AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The criminal appeal (CRA 1684/2017) has been preferred
by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment and findings
dated 04.04.2017 passed by the Second Addl. Session Judge,
District Chhatarpur in Session Trial No. 05/2016 whereby the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below :
Section Act Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
302 Indian Penal Code Death Sentence - -
302 Indian Penal Code Death Sentence - -
302 Indian Penal Code Death Sentence - -
201 Indian Penal Code RI for 7 years 2000/- S.I. for 3 months
506-B Indian Penal Code RI for 7 years - -
The Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur also made
reference to this Court under Section 366(1) of Cr.P.C. for
confirmation of order of capital punishment of death awarded to the
appellant. Thus, by this common order we propose to decide the
aforesaid criminal appeal and criminal reference.
It is not in dispute that appellant Bhagchandra is the real
brother of deceased Thakur Das and Devki Prasad and deceased
Akhilesh was the son of Devki Prasad i.e. nephew of the appellant.
Kiran Patel (PW-1) is the wife of deceased Devki Prasad. Urmila
(PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) are the daughter and son of deceased
Devki Prasad and Kiran Patel (PW-1).
The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the deceased Thakur
Das, deceased Devki Prasad and his son deceased Akhilesh resided
together at village Pur under the Police Station Maharajpur, District
Chhatarpur. The appellant resided in their neighborhood. On
11.10.2015 at about 5:00-5:30 am, complainant Kiran the wife of
deceased Devki Prasad (PW-1) had gone to attend call of nature.
While she was returning, she saw the appellant armed with axe
getting out of her house. The appellant had enmity with them,
therefore, she suspected of some unpleasant incident. She
immediately went inside the house and saw Thakur Das (her elder
brother-in-law) lying dead, covered with blood and his neck was
detached from the body. She also found her son dead. She
immediately went looking for her husband Devki Prasad who was
sleeping in the field behind the house. She rushed to the field and
saw the appellant assaulting her husband Devki with the axe. She
tried to stop him but the appellant threatened to kill her. She
somehow succeeded to escape. In the meanwhile, family members
and neighbours gathered at the spot and found that the appellant had
cut the neck of Thakur Das, Devki Prasad and Akhilesh. All of them
had died on the spot. Immediately FIR was lodged by Kiran (PW-1)
at Police Station, Maharajpur. Merg was registered. After inquest
report Crime No. 187/2015 was registered by the police against the
appellant. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed before the
concerned Court and case was committed to the Session Court.
The Court of Second Additional Session Judge framed charges
against the appellant under Sections 302 (three counts), 201 and 506
Part-II of the Indian Penal Code . The appellant abjured his guilt and
pleaded that he was falsely implicated by Kiran (PW-1) to grab the
property.
After considering the entire prosecution evidence, the learned
trial Court found the appellant guilty of committing the offences.
Hence, awarded sentence as mentioned at paragraph one. The learned
trial Court made reference to this Court for confirmation of order of
capital punishment awarded by the trial Court.
The appellant challenged the impugned judgment and sentence
on the grounds that there is no direct evidence against him. The
testimony of eye-witness is contradictory with the medical evidence.
The appellant had no motive to kill the deceased persons. The
conclusions of trial Court are contrary to law, facts and
circumstances. Hence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. The
appellant also submits that this case is not covered under the category
of "the rarest of rare". The learned trial Court erred in law and facts
in convicting the appellant. It is not just and proper, therefore,
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
We have heard rival submissions at length. Perused the record.
Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
State vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for
the appellant.
The questions for consideration before us are as follows :
(i) Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the appellant in the aforesaid offences? (ii) Whether the case is covered under the category of "the rarest of rare"?
