Very Important Point
While considering the question whether in a given case the extreme penalty of death should be imposed or not, the Court should try to find out any mitigating circumstances and on being satisfied about the existence of such mitigating circumstances and on being satisfied about the existence of such mitigating circumstances, the Court would be justified in imposing the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. However if the murder has been committed in a pre-meditated and calculated manner with extreme cruelty and brutality the aggravating circumstances would justify the Court in imposing the extreme penalty of death.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 r/w Sections 120B, 201, 365, 386 & 34-Death sentence-When can be awarded-Kidnapping and murder of a young boy-Existence of aggravating circumstances against 2 convict/accused-Bring their case in rarest of rare category - Death sentence awarded by Trial Court and High Court - Confirmed - Existence of mitigating circumstances against other 2 convict/accused-Do not bring their case in rarest of rare category-Death sentence awarded by Trial Court and High Court-Committed to life imprisonment.
       Held : It is true, that the extreme penalty of death should not be imposed in all cases of conviction under Section 302 and should be awarded only in rarest of rare cases where the Court finds that murder has been committed in a pre-meditated and calculated manner with extreme cruelty and brutality and the aggravating circumstances would justify such extreme penalty. While considering the question whether in a given case the extreme penalty of death should be imposed or not the Court should try to find out any mitigating circumstances and on being satisfied about the existence of such mitigating circumstances the Court would be justified in imposing the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. (Para 3)
       After carefully scrutinising the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants though we find sufficient force in the arguments so far as appellant Muthu @ Muthuraman and Pushparaj are concerned, we do not find any substance in the contention advanced so far as appellants Mohan and Gopi are concerned. It may be noticed that immediately after the boy was brought from the school by accused Pushparaj, Mohan took him in the van and kept him in confinement at a solitary place. It is he who conceived the idea of taking the life of the young boy. It is he who did not accede to the request of co-accused Muthu who persuaded him not to kill the boy and, on the other hand, Mohan threatened Muthu that unless the boy is killed he would divulge the entire episode and then not only Muthu but his parents will also be in trouble. It is Mohan’s master-mind which was responsible for the ultimate act of brutal killing of the boy and it is he who directed Muthu to catch hold of the legs of the boy so that he could easily strangulate the boy with the rope. It is he who mixed some poison with Rasna and gave it to the boy and the boy also drank it having full faith on him and became almost motionless. Even after the boy vomitted twice and became tired it is Mohan and his brother Gopi who persuaded the boy to play the game of tieing and untieing the hands and legs and when the boy agreed to play the game they not only tied the hands and legs of the boy but also tied the rope around his neck and pulled the rope from both ends. At 11.00 p.m. of the fateful night it is Mohan who told the other accused persons that the time is running fast and they should complete the work. It is at that point of time Gopi, brother of Mohan tied the right hand of the boy and when the boy could not untie the rope Mohan stood on the left hand side and suddenly encircled the rope around the neck of the boy. Gopi pulled one end of the rope by standing on the right hand side of the boy while Mohan pulled the other end of the rope by standing on the left hand side and at the same time Mohan took out a kerchief from his pant pocket and gagged the boy with the kerchief. When the boy struggled for breath by jerking his hands and legs, Mohan folded his left leg and with the knee pressed the kerchief which was put in the mouth. In a couple of minutes the boy become motionless. So far as appellant Gopi is concerned, he not only did participate by pulling the rope around the neck of the boy, as already narrated, but went to his house and brought a coir rope. After removing the rope from the neck of the boy he encircled the coir rope again around the boy’s neck and pulled the said rope for about 1/2 a minute and the boy stopped breathing. Thereafter he took out one Keltron TV Box from underneath the cot and packed the boy in the box. These aggravating circumstances on the part of accused Mohan and Gopi clearly demonstrate their depraved state of mind and the brutality with which they took the life of a young boy. It further transpires that after killing the boy and disposing of the dead body of the boy. Mohan also did not lose his lust for money and got the ransom of 5 lakhs. (Paras 8 & 9)
       Consequently held : In view of the aforesaid aggravating circumstances appearing as against appellant Mohan and appellate Gopi who happened to be the brother we cannot but confirm the death sentence awarded against them which has been affirmed by the High Court. Accordingly the appeals of appellants Mohan and Gopi are dismissed. So far as appellants Muthu and Pushparaj are concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the mitigating circumstances, as already narrated clearly do not bring their case to be the rarest of rare case and do not bring their activities to be either diabolical or act of depraved mind warranting the extreme penalty of death sentence. We would accordingly hold that the death sentence awarded against appellant Muthu @ Muthuraman and appellant Pushparaj is not warranted and we commute the same to imprisonment for life. (Paras 10 & 11)

Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-These four appeals by four different appellants and directed against the common judgment dated 27.5.1997 of the High Court of Madras. By the impugned judgment the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge as under :-

Appellant Found guilty of Sentenced to an offence under (IPC)

Mohan S. 120-B 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 201 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 365 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 386 10 yrs. R.I.

S. 302 Death

Gopi (A-2) S. 120B 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 201 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 365 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 386 10 yrs. R.I.

S. 302 Death

Muthu (A-3) S. 120-B 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 201 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 365 r/w 34 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 386 r/w 34 10 yrs. R.I.

S. 302 Death

P. Pushparaj (A-4) S. 120-B 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 365 7 yrs. R.I.

S. 386 r/w 34 10 yrs. R.I.

S. 302 r/w 34 Death

This Court granted leave limited to the question of sentence. The question that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether the extreme penalty of death passed against each of the appellants is justified? It may be stated that apart from the accused-appellants another co-accused Sampath had been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years’ for his conviction under Sections 120-B and 365 I.P.C. and 10 years for his conviction under Section 386/34 and was acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 and Section 201/34 and the said conviction and sentence also was affirmed by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court. There was also a sixth accused Chandrasekaran but he died during the pendency of the case.

2. Since this Court is required to examine the correctness of the extreme sentence of death penalty awarded against the appellants only, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in greater detail. Suffice it to say that the Courts below have found that the accused persons entered into a conspiracy to get Rs. 5 lakhs as ransom from the father of the deceased by kidnapping the deceased a young boy of 10 years old. In accordance with the plan accused Pushparaj who was the driver of the car belonging to Singaravelu went to the school on 28th of June, 1993, at 12 noon where the deceased was studying and as soon as he met the deceased told him that his father has been waiting for him at Meenambakkam and sent the car to take the deceased in the car. As Pushparaj was their driver the deceased relied upon his words and got into the Maruti Van which had been parked nearby. In the car accused Mohan, accused Gopi, accused Chandrasekaran, since dead, and accused Sampath were there and all of them took the deceased to a place in Moovarasanpettai Main Road and kept him detained there. They contacted the father of the deceased and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs so that the boy would be released otherwise they would kill the boy. On 29th June, 1993, the accused persons mixed some coppersulphate in a glass of cold drink and offered the same to the deceased while they had already tied legs and hands of the deceased. The accused persons began killing the boy by tying the boy’s neck with a rope and pulling its both ends and closing the month of the deceased with a piece of cloth. By this process they killed the deceased by strangulation. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was kept in the empty TV box and the box was dropped into an un-used well near a temple. Even after killing the boy they contacted the father of the deceased Singaravelu to get the ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs and ultimately succeeded in extracting a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from him on 4.7.1993 and divided the amount among themselves.

3. This is broadly the prosecution case, as unfolded in course of trial which has been accepted by the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 610

Cases Referred (6)