2013 Supreme(UK) 437

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2007
SUSHIL SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI – Respondent
Decided on : 08.10.2013

Headnote:(A) Murder Trial — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Analysis of evidence — Chain of circumstance found to be complete and pointed unerringly to the guilt of the appellant — Appellant and deceased had fallen in love with each other — They belonged to different religions and deceased got married to the appellant in year 1992 — Appellant lived with the deceased and there used to be frequent quarrels between the two and the appellant used to beat the deceased with legs, fists and dandaa — Though parents of the deceased, neighbours and servant knew that the appellant and the deceased were married to each other but, the marriage was not made public — Appellant was reluctant to do so and was suspecting deceased’s fidelity and on account of this suspicion, he used to quarrel with her and beat her — These circumstances established by evidence adduced by the prosecution leads to conclusion that there was a strong motive for the appellant to do away with the deceased — And established circumstances were capable of giving rise to the inference which was inconsistent with any other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellant — The prosecution had proved that the appellant alone had committed the murder of the deceased on 2.7.1995 — Appellant conspired with A2 to get rid of the dead body of the deceased so as to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder and, at the instance of the appellant, A2 burnt the dead body in the tandoor — Appellant rightly convicted u/s 302, IPC and for offence u/s 201 r/w Sec. 120-B, IPC. (Paras 26, 28, 57)

       (B) Murder Trial — Death sentence — In a case of circumstantial evidence the courts should lean towards life imprisonment — Every murder is brutal — Brutality alone would not be a ground for judging whether the case is one of the rarest of rare cases — It should be considered whether the accused had a criminal history whether he was a criminal or a professional killer and whether he will be an ardent criminal and a menace to the society. (Para 59)

       (C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302/201 r/w Sec. 120-B — Conviction and sentence under — Passing of lighter sentence — Aggravating cicumstances and mitigating circumstances — Consideration of — That whether the circumstances of the crime were such that there was no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender — Held that mere brutality of the murder or the number of persons killed or the manner in which the body was disposed of not always persuade to impose death penalty — In the peculiar factual matrix, death penalty in cases, which rested on circumstantial evidence or solely on approver’s evidence — Where murder, though brutal, is committed driven by extreme emotional disturbance and it does not have enormous proportion, the option of life imprisonment could be exercised in certain cases — And where the accused had no criminal antecedents; where the State had not led any evidence to show that the accused was beyond reformation and rehabilitation or that he would revert to similar crimes in future — Court favours life imprisonment. (Paras 58, 78 to 80)

       ¼v½ gR;k ijh{k.k & ikfjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ij vk/kkfjr okn & lk{; dk fo’ys”k.k & ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh dM+h iw.kZ Fkh o vihykFkhZ dh vijkf/kdrk Hkh fl) ik;h xbZ & vihykFkhZ o e`rdk ,d nwljs ls izse djrs Fks & os nksuksa fofHké /keks± ds Fks vkSj e`rdk dh ‘kknh vihykFkhZ ls o”kZ 1992 esa gqbZ Fkh & vihykFkhZ e`rdk ds lkFk jgrk Fkk vkSj muds chp fujUrj >xMs+ gksrs Fks & vihykFkhZ e`rdk dks ykrksa] ?kwlksa o M.Mksa ls ihVrk Fkk & ;|fi e`rdk ds ekrk&firk] iM+kslh o ukSdjksa dks ;g Kkr Fkk fd vihykFkhZ vkSj e`rdk fookfgr Fks] dfFkr fookg dks lkoZtfud ugha fd;k x;k Fkk & vihykFkhZ blds fy, vfuPNqd Fkk vkSj e`rdk dh fu”Bk ij lansg djrk Fkk] ftl dkj.k muds chp >xM+k gksrk Fkk vkSj og mls ihVrk Fkk & vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr lHkh lk{;ksa }kjk LFkkfir fd vihykFkhZ ds ikl izcy gsrq Fkk e`rdk ls ihNk NqM+kus ds fy, & vkSj LFkkfir ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk fu”d”kZ flQZ vihykFkhZ dk vijk/kh gksuk gh fl) djrk gS & vfHk;kstu ;g fl) djus esa lQy Fkk fd 2-7-1995 dks vihykFkhZ }kjk gh e`rdk dh gR;k dkfjr Fkh & vkSj vihykFkhZ us A2 ds lkFk “kM;U= jp gR;k ds lcwrksa dks feVkus ds fy;s e`rdk ds e`r ‘kjhj dks fBdkus yxk;k Fkk vkSj ranwj esa tyk;k Fkk & vihykFkhZ dks u/s 302, I.P.C. vkSj u/s 201 r/w Sec. 120-B, I.P.C. vkjksfir djuk mfprA ¼izLrj 26] 28] 57½

       ¼c½ gR;k okn & e`R;q n.M & ikfjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ds okn esa vnkyr dks vkthou dkjkokl ij fopkj djuk pkfg, & izR;sd gR;k fueZe gksrh gS & ;g fu.khZr djus ds fy, fd D;k okn vfr nqyZHk ls Hkh nqyZHk okn gS] fueZerk vk/kkj ugha & ;g fopkj djuk pkfg, fd vfHk;qDr dk dksbZ vkijkf/kd bfrgkl Fkk ;k og ,d vijk/kh Fkk ;k o`fÙkd gR;kjk vkSj D;k og ,d [krjukd vijk/kh ds :i esa lekt dks [krjk gksxkA

        ¼izLrj 59½

       ¼l½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 302@201 lifBr /kkjk 120-B & nks”kflf) vkSj n.M & gYdk n.M & xq:rjdkjh o U;wure ifjfLFkfr;k¡ & fopkj & D;k vijk/k dh ifjfLFkfr;k¡ ,slh Fkha fd lHkh U;wuhdj.k ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks Js; nsus ds mijkUr tks fd vijk/kh ds i{k esa Fkh e`R;q n.M ikfjr djus ds vykok dksbZ fodYi ugha Fkk & /kkfjr fd ek= fueZerk] ejus okyksa dh la[;k o gR;k djus dk rjhdk ;k ftl izdkj gR;k ds ckn e`r ‘kjhj dk O;;u fd;k x;k Fkk lnSo e`R;q n.M dks izsfjr ugha djrs & oknksa esa tgk¡ e`R;qn.M ikfjfLFkfrtU; lk{;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gks ;k bdckyh lk{kh ds lk{; ij & vkSj fueZe gR;k vR;kf/kd HkkoksUekn ds dkj.k dkfjr gks ;k ftldk vf/kd cM+k vuqikr u gks ogk¡ veqd ekeyksa esa vkthou dkjkokl dk iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gS] vkSj ogk¡ tc vijk/kh dk dksbZ vkijkf/kd iwoZo`Ùk u gks vkSj dksbZ lk{; Hkh ugha fd vijk/k lqèkkj vkSj iqu#)kj ls ijs gS ;k og le:i vijk/k Hkfo”; esa Hkh izfrofrZr djsxk rc U;k;ky; vkthou dkjkokl dk i{k ys ldrh gSA ¼izLrj 58] 78 ls 80½