Important Point
Unless the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender reveal that the criminal is a menace to the society and the sentence of life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate the court should ordinarily impose the lesser punishment and not the extreme punishment of death which should be reserved for exceptional cases only.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 366(1) —Murder—Appellant with sword like weapon amputed right hand and head of deceased—With head of deceased went to Police Station—Sessions Judge considering evidence of witnesses corroborated by medical evidence found—Appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC—Applying principles laid down by Supreme Court concluded it is rarest of rare case—Sentenced appellant to death—Referred case to High Court under Section 366(1) Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence—Appeal against conviction and sentence—High Court confirmed conviction and sentence of death—Appeal to Supreme Court—Circumstances when weighed against aggravating circumstances case falls within category of rarest of rare cases—Trial Court correctly applied principles in awarding death sentence—No error of Law committed by High Court in confirming same—Death sentence upheld.
       Held : These circumstances when weighed against the aggravating circumstances leave us in no doubt that this case falls within the category of rarest of rare cases. The trial Court has correctly applied the principles in awarding the death sentence and the High Court has committed no error of law in confirming the same. (Para 15)
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

S. Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—The appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in S.C. No. 114 (K) of 1996 on 18.8.1997 which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Death Ref. No. 2 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 254 (J) of 1997 on 3.2.1998. Against the judgment of the High Court, this appeal is filed by special leave. This Court admitted the appeal limited to the question of sentence.

2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant is that in the morning hours, around 7 a.m., on April 24, 1996 Hara Kanta Das was taking his morning cup of tea on the corner tea stall of M.G. Road and Chamber Road, Guwahati along with others, the appellant arrived at the scene with a sword like weapon and with it dealt blows to Hara Kanta Das who fell down on the ground. The appellant amputed the right hand and thereafter severed the head of Hara Kanta Das (the deceased). With the head of the deceased in one hand and the blood dripping weapon in the other hand, he moved majestically towards Fancy Bazar Police Out Post. The occurrence was witnessed by persons standing there of whom PW 3, Kalu Das, PW 5, Gaya Prasad and PW 8, Gauri Sankar Thakur were examined as eye witnesses. Ratan Rai, PW 1, the sweeper rushed to the police station to inform about the incident. There he found the appellant entering into the Police Out Post. PW 2, Rateshwar Barman was on duty. The appellant asked PW 2, where he should keep the head and the weapon and placed them in the verandah of the police station. The weapon was seized and marked as Ext. 1 after conducting inquest over the head. After taking the head to the scene of occurrence where the body was lying, another inquest was conducted and the body was sent to the Doctors for conducting post mortem examination. PW 9, Dr. Pratap Ch. Sarmah, conducted the post mortem examination and sent report, Ext. 14. PW 9 noted that the head of the deceased was severed from the body which was having as many as nine injuries on it.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati having considered the evidence of eye witnesses, which was corroborated by the medical evidence, found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. On the question of sentence the learned Sessions Judge gave an opportunity to the appellant to state the mitigating circumstances, if any, and noted that he did not state anything relevant and that he even refused to put his signatures on his statement. The learned Sessions Judge mentioned that the appellant remained uncooperative, on being asked further questions in regard to sentence. In the circumstances of the case having applied the principles laid down by this Court, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that it is rarest of the rare case and accordingly sentenced the appellant to death and referred the case to the High Court under Section 366(1) Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence. The reference was numbered as Criminal Death Ref. No. 2 of 1997.

4. Against his conviction and sentence, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 254 (J) of 1997 in the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh at Gauhati. That appeal and Criminal Death Ref. No. 2 of 1997 were heard together. After elaborate consideration of all the facts and law, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of death passed by the learned Sessions Judge by its judgment dated February 3, 1998, referred to above.

5. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant was not properly represented before the trial Court as well as the High Court at the material time; he is a young man of 33 years and having three unmarried sisters and aged parents; he was also not well at the time of occurrence. The case has also not been investigated properly and there is no material to show that he has become menace

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (7)