Back
1998(6) Supreme 420
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI, K.T. Thomas and S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
Panchhi & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 333-335 of 1998
With
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 50 of 1998
Decided on 19-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : R.K. Jain, Ms. Indira Jaising, R.B. Malhotra, Sr. Advocates, Manoj Goel, Ms. N. Annapoorani, S. Ravindra Bhat, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Hetu Arora, Sanjay Ghose, C.D. Singh, A.S. Pundir, Advocates.
Held : It is not the law that if a witness is a child his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. (Para 11)
Courts have laid down that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. (Para 12)
PW 1 Ramkhelawan is one of the two survivors in the family (the other was a suckling child). It is greatly probable that PW 1 would have escaped from the notice of the assailants otherwise he would not have been spared as is clear from the fact that his younger sister Sonu was also murdered. His narration of the incident was quite natural though he saw only some part of the occurrence. That part is so decisive as to clear all doubts regarding identity of the assailants. (Para 13)
PW 3 and PW 5 were admittedly neighbours. The fact that they did not see all what happened inside the house of the deceased is no reason to take their evidence lightly because when he saw all the appellants sitting inside the house variously armed and they also saw that all of them returning from the house after the incident with blood-soaked weapons we have no doubt that the High Court has rightly concurred with the findings of the trial Court regarding reliability of the testimony of the above three witnesses. There is no scope to contend that there was any serious error in the appreciation of their evidence. The resultant position is that none of the appellants can escape conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 14)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34-Four murders-Victims include one little child and an old mother-Brutality looms large - Death penalty - Whether justifiable? (No, as it is not rarest of the rare case)-Result-Life imprisonment awarded in place of death penalty.
Held : Brutality of the manner in which a murder was perpetrated may be a ground but not the sole criterion for judging whether the case is one of the “rarest of rare cases” as indicated in Bachan Singh’s case. In a way every murder is brutal, and the difference between one from the other may be on account of mitigating or aggravating features surrounding the murder. The incidents which happened on earlier occasions between members of the two rival families are indicative of the intensity of the bitterness which prevailed between them. It was thirst for retaliation which became the motivating factor. Attacks and counter-attacks between them were frequent events during the preceding days. There is evidence that six days before this occurrence two elderly persons of the deceased family (Banke Lal and Pan Kuwar) attacked the young female member of the accused family (Ramshree). The brutality with which the murders were committed by the assailants which include two ladies makes us to think that more skirmishes would have happened prior to the incident which would have escalated the simmering thirst for vengeance to reach boiling point. We are persuaded to consider that this case cannot be treated as one of the “rarest of rare cases” where the lessor sentence is not at all adequate. Hence we alter the sentence of death penalty by awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life to each of the appellants. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
(iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34-Convictions under with award of Death penalty-Accused included a woman-Writ petition by National Commission for Women as intervener-Whether permissible? (No) - Writ Petition dismissed.
Held : We could not permit the move for intervention in this appeal for the obvious reason that under the Code of Criminal Procedure National Commission for Women or any other organisation cannot have locus standi in this murder case. (Para 7)
Judgment
Thomas, J.-Bad blood which existed between two families living next door to each other resulted in the extermination of all the adult members of one family and the consequent judicial verdict to send all the living members of the other family to gallows. Four members of the family of the accused became killers of four members of the other family irrespective of gender differences on both sides. A glimpse at the injuries on the mangled dead bodies would have convinced the on-lookers that none among the victims could have been saved even with most advanced sophisticated medical facilities. Death of all of them would have been instantaneous. Such injuries clearly reflected the resolve of the killers that every one of the victims should have been snuffed out of their worldly existence.
2. Facts are too brief for elaboration. The house where all the accused were living is situate adjacent to the house where all the deceased were living. First appellant Panchhi and his wife Kalia were the parents of second appellant Manmohan and third appellant Smt. Ramshree. Among the victims deceased Banke Lal was the husband of deceased Pan Kunwar, his mother Halki was aged 70 and a little female child Sonu aged only 5 then was the daughter of Banke Lal. This quadruple murder took place during the forenoon of 26th October, 1989, inside and outside the house of the victims.
3. According to the prosecution story, the two families were on a warpath for some time and the members of both families chose to indulge in petty quarrels. Bad blood started fomenting up. A fortnight prior to the incident two female members of accused’s family (Kalia and Ramshree) gave a rubbing to Pan Kunwar. Though the matter was reported to the police there was no abatement of the hostility between the two families. So Banke Lal and Pan Kunwar retaliated to Ramshree by assaulting her just six days prior to the occurrence.
4. Further story of the prosecution is, on the date of occurrence all the assailants, armed with weapons like kulhari and hansia, barged into the house of the deceased at about 10.30 am and unleashed a killing spree. First target was Banke Lal, on seeing the plight of her son his mother Halki instinctively learned to protect him but one of the assailants swished a lethal weapon on her neck and finished her. Pan Kunwar, wife of Banke Lal, made a bid to escape and she jumped out of the house with her little daughter Sonu. But the bid failed as the assailants rushed out and dealt deadly blows with weapons on the vital parts of their body. After accomplishing their target they retreated to their house.
5. Kalia could not face the trial as she died before its commencement. The remaining three appellants were tried for the murders of the deceased. Trial Court and the High Court concurrently found that the four deceased were murdered by the four assailants who are appellants and Kalia. Both the courts held the view that in the brutal nature of the perpetration of the murders extreme penalty should be imposed and hence the trial Court sentenced them to death which was affirmed by the High Court.
6. It seems, there was initially no move to approach this Court for some time after pronouncement of the Judgment by the High Court in appeal. But the print media flashed the news that Ramshree (mother of a suckling child) was facing execution of the capital sentence. Some organisations came forward taking up her cause. However, in the meanwhile appellants filed the special leave petition and leave was granted by this Court. Execution of the death sentence was stayed.
7. We heard Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the appellant and Shri R.B. Malhotra, learned Senior Advocate for the State of U.P. Smt. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate prayed for allowing National Commission : for Women to intervene presumably to bolster up the cause that Ramshree must be saved from gallows. We could not permit the move for intervention in this appeal for the ob
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
