Death sentence, when not warranted.
Life imprisonment for each of the triple murders - to run consecutively and not concurrently.

JUDGMENT :-

A.K. Patnaik, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16.12.2009 of the Patna High Court in Death Reference Case No. 1 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 379 of 2007.

FACTS:

2. The facts very briefly are that a fardbeyan was lodged on 17.12.2002 by one Sanju Kumar (hereinafter referred to as Informant), resident of Village Mathura, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali. In the fardbeyan, it was stated: Father of the informant, namely Ravindra Prasad, was running a tea stall near the Eastern gate of the GPO. For the tea stall he required about 25 Litres of milk everyday and this milk was being supplied by Sanaullah Khan, the appellant herein, for about a month. Sanaullah Khan started mixing water with the milk and the customers of the tea stall started making complaints about the quality of tea. On 02.12.2002 at about 2.00 p.m. Sanaullah Khan along with Md. Hamid and Arvind came to the tea stall and demanded the dues for the supply of milk. After calculation it was found that the dues amounted to Rs. 1,000/- and Ravindra Prasad gave Sanauallah Khan Rs. 500/- and told him that the rest of the amount will be paid later. Ravindra Prasad, however, informed Sanaullah Khan that the milk supplied by him was not up to the mark and therefore he will no longer purchase milk from his Khatal. Sanaullah Khan got annoyed and told him that he will not allow him to run the tea stall. Ravindra Prasad retorted that he had seen many persons like him at his tea stall. Sanaullah Khan said that he will have to face serious consequences and that he will teach him a lesson within two to four days. Thereafter, Sanaullah Khan, Hamid and Arvind went away. On 16.12.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. Arvind, who was working with Sanaullah Khan came and told Ravindra Prasad that his master was calling him for some urgent work and Ravindra Prasad went along with Arvind and did not return for an hour. Arvind again came and told his brother Sunny Kumar, who was in the tea stall, that his master was calling him and that Ravindra Prasad was in the Khatal. Sunny Kumar also accompanied Arvind. Ravindra Prasad and Sunny Kumar, however, did not return till the next morning. The Informant became suspicious and started searching for his father and his brother. He went to the Khatal of the appellant, but found it to be closed. He suspected that the appellant, Hamid and Arvind had kidnapped his father and younger brother.

3. The fardbeyan given by the Informant was registered as FIR No.451 of 2002 at Kotwali, P.S. for the offence of kidnapping under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short ‘the IPC’). When investigation was done by the police, three dead bodies were found concealed in husk in a room on the eastern verandah of Pearl Cinema and the dead bodies were seized and a seizure list was prepared in which Parimal Kumar and Baleshwar Ram signed as witnesses. Two of the dead bodies were identified by the informant as those of Ravindra Prasad and Sunny Kumar. Inquest reports and postmortem reports of the dead bodies were prepared. Later the third body was identified to be that of Arvind by Ramanand Ram, father of Arvind. The appellant was arrested and pursuant to the confession of the appellant, the shoes, sandal and gamchha of the three deceased persons, a rope, a small plastic bag and a knife were recovered from the garbage situated in north-east of Khatal and were seized and Parimal Kumar and Baleshwar Ram signed the seizure list. Offences under Sections 302, 120B and 201 IPC were added and a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and Hamid and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. At the trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined. The Trial Court held that the chain of circumstances is complete and does not leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant and it goes to show that in all human probabilities, the offences must have been committed by the appellant. The