocent persons convicted for a capital offence which is punishable undr Section 194, kidnap for ransom under Section 36(A) have to be dealt sternly and ruthlessly. Gone are the days to blindly believe the adage "crime never pays". The society is terribly criminalized. It is the utmost duty of the law enforcing authorities to endeavor that the youth of the country should not be attracted to criminal methods for their survival. The accused persons who commit macabre murders for gain should be sternly dealt with. Otherwise the youth of the country would be lured to take the path of crime for easy life and livelihood. Therefore, in the later category of cases depending upon the manner and magnitude of the acts of accused. The death sentence should be imposed considering it as a rarest of rare case.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 374(2): [K.Sreedhar Rao & B.V.Pinto, JJ] Appeal against conviction - Penalty of Death Sentence imposed by Trial Court - Discrimination in sentencing policy under the Indian Penal Code in respect of murders of trivial reasons and murders for gainful motives - Held, It would be unjust to weigh both of them in the same scale. In the majority of the cases that are come for trial before the Sessions Court are offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Normally, the murder is committed by the accused for the reason of infidelity of the wife, domestic quarrels, land dispute, property disputes etc. The majority of the convictions recorded pertain to the offence of murder committed for the above reasons. In view of Section 354(3), the accused in such cases in sentenced to imprisonment for life. The accused in the said type of cases are all well behaved social beings to the entire society at large, except to the victim or crime. The motive for such murders is not diabolical to the society at large, whereas, when a crime committed for gainful motive, anybody in the society could be indiscriminate target of crime. The offender who commit murder for trivial reasons cannot be equated with the offenders who commit murders for gainful motives indiscriminately targeting the society at large and it would be unjust to weigh both of them in the same scale. In other words, if both the categories of offenders are punished with imprisonment of life, there would be no rational discrimination in the sentencing policy. Further, Gone are the days to blindly believe the adage "crime never pays". The society is terribly criminalized. It is the utmost duty of the law enforcing authorities to endeavour that the youth of the country should not be attracted to criminal methods for their survival. The accused persons who commit macabre murders for gain should be sternly dealt with. Otherwise the youth of the country would be lured to take the path of crime of the country would be lured to take the path of crime for easy life and livelihood. Therefore, in the later category of cases depending upon the manner and magnitude of the acts of accused. The death sentence should be imposed considering it as a rarest of rare cases. - On facts, held, The facts and evidence in the case disclose the accused are almost middle aged, there are no extenuating circumstances of unemployment and extreme poverty. The manner in which the gruesome murder is committed and the attempts made by them by suppressing the evidence to screen them from punishment would show their pre-mediated and horrendous intentions and does not permit any leniency in the matter of sentence. Therefore, the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court deserved to be upheld.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 302: [K.Sreedhar Rao & B.V.Pinto,JJ] Murder - Sentence - Robbery with murder - Accused are almost middle aged - There are no extenuating circumstances of unemployment and extreme poverty - Held, Manner in which gruesome murder is committed and the attempts made by them by suppressing evidence to screen them from punishment shows their pre-mediated and horrendous intentions and does not permit any leniency in matter of sentence. Death sentence imposed by trial Court is proper.
1. The appellants in the three appeals are Accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively before the trial court (for Short A1 to A3). The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Prahallad – PW1 is a commission agent purchasing agricultural produce like ginger and other food grains from the cultivators and sell them to wholesale dealers i.e., PW2 and PW 12 at Sagar. PW2 and PW12 were due to pay Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/-respectively towards carting ginger to PW1.
2. On 8/8/2005, PW1 deputed his nephew Madhusudhan (deceased) to collect cash from PW2 and PW12. The deceased accordingly went and collected Rs.2,50,000/- from PW2 and Rs1,50,000/- from PW12 around 12.30 p.m. at Sagar and he did not return to Anandpur. PW1 had gone out station on business and returned to Anandpur at 3.30 p.m. He found that the deceased had not returned from Sagar. He contacted PW2 and PW12. They informed that the deceased had collected cash and gone away. The whereabouts of the deceased was not known. PW2 and PW12 gave a missing complaint around 9.30 p.m. to the police narrating the above facts. The PW1 made extensive search to trace the whereabouts of the deceased. He heard rumors from the people that A1 to A3 have kidnapped the deceased in the Maruti van belonging to A1, robbed cash and kept the deceased in confinement. PW1 on 11/8/2005 around 3.00 p.m. lodged a written complaint to the police narrating the above facts as per Ex.P1.wherein he makes a specific mention suspecting that the accused persons have kidnapped and robbed the cash and kept the deceased Madhusudhan in confinement and request for action.
3. On 12/8/2005, A3 was arrested in the morning at Anandpur, later on after some time; A2 was arrested by a separate team of police officers at Bangalore in the house of PW 10. A1 make extra-judicial confession before PW13 and requests to save him from prosecution. At the advice of PW13, A1 surrendered at the police station on the same day. The voluntary statements of A1 and A3 are recorded at Exs.P82, P81 and P80 respectively.
4. After the arrest of A3 volunteered and showed the place where the dead body was buried in the forest. On exhumation only, the trunk of the body was found. The head was cut off and said to have been thrown in the near by Nandi river. The mahazar of the exhumation proceedings is at Ex.P.39, PW15 to PW 17 and CW22 are the mahazar witnesses. Further from the possession of A3, a cash of Rs.1,01,000/- kept it in his house and a mobile – M.O.11 is recovered under mahazar – Ex.P.46. PW17 and CW22 are the mahazar witnesses.
5. A2 was arrested at Bangalore and was brought to Sagar by about 3.00 p.m. At his voluntary instance, the clothing of the deceased and wire used for strangulation, which was buried near the place where the dead body was buried is recovered vide mahazar Ex.P.43. PW17 and CW22 are the panch witness for the recovery. Further a cash of Rs. 2,02,000/- is recovered which he had concealed in the cattle shed of his house vide mahazar Rx.P.44 PW17 and CW22 are the panch witnesses.
6. At the voluntary instance of A1, Maruti van used for the commission of offence is seized vide mahazar Ex.P.47. PW17 and CW22 are the panch witnesses. Further a cash of Rs.30,000/- is recovered along with a packet containing chilli powder packet wide mahazar – Ex.P.48. PW17 and CW22 are the mahazar witnesses. A1 also led the police to the place where he had thrown the chappals of the deceased, PW25 had collected those chappals. The chappals are seized under mahazar-Ex.P50. PW19 and CW30 are the panch witnesses to the mahazar.
7. The prosecution case further discloses that the accused knew that the deceased was in the possession of huge cash. Therefore, took him in their Maruti van. While on the way, deceased was strangulated with a nylon rope and killed. The vehicle was stopped. The dead body was taken into the forest. A2 beheaded the neck, threw the head and spade near the Nandi river. The clothing was taken out a
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
