Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 259
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
J. G. CHITRA, SHAMBHOO SINGH
STATE OF M.P. - Appellant
Versus
SARNAMSINGH - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 1082 Of 1999
Decided On : 03/23/2000
Headnote:
The accused were convicted for committing seven murders and sentenced to death. The High Court confirmed the conviction but modified the death sentence to life imprisonment. The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, and that the circumstances of the crime and the offender must be taken into consideration before opting for the death penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, along with absconding accused, went to the house of the deceased Madansingh to request his daughter Sangita to return to her parental home after marriage. The request was turned down, and the accused opened fire, killing seven persons, including Madansingh, his two sons, and Sangita's husband. The accused were convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the accused had committed the murders in a gruesome and brutal manner, but that there were mitigating circumstances, such as the fact that they had acted in the heat of the moment and that they had no prior criminal record. The Court also noted that the accused were not cold-blooded killers, as they had not killed Sangita, who was their daughter and niece, respectively.
Issues: Whether the accused should be sentenced to death for the murders they committed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, and that the circumstances of the crime and the offender must be taken into consideration before opting for the death penalty. The Court found that the accused had acted in the heat of the moment and that they had no prior criminal record. The Court also noted that the accused were not cold-blooded killers, as they had not killed Sangita, who was their daughter and niece, respectively. The Court therefore modified the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Final Decision: The High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, but modified the death sentence to life imprisonment.
( 1 ) SPEAKING for the Bench. The Death Reference alongwith above appeals are decided by a common judgment.
( 2 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge Dewas has made a death reference in view of provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience ). Accused Sarnamsingh, Shivrajsingh and Tikaram have preferred appeal assailing their conviction and sentence for offences punishable under provisions of Ss. 302 r/w 149, 395 r/w 397, 396, 307 r/w. 149 of IPC. They have also appealed against the sentence inflicted on them for the offences mentioned above for which they have been held guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, Dewas. The prosecution - the State of M. P. has appealed to this Court for enhancing the sentence inflicted on accused Tikaram, in context with the appeals preferred by Sarnamsingh, Shivrajsingh and Tikaram. It is the contention of these accused that learned trial Judge has committed the error of recording the finding of guilt against them and convicting them for the offences mentioned above and inflicting various terms of sentences against them in context with said finding of their guilt. The prosecution has appealed to this Court with a prayer that the sentence inflicted on accused Tikaram be enhanced to hanging by neck till death by inflicting a capital sentence. A notice in that context has been served on said accused Tikaram.
( 3 ) PROSECUTION case in brief can be stated as mentioned hereunder :deceased Madansingh was a lawyer practising at Tarana but residing at village Sumarakhedi alongwith his sons Surendra singh, Devendrasingh and Mahendrasingh. Out of them Surendrasingh was a practising lawyer. Deceased Mahendrasingh was engaged with Sangita, the daughter of Sarnam singh some days prior to 1-7-90 when the said murders took place, in one house which is the subject matter of these appeals and reference and the prosecution, which these accused alongwith the accused acquitted, faced before Sessions Judge, Dewas. As per prosecution case the said engagement was broken by Sarnamsingh on the ground that Madansingh and his family members were of the lower grade of the same caste. It appears from the prosecution case that after engagement, Mahendrasingh and Sangita started loving each other. Deceased Mahendrasingh had contacted accused Sarnamsingh some days prior to the incident in question and there was hot exchange of words between them which resulted in Sarnamsingh slapping Mahendrasingh. Some days after that, Mahendrasingh went to the school where Sangita was studying and he took away Sangita from the school and after eloping, they married each other in a temple named "trikeshwar Temple". After such elopement and marriage between Mahendra and Sangita, the minds of both families were brought together by friends and well-wishers of both the families and as a result of that two functions were celebrated, one at the parental place of the bride and one at the place of in-laws of bride Sangita. Those functionswere termed as "ashirwad" and "swagat" ceremonies. The object behind arranging these functions was to patch up the differences between these two families and family members and relatives, if any caused on account of such brave steps taken by both Mahendra and Sangita. After both the ceremonies were over, Sangita started residing in in-laws' house with her husband Mahendrasingh in village Sumarakheda, in the said unfortunate house where these seven murders took place on 1-7-90.
( 4 ) ANOTHER aspect of the matter which has been indicated by the prosecution case is that the relations were again strained a day prior to 1-7-90 when accused Jitendra (absconding) the brother of P. W. Sangita alongwith Shivrajsingh, had visited the house of Madansingh for inviting Sangita to parental home as a matter of traditional return of the bride to parental home after marriage. It seems that the said request was turned down by the in-laws of Sangita. It is the prosecution case that said request