After perusal of the entire record, we come to the
conclusion that the case is not based only on circumstantial
evidence but on direct evidence of eye witnesses Kiran Patel
(PW-1), Urmila (PW-2), Kamlesh (PW-3) and Rakesh
Vishwakarma (PW-7). 12. Urmila Patel (PW-2) is the daughter and Kamlesh (PW-3)
is the son of deceased Devki Prasad, and brother & sister of
deceased Akhilesh. The deceased Thakur Das was the elder
brother of deceased Devki Prasad. It is not disputed that they
all resided together at the time of incident. The incident took
place between 5:00 am to 5:30 am. At that time, their presence
on the spot is natural. Urmila (PW-2) is 11 years old and
Kamlesh (PW-3) is 12 years old. Although, they are child
witnesses but they are old enough to understand the incidents
happening in their surroundings. It is not challenged by the
appellant that all the victims died on the spot, as a result of
fatal injuries on their vital parts by axe.
Urmila (PW-2) has stated that at the time of incident, she
was plastering the chulah (hearth) when she heard noises she
came out. She saw the appellant brutally assaulting (cutting)
Thakur Das with an axe. Her elder brother Akhilesh was
sleeping nearby. Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) tried to
awake him but he did not wake up. Then the appellant also hit
Akhilesh on his neck with the axe and repeatedly inflicted
blows on his body.
Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) further stated that,
the appellant also tried to caught hold of Kamlesh (PW-3) but
he and his sister Urmila ran towards their neighbour Kamlesh
Patel (PW-6) s/o Gulabchandra Patel. They went inside the
house of Kamlesh Patel. Kamlesh Patel (PW-6) came to know
about the incident from Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3).
But due to fear they did not come out to help. The testimony of
Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) and Kamlesh (PW-6) have
corroborated with each other.
In case of Baleshwar Mehto Vs. State of Bihar [2017 (2)
MPLJ (Cri.) SC 344], the High Court of Patna has held as under -
"Eyewitnesses'' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility."
In case of Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of
Chandigarh [(2003) 6 SCC 380] and Krishnan Vs. State [(2003) 7
SCC 56], the Hon''ble Supreme has held as under :
"The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the ''credit'' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness- box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
In the light of the above principles, we find the testimony
of all these three witnesses trustworthy.
Appellant has not challenged the fact that, at the time of
incident Devki Prasad was sleeping in the field. As per Kiran
(PW-1), wife of deceased Devki Prasad while she was
returning from outside, she saw the appellant coming out of
her house armed with an axe. In apprehension, she ran inside
the house and saw Thakur Das and her son Akhilesh lying
dead. The head of Thakur Das was detached from his body and
Akhilesh also sustained neck and head injury. Kiran (PW-1)
corroborated the testimony of Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh
(PW-3) and Kamlesh s/o Gulabchandra Patel (PW-6) that
Urmila (PW-2) and Kamlesh (PW-3) escaped from the incident
and ran towards their neighbour house. When Kiran Patel
(PW-1) saw the appellant going towards the field, she went
after him and saw the appellant assaulting her husband Devki
Prasad with an axe. She tried to stop the appellant but, he
threatened to kill her. Thereafter, she started shouting and ran
away. On the way, Kiran Patel (PW-1) met Rakesh
Vishwakarma ((PW-7). Later, Rammilan (PW-4), Khillu Patel
(PW-5), Kamlesh Patel (PW-6) and other villagers came to her
house. Rakesh (PW-7) duly corroborated the testimony of
Kiran Patel (PW-1). We find that Rakesh witnessed the
incident from about 10-15 feet distance. His presence is found
reliable.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended as to why
the witnesses did not try to rescue the victims. At the time of
incident, the appellant was in a fit of rage, armed with axe who
had slit the throats of three persons. In such a situation, no
one would dare to face him or rescue the victims.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has been falsely implicated by Kiran, the wife of
deceased Devki Prasad to get his property. Kiran Patel (PW-1)
stated that few years ago, deceased Thakur Das was residing
with the appellant. The appellant wanted to hold possession of
the land and tractor belonging to Thakur Das. Thakur Das
refused to give away the property. Thereafter, appellant sent
Thakur Das out of his house. On the other hand, Kiran (PW-1)
deposed that six months prior to the incident, Thakur Das
started residing with his brother Devki Prasad and Kiran Patel.
