SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.C. Ray and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.
Sevaka Perumal etc. - Appellants
versus
State of Tamil Nadu- Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 345-346 of 1991
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1841-42 of 1990) .
Decided on 7.5.1991

IMPORTANT POINT
It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed and committed etc. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 364, 392 r/ws 397,302/34 - Murder case - It is not an absolute necessity or an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti - To base a conviction there should be reliable and acceptable evidence that the offence of murder, like any other factum, of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, although the dead body may not be traced.

       Held: In this case the evidence of P.Ws. 7 to 10 would establish that they have seen the dead body of the deceased Hariramachandran in the well and brought it out and the photograph was taken at the time of inquest. It was identified to be that of the deceased by no other than his mother, P.W.2. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that there is no doubt as regards the identity of the dead body and that the medical evidence establishes that the deceased died due to stabbing with sharp edged weapon like knife. (Para, 5)

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114 (b) & 133 - Evidence of an approver - Reliability ,of the;

       Held: That an approver is a competent witness against the accused person. But the court, to satisfy its conscience, insists as caution and prudence to seek, as a rule, corroboration to the evidence of the approver, a particips criminis from independent evidence occular or circumstantial, of general particulars regarding the story spoken off by the approver of the commission of the crime and the part played by the accused therein to find whether It is true and worthy of acceptance. The reliability of the evidence of an approver should be considered from totality of the facts and circumstances. In the trial of Athiappan murder there is no dispute that such a corroborative evidence connecting both the appellants is available which was minutely considered by the trial court and the High Court arid was accepted. We find no infirmity in that regard. In the trial of the death of Hariramachandran, A.2 was acquitted on the ground that his extra-judicial confession made to P.W. 23, the only corroborative evidence, was disbelieved by the High Court. Both the courts below gave categorical finding that P.W. 1 is a reliable witness. The evidence of the approver received corroboration from independent evidence on general prosecution case, namely, P.W. 16 spoke that the deceased was brought by the accused and stayed in die lodge. P.Ws. 2 to 4 spoke of A-1 working in their shop, previous thefts by A-1 and M.O. l being missing, their attempt to take back the deceased and M.O. l, the dead body was found in the well and was taken out as spoken t9by P.Ws. 7 to 10. The medical evidence establishes the stabbing with the knife and death was due to it P. W. 24corroborates A. l of selling M.O. l chain and taking the money. The canopy of the material evidence from independent sources sufficiently corroborates the approver's evidence. P.W.1 is a reliable witness. No infirmity has been pointed out to disbelieve his evidence. (Para 7)

       (iii) Criminal Trail - Sentencing- Benefit of doubt does not enter in the area of consideration of imposing sentence.

       (iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 364, 392 r/ws 397, 302/34 - Murder case - Accused indulged in illegal business of purchase & sale of ganja - They conspired to entice innocent boys from affluent families took them to far fling places where the dead body, could not be identified - Four murders in a span of five years were committed for gain in cold blooded, pre-meditated and planned way Death sentence awarded need not be interfer - red with - Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justi4:e system - It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence.

       Held: In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation of sentencing process be stem where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstance in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. For instance a murder committed due to deep seated personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organised crime or mass murders of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence.

       Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system, to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats. If the courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengence. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. (para 9)

       Result: Appeals dismissed.