REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 64­65 OF 2022

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti

…Appellant 

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh

…Respondent

J U D G M E N T

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1.

Mark Twain, the great American writer and philosopher, once

said:

"It is like this, take a word, split it up into letters, the letters,

may   individually   mean   nothing   but   when   they   are

combined they   will   form   a   word   pregnant   with   meaning.

That is the way how you have to consider the circumstantial

evidence. You have to take all the circumstances together

and   judge   for   yourself   whether   the   prosecution   have

established their case.”

2. 

These appeals, by special leave, arise out of the judgment and

order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow confirming the death sentence awarded

to the accused appellant herein.

3.

The   accused   appellant   has   been   held   guilty   of   the   offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the

Digitally signed by

SNEHA DAS

Date: 2022.10.13

17:15:48 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

IPC”). The trial court (Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri) sentenced the

accused appellant to death under Section 302 of the IPC and pay fine

of Rs. 20,000/­ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further

rigorous   imprisonment   for   one   year.   While   the   Sessions   Judge,

Lakhimpur Kheri made a reference to the High Court for confirmation

of   death   sentence   under   Section   366   of   the   Code   of   Criminal

Procedure   (for   short,   “the   CrPC”),   the   accused   appellant   preferred

Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 2016 putting in issue his conviction and

sentence.  The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of

2016  filed   by   the   accused   appellant   thereby   confirming   the   death

reference under Section 366 of the CrPC.

4.

In such circumstances referred to above, the accused appellant is

here before this Court with the present appeals.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

5.

According to the case of the prosecution, the accused appellant

Ramanand was married to Sangeeta (deceased) for the past 12 years

before the incident in question. In the wedlock, five children were born

– one son and four daughters, by name Gaurav Ambedkar aged 10

years, Tulsi aged 7 years, Lakshmi aged 5 years, Kajal aged 3 years

and Guddi aged one and a half month.  

6. 

On the fateful night of the incident i.e. the intervening night

between 21^st & 22^nd of January, 2010 while the wife and four children

were   sleeping   in   the   house   situated   at   the   village   Basdhiya,   the

accused appellant is said to have mercilessly clobbered all the five to

death with a sharp cutting weapon called Banka. At the relevant point

of time, the son of the accused appellant was not residing with the

family. The son aged 10 years at the time of incident was residing at a

different village with one police constable.   The motive behind the

crime as put forward by the prosecution is the extra marital affair of

the   accused   appellant   with   one   married   lady   by   name   Manju.

According   to   the   prosecution,   the   accused   appellant   desperately

wanted to marry Manju. Further, the wife of the accused appellant

namely, Sangeeta (deceased) was highly opposed to the relationship of

her husband with Manju. In such circumstances, it is the case of the

prosecution that the accused appellant decided to terminate not only

his wife Sangeeta but also his four minor daughters. 

7.

It all started with the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the

PW­1, Shambhu Raidas, who happens to be the brother­in­law of the

accused appellant (husband of the accused appellant’s sister).   The

FIR   came   to   be   lodged   by   the   PW­1,   Shambhu   Raidas   at   the

Dhaurhara Police Station, District Lakhimpur Kheri on 22.01.2010 at

9:45 A.M. The FIR (Ext. 40) reads thus:­