Appellant thought that Thakur Das would give his property to
Devki Prasad, therefore, he killed Thakur Das, Devki Prasad
and Akhilesh. This contention of Kiran Patel (PW-1) is
supported by Rammilan (PW-4) and Khillu Patel (PW-5), both
neibhbours of of the deceased persons as well as the appellant.
They were residing in the same village hence, were in
knowledge of these facts. An alternate plea has been taken by
the appellant that deceased Thakur Das had illicit relation with
his wife. But in this regard no suggestion has been given by
the learned counsel for the appellant to any witness nor any
evidence is adduced by him, hence the evidence of witnesses
cannot be discarded.
It is also important to note that the testimony of Kiran
Patel (PW-1), Rammilan (PW-4) and Khillu Patel (PW-5) with
regard to the land dispute between the appellant and his
brothers is unchallenged. In their cross-examination which
establishes the motive of the appellant to commit such crime.
Learned counsel for the appellant alleged that in this case, all
the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. But, it is also
important to note that they are also relatives of the appellant.
Infact, the relatives are more interested to implicate the real
culprit of the crime. They will not spare the real culprit and
falsely implicate their own relatives or other innocent persons.
In case of Roop Narain Mishra Vs. State of UP [2017
Cri.LJ 1487] has held as under :
"On the point of ''interested witnesses'', the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdeo, reported in 2003 Cri LJ 844 (SC) observed that only on the ground of interested or related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. Most of the times eye witnesses happen to be family members or close associates because unless a crime is committed near a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occurrence. In Mst. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1976 Cr LJ 418 (SC), following observations were made: The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other is convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. In the reported case the incident took place at midnight inside the house, the only natural witnesses who could be present to see the assault were the persons present in the house at that time. No outsider can be expected to have come at that time because the attack was sudden. Moreover a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. Witness who gives details with absolute accuracy is trustworthy." [See also Waman and others v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 Crl. LJ 4827].
In case of Arjun vs. State of C.G . [2017 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 305),
the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"Evidence of related witness is of evidentiary value. Court has to scrutinize evidence with case as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law. Fact of witness being related to victim or deceased does not by itself discredit evidence."
Hence, in the light of the above legal proposition, the
testimony of near relatives of the deceased persons is rightly
relied by the trial Court. We are not inclined to discard the
same. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that there
are many contradictions and omissions in the testimony of
those witnesses. But, on consideration of the entire evidence
and the facts & circumstances of the case, we do not find any
substantial contradiction or omission in their statements, but
we find that the testimony of eye-witnesses is fully reliable.
We rely upon the case of Rammi Vs. State of MP (AIR 1999 SC
3544), wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."
The FIR was lodged promptly by Kiran (PW-1), wife of
deceased Devki Prasad which is established by Sub-Inspector
Shahjad (PW-18). The FIR (Exh. P/22) has been lodged on
11.10.2015 at about 7:40 am i.e. within two hours of the
incident which took place between 5:00 am to 5:30 am. The
distance from the scene crime to the police station is about 6
kms. The FIR was lodged against the appellant. Facts of the
FIR are fully corroborated by the eye-witnesses, hence the
prosecution case is duly proved and found reliable.
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that compliance
of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is not proved in the case. Copy of
FIR was sent to the concerned magistrate after 24 hours of the
incident. The FIR was lodged as an afterthought against the
appellant. Therefore, the prosecution case cannot be relied
upon.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of State of
Rajasthan vs. Daud Khan [2016 (2) SCC 607] has held as under:
The interpretation of Section 157 of the CrPC is no longer res integra. The purpose of the "forthwith" communication of a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate is to check the possibility of its manipulation. Therefore, a delay in transmitting the special report to the Magistrate is linked to the lodging of the FIR. If there is no delay in lodging an FIR, then any delay in communicating the special report to the Magistrate would really be of little consequence, since manipulation of the FIR would then get ruled out. Nevertheless, the prosecution should explain the delay in transmitting the special report to the
Magistrate. However, if no question is put to the investigating officer concerning the delay, the prosecution is under no obligation to give an explanation. There is no universal rule that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. In other words, the facts and circumstances of a case are important for a decision in this regard."
