Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Ravji @ Ram Chandra - Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1595 of 1995
Decided on 5-12-1995
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Natarajan, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhati.
Held: After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record through which we have been taken and after considering the judgments passed by the courts below, it appears to us that the commission of crimes by the appellant, namely, murdering five persons including the wife and three minor children of the appellant and attempt to murder two others has been clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. Although the mother of the appellant who herself was injured while attempting to prevent her son from committing the murder of wife and three minor children, has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared as a hostile witness, the evidences adduced in this case are so clear that the courts below had no difficulty in holding that the appellant was guilty of murdering his wife and three minor children and injuring his own mother in an attempt to kill her. In our view, such finding has been made on the basis of the reliable and clinching evidence adduced in the case and we find no reason to take a contrary view. The prosecution case that the appellant had murdered Gulabji and also attempted to kill Smt. Galal has, also been established by unimpeachable, convincing and reliable evidences. Smt. Galal who herself was injured has deposed and the wife of Shri Gulabji who has seen the commission of murder of Gulabji has also deposed in the case. Therefore, the finding that the appellant is guilty of the offence of attempting to kill Smt. Galal and he is also guilty of murdering Gulabji is wholly justified and no interference is called for with such finding. (Para 18)
(ii) I.P.C., 1860 - Sections 302 and 307 Conviction for murdering five people and attempt to murder two persons upheld - Death penalty passed by trial Court confirmed by High Court - Further appeal to Supreme Court - Whether there is any justification to commute the death penalty to imprisonment for life? (No)
Held: In our view, in the facts of the case, it has been very clearly established that the appellant has committed one of the most heinous crimes by killing his poor wife who was in advanced stage of pregnancy and three minor children for no fault on their part. The appellant had a solemn duty to protect them and to maintain them but he has betrayed the trust reposed on him in a very cruel and calculated manner without any provocation whatsoever. The appellant did not even spare his mother who very rightly tried to prevent him from committing such unpardonable crime. The appellant also attacked his mother with the axe which he had used to kill his wife and minor children and caused injures on her person with an intention to kill her. The brutality and cruelty with which the crimes have been perpetrated cannot but shock the conscience of the society. After killing the wife and three minor children and injuring the mother he did not become remorseful and desist from committing any further crime. But like a blood thirsty demon, in a cool and calculated manner he went to one of the neighbour's house and attempted to kill the wife of the neighbour while she was asleep and as such utterly helpless to give any resistance. When in his attempt to flee away from the place of occurrence, the poor old Gulabji came on his way, the appellant did not hesitate to kill him in extremely brutal manner before the eyes of his wife. All the said heinous crimes were committed without any provocation. The appellant was not even remorseful after the said incident of successive five murders and attempt to kill two others including the appellant's mother. The appellant did not go to see the ailing mother injured by him and did not also attend the funeral of his wife and even his three innocent minor children. The crimes had been committed with utmost cruelty and brutality without any provocation, in a calculated manner. It is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which, are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has peen perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. In our view, if for such heinous crimes the most deterrent punishment for wanton and brutal murders is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will loose its relevance. We, therefore, do not find any justification to commute the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The appeal therefore must fail and is dismissed.
(Para 23)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
G.N. Ray, J.- Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against judgment dated March 22, 1995 passed by the Division Bench; Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench). By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the death sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No. 122/93 against the appellant in D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 3/94 and dismissed D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 602/94 preferred by the appellant before the High Court against the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of death awarded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the said Sessions Case No. 122/93.
3. The appellant sent a Special Leave Petition from the Jail where he is lodged. Initially a learned counsel of this Court was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the case of the appellant. Later on, the appellant wrote a letter to the Registry of this Court expressing his intention that one of the three advocates mentioned by him in his letter may be engaged to represent his case before this Court. Pursuant to such request, Mr. Natarajan, a senior advocate of this Court agreed to appear as amicus curiae in deference to the desire of the appellant. We appreciate such gesture on the part of Mr. Natarajan, for accepting the case of the appellant as amicus curiae.
The appellant was committed to a Sessions Trial in Sessions Case No. 122/93 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, on the charge of committing murder of five persons including the wife and three minor sons of the appellant and attempting to murder his own mother and the wife of a neighbour. The trial court after relying on the evidences of witnesses including injured eye-witnesses inter alia came to the finding that the prosecution had established by leading cogent evidence that the appellant was guilty of murdering five persons and he was also guilty for attempting to murder his mother Smt. Mangi (PW 12) and a neighbour's wife Smt. Galal (PW 4). Considering the fact that the commission of the said murders was committed in a brutal and barbaric manner the trial court after convicting the appellant under Sections 302 IPC sentenced him to death penalty. Such sentence of death was referred to the Rajasthan High Court for confirmation. The reference for confirmation of death sentence was numbered as D .B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 3/94. The appellant also preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 122/93. Such appeal was numbered as D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 602/94. Both the said Murder Reference No. 3/94 and Jail Appeal No. 602/94 were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment dated March 22, 1995, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 602/94 and confirming the death sentence by allowing Murder Reference No. 3/94.
4. Mr. Natarajan, the learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curiae for the appellant, has submitted that in the instant case there is no direct evidence regarding the allegation of murdering four persons by the appellant namely his wife and three minor children. Admittedly, besides the said dead persons, only mother of the appellant was present in the house at the time of murdering wife and minor children of the appellant. The mother of the appellant herself was injured by the assailant who had murdered appellant's wife and three minor children. But the mother who was examined as PW 12 did not support the prosecution case. She has deposed that some unknown person murdered her daughter-in-law and three grand children and also injured her. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. Hence, there is no direct evidence that the appellant had murdered his wife and three minor sons. The prosecution case has been sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence. But motive for murdering wife and three minor sons is totally absent. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes considerable signifi
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
