2003(3) Crimes 167 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ.
Dayanidhi Bisoi —Appellant
versus
State of Orissa —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2003
Decided on 23-7-2003

IMPORTANT POINT
When the murder of all three members of a family is committed in such a deliberate and diabolic manner while the victims were sleeping without any provocation from the victims side, that too having enjoyed the hospitality and kindness of the victims, indicates the cold blooded and premeditated approach of the accused deserving death ­sentence.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder of three members of a family—Circumstantial evidence—Appellant related to deceased and was on visiting terms with them—On evening of 3-6-1998 he was in company of deceased—He was seen leaving house of deceased on morning of 4-6-1998—On that intervening night deceased met homicidal death—Weapon, a knife containing blood of same group as that of one of the deceased recovered at the instance of appellant—Appellant in need of money—Gold ornaments belonging to deceased were in possession of appellant, recovered at his instance from his house—Finger prints of appellant with blood stains found in house of deceased immediately after murder discovered—Prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt involvement of appellant in murder of three deceased—Conviction confirmed.

       Held : The courts below in the absence of direct evidence have relied upon 11 circumstances to come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence charged against him. The said circumstances are as follow:-

       (i) At the relevant time the accused was in need of money;

       (ii) On the night intervening between the 3rd and 4th June, 1998 the accused was found absent from his village;

       (iii) The accused was found in the company of deceased Anirudha in the night of occurrence i.e. 3rd June, 1998;

       (iv) On the next morning of 4-6-1998 the accused was seen going away from the direction of the house of the deceased;

       (v) On the night of 3-6-1998 the neighbours were told by deceased Lata that a relative is present in their house as guest;

       (vi) On the next morning the appellant was found absent from the flat when the dead bodies of the deceased persons were discovered.

       (vii) Homicidal nature of death of all deceased; similar modus operandi.

       (viii) While in custody the accused led to the discovery of:

       (a) the weapon of offence.

       (b) a wrist watch suspected to be belonging to deceased Lata and cash.

       (c) The ornaments of the deceased Lata and her daughter Puja.

       (ix) The accused was visiting the house of the deceased and had weakness towards Lata.

       (x) The nail clippings collected from the accused were found to be stained with blood.

       (xi) Matching of the blood stained finger prints and chance finger prints found from the scene of ­occurrence with specimen finger prints of the accused.

       The courts below have very elaborately discussed the material produced by the prosecution while accepting each of the above circumstances. In the normal course, there would have been no need for us to go into these circumstances as elaborately as was done by the two courts below in an appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, especially when the finding in this regard is concurrent. But taking into consideration that the appellant is facing a death sentence and the case in hand is one of circumstantial evidence, we think it appropriate and in the interest of justice to re-appreciate the evidence brought on record by the prosecution to assure ourselves that the finding of the two courts below is appropriate on the material available on record. (Paras 10 & 11)

       From the above circumstances discussed by us namely— (a) that the appellant was ­related to the deceased and was on visiting terms with them and on the evening of 3-6-1998 he was in the company of Anirudha and was seen leaving the house of Anirudha on the morning of 4-6-1998 coupled with the fact that he was not in his own village as also the statement of deceased Lata made to PW-3 that she had a visitor from the village for dinner shows that the appellant was in the company of the deceased on the night of 3rd and was last seen leaving the place in the morning of 4-6-1998 and that the appellant was in need of money; (b) and that on that intervening night the deceased met homicidal death because of the injuries caused by a weapon like M.O.VIII containing blood of the same group as that of Puja was recovered at the instance of the appellant; (c) and that the appellant was in need of money; (d) and that the gold ornaments belonging to deceased Lata and Puja were in the possession of the appellant on 4-6-1998 and were sold to PW-17 for a sum of Rs. 7200/- which money was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house; (c) and that the Titan ladies wrist watch belonging to deceased Lata was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house; (f) and that the finger prints of the appellant with blood stains were found in the house of the deceased immediately after the murder was discovered, in our considered opinion, show that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that these incriminating circumstances indicate a hypothesis consistent only with the guilt of the accused and each and every such circumstance form a link completing a chain of circumstances without break establishing the involvement of the appellant in the murder of Anirudha, Lata and Puja. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the prosecution case concurring with the finding of the two courts below in regard to the guilt of the appellant. Since the courts below have elaborately discussed the case law applicable to various issues involved in this case, we do not think it necessary for us to reconsider the same, having independently considered the material produced by the prosecution as against the appellant. (Paras 22 & 23)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Death Sentence—Conviction for murder of three members of a family—Sentence—Cold blooded and pre-meditated approach of appellant—Three deceased being husband, wife and a child of three years of age—Murders committed to gain monetary benefits—Extenuating circumstances—Appellant aged 25 years having surviving relatives Rarest of rare cases—Death sentence justified.

       Held : For awarding a punishment of death sentence, there must be some special reasons, the courts should give relative weight to the aggravating and mitigating factors available on the facts of the case, the case in question should be a rarest of the rare case. Having noticed the above principles broadly laid down by this Court to be borne in mind by the courts while awarding death penalty, we find both the courts below have considered each and every aspect required to be taken note of by the courts before choosing to award the death sentence in this case. On re-appreciation of those material on record, we find no reason to differ from the said findings of the courts below. The fact that the murder in question is committed in such a deliberate and diabolic manner while the victims were sleeping, without any provocation whatsoever from the victims side, that too having enjoyed the hospitality and kindness of the victims, indicates the cold blooded and premeditated approach of the appellant to put to death the victims which include a child of three years age just to gain some monetary benefit. In our opinion, the extenuating circumstances put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the age of the appellant, his surviving relatives and the possibility of rehabilitation would not, in our opinion, justify the courts to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the findings of the courts below and coming to the conclusion that the case in hand is a rarest of the rare case involving a pre-planned brutal murder without provocation, hence, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere even with the quantum of punishment awarded by the courts below. (Para 25)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.