Thus, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid
contention of learned counsel for the appellant that because
non-compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is not sufficient to
ignore the whole prosecution evidence. The prosecution
evidence duly establishes the case against the appellant.
On the same date of incident, statements under Section
161 of Cr.P.C. of Kiran Patel (PW-1), Kamlesh (PW-3), Urmila
(PW-2), Rammilan (PW-4), Khillu (PW-5), Matadeen (PW-9),
Kamlesh S/o Gulabchandra Patel (PW-6), Gulabchandra (PW-
8), Rakesh Vishwakarma (PW-7), Kisia Bai were recorded by
Investigating Officer Shahjad Singh (PW-18). No suggestion
has been given to him that, the statements have been recorded
belatedly. This fact wash away any doubt with regard to the
contention that the FIR was lodged as an afterthought and not
on 11.10.2015.
Investigating Officer Shahjad Singh (PW-18) recorded
memorandum statement of the appellant Exh. P/10 before
Lachhi Ram (PW-12) and Gulabchand (PW-8). Thereafter, a
bloodstained axe (Article A) was recovered from the field of
the appellant vide seizure memo (Exh. P/12). The police also
recovered bloodstained clothes (Article B & C) of the
appellant vide seizure memo (Exh. P/11). This fact was
corroborated by panch witness Lachhiram (PW-12) and
Gulabchand (PW-8). In the FSL report, low DNA mixed
profile was detected on the source of Article R (axe).
Similarly, they found non-amplifiable very low DNA detected
from the source of Article B, D, F & Q. We are of the
considered view that due to less quantity of blood present over
the incriminating articles or otherwise, the DNA profile was
not detected in the source of articles, not sufficient enough to
match. Hence, merely on this ground, the testimony of eye-
witnesses cannot be brushed aside or discarded.
The occular evidence is duly corroborated by the medical
evidence. Dr. Mahesh Dixit (PW-14), Dr. Sunil Chourasia
(PW-15) and Dr. N.K.Gupta (PW-16) conducted the autopsy of
all the three deceased persons on the same day of incident i.e.
on 11.10.2015. Dr. Mahesh Dixit (PW-14) who conducted
post-mortem of the body of Devki Prasad found the following
injuries :
(i) Neck is detached from trunk except thin tag of skin attached on posterior side of neck (ii) Cervical vertibra fractured and cutted. (iii) All major blood vessel and cervical nerves, trachea, esophagus are cutted and separated from trunk. (iv) Cut margin are sharp and chop type wound caused by hard and sharp object. (v) Incised wound is present in abdomen on left side of size 10 cm x 2.5 cm exposing peritonium.
Dr. Sunil Chourasia (PW-15) who conducted post-mortem
of the body of deceased Thakur Das, found the following
injuries :
(i) Incised wound of size 11 cm x 4 cm present over left cervical region, margin sharp, underlying muscles, vessels and spinal cord are cut. Tissue taken from the wound. (ii) Incised wound of size 6 cm x 2 cm present over left shoulder underlying muscle cut. (iii) Incised wound of size 6 cm x 3 cm present over right cervical region, margins sharp, underlying great vessels vessels & muscles cut. (iv) Incised wound of size 10 cm x 2 cm present over left parietal occipital region of scalp, skull chopped, brain matter exposed, anteroposterior in direction. (v) Incised wound of 7 cm x 3 cm present over posterolateral aspect of left lumbar region. Transverse in direction. (vi) Incised wound of size 7 cm x 2 cm present over right paraspinal region of back - obliquely transverse in direction. (vii) Incised wound of size 7 cm x 2 cm present over left iliac crest, muscle exposed. (viii) Incised wound of size 10 cm x 0.5 cm present over left gluteal region - obliquely transverse in direction.
Dr. N.K.Gupta (PW-16) who conducted post-mortem of
the body of deceased Akhilesh Kumar found the following
injuries :
(i) Incised wound 15 cm x 10 cm x muscle deep in right side shoulder region near neck. (ii) Right side clavicle muscles exposed and right carotid cut. (iii) Lungs exposed incised would 13 cm x 3 cm on left side fronto parietal region. (iv) Incised would of size 9 x 3 cm x bonedeep on right side of occipital parietal region. (v) Incised wound of size 10 cm x 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm postero lateral aspect of left cervical region. (vi) Incised wound 12 cm x 4 cm x bonedeep and 11 cm x 3 x bonedeep at right scapular region on the backside. (vii) Incised wound of 5 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm on the left side shoulder region. Injuries are antemortem and homicidal in nature. (viii) Amputed three finger : middle, ring and index finger left side and attached by thin layer skin.
After perusal of all the post-mortem reports, it appear
that the appellant inflicted about 7-8 fatal injuries to each of
the deceased on the vital parts of their bodies. He committed
murder of three persons in somewhat similar manner by cutting
their neck. He repeatedly inflicted blows by the axe over the
vital body parts. All the injuries and wounds were sufficient to
cause immediate death of a person in ordinary course of
nature. The appellant came premeditated to the spot armed
with an axe to commit murder, at early morning hours i.e.
5:00-5:30 am when people are usually asleep. Thus, the act of
the appellant comes under the definition of murder as
prescribed under Section 300(4) of Indian Penal Code.
With regard to the opinion of doctor and version given by
the eye-witnesses and other-witnesses, we do not find any
substantial contradiction and omission which adversely affect
the prosecution case. The learned trial Court has properly
appreciated all the prosecution evidence in its right perspective
and rightly held the appellant guilty of committing brutal
murder of Thakur Das, Devki Prasad and Akhilesh Kumar.
We do not find any evidence with regard to offence
punishable under Section 201 of IPC against the appellant. No
witness stated about it therefore, in our considered view, the
appellant is liable to be acquitted under Section 201 of IPC.
In the circumstances of the case, we find the testimony of
Kiran (PW-1) is wholly reliable that during the incident when
the appellant inflicted axe blow on her husband Devki Prasad,
she tried to save him from the appellant. But the appellant
threatened to kill her. After considering the above facts and
evidence that has come on record, we find that, at that time, he
had already committed murder of two person and was armed
with axe. He was in anger and also wanted to kill Kamlesh,
the younger son of Kiran who had a narrow escape. Thus, the
act of the appellant against Kiran properly falls under the
purview of offence punishable under Section 506-B of the
Indian Penal Code.
On the above reasons, we do not see any cogent reason to
interfere with judgment of trial Court regarding conviction of
the appellant-Bhagchandra under Section 302 (three counts)
and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code . The impugned
judgment is well reasoned judgment regarding conviction and
sentence of the appellant in aforesaid crime. The prosecution
failed to prove/establish the charge of offence punishable
under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, the
appellant is hereby acquitted from the same.
Now the question would be whether the instant case
could be one of the "rarest of rare" case warranting death
penalty.
In case of Omprakash Vs. State of Haryana [(1999)
SCC (Cri.) 334], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that:
"The Court must respond to the cry of the society and to settle what would be a deterrent punishment for what was an apparently abominable crime."
The Hon''ble Supreme Court speaking through a
Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and
other connected cases [AIR 1980 SC 898] considered the
constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided
under Section 302 of IPC. After elaborate discussions, it was
found that provision of death penalty as an alternative
punishment for murder is not unreasonable and it is in the
public interest. Therefore, it was held that the provision in
Section 302 of IPC violates neither the letter nor the ethos of
the Constitution. Following this decision, three Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR
1983 SC 957] held as follows:
"In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh''s case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh''s case: (i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability; (ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ''offender'' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the ''crime''; (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances; (iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised." [Also see Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu : (2010) 9 SCC 567, Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India : (2011) 2 SCC 490, Surendra Koli Vs. State of UP : (2011) 4 SCC 80, Sudam Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 7 SCC 125.]
The accused/appellant may not be a hardened criminal,
but he committed brutal murder of three persons by cutting
their neck and causing several fatal injuries together in a
preplanned manner, who were unarmed and sleeping. Due to
which they failed to escape from the sudden and unexpected
attack.
At the time of incident, the conduct and behaviour of the
appellant clearly indicates that if Kiran (PW-1), Urmila (PW-2)
and Kamlesh (PW-3) have not saved themselves, the appellant
could have killed them too. We have considered all the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the instant case.
In case of Purushottam Dashrath Borate Vs. State of
Maharshtra [(2015) 3 SCC (Cri.) 326], the Hon''ble Supreme
Court has held that, the age of the accused persons, their
family background and lack of criminal antecedents cannot be
said to be the mitigating circumstance, the nature of heinous
offence and cold and calculated manner in which it was
committed by the accused person. The agony suffered by the
family of the victims cannot be ignored. Having regard to the
nature and manner of crime, we strongly feel that, a sentence
of life imprisonment would be grossly disproportionate and
inadequate. It would amount to no punishment at all.
In case of Mukesh Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi [(2017) 6 SCC
1], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that -
"Where a crime is committed with extreme brutality and the collective conscience of the society is shocked, courts must award death penalty, irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability of death penalty. By not imposing a death sentence in such cases, the courts may do injustice to the society at large."
"Question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion and has to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating or mitigating in the individual cases. The courts are consistently faced with the situation where they are required to answer the new challenges and mould the sentence to meet those challenges. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law. It is expected of the courts to operate the sentencing system as to impose such sentence which reflects the social conscience of the society. While determining sentence in heinous crimes, Judges ought to weigh its impact on the society and impose adequate sentence considering the collective conscience or society''s cry for justice. While considering the imposition of appropriate punishment, courts should not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim and the society at large. In State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey and Anr . (2005) 2 SCC 710, it was observed as under: Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Naidu (1991) 3 SCC 471. Another significant development in the sentencing policy of India is the ''victim- centric'' approach, clearly recognised in Machhi Singh (Supra) and re-emphasized in a plethora of cases. It has been consistently held that the courts have a duty towards society and that the punishment should be corresponding to the crime and should act as a soothing balm to the suffering of the victim and their family. [Ref: Gurvail Singh @ Gala and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2013) 2 SCC 713; Mohfil Khan and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand (2015) 1 SCC 67; Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 652]. The Courts while considering the issue of sentencing are bound to acknowledge the rights of the victims and their family, apart from the rights of the society and the accused. The agony suffered by the family of the victims cannot be ignored in any case. In Mohfil Khan (supra), this Court specifically observed that ''it would be the paramount duty of the Court to provide justice to the incidental victims of the crime - the family members of the deceased persons."
Now-a-days reformative ideas are totally ineffective.
Justice demands that the Court should impose punishment
befitting the crime so that it reflects public abhorrence of the
crime. The instant case clearly comes within the category of
the "rarest of rare" case. Any other punishment is absolutely
inadequate. Therefore, relying upon the above observations
made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in various cases, we are
not inclined to convert the capital punishment awarded to the
appellant into life imprisonment. Taking into account the
overall facts and circumstances of the case and the principles
laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above referred
cases, death sentence awarded to the appellant should be
maintained.
In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the appeal preferred
by the appellant-Bhagchandra is hereby dismissed. The death
sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is hereby
confirmed under Section 366(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.