Case: Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary  Vs. State Of Maharashtra

the rest, there is nothing on record. Killing of adults as possible witnesses can be explained away by the accused but the manner in which each of them were dealt with several blows coupled with cruelty done to the children which was totally wanton and senseless, and blows given in the stomach of a pregnant woman, who has been inflicted a fatal wound, it all taken together along with the position culled out from the various judicial pronouncements referred to above, in our opinion there is no escape from coming to the conclusion that they fall in the category of the rarest of the rare cases. Referring to the judgment delivered in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 SC 586 this Court in Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam (2000 SC (2000) 5 ST 312) has held : * 10. Commission of the crime in a brutal manner or on a helpless child or a woman or the like were held to be such circumstances which justify the imposition of maximum penalty. In Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab (1975 SC 563) this Court held that for pre-planned cold-blooded murder death sentence is proper. 11. The trial court, after referring to various judgments, concluded : In the case in our hand, it is apparently a pre-planned, cold-blooded, brutal quadruple murder. It is relevant that the murder was committed in the most brutal manner with severe cruelty inflicting number of injuries on each victim including a female baby hardly of 2-1/2 years of age and two helpless women. They were murdered while they were in deep sleep after lunch keeping the doors and windows of the house open without suspecting any foul play from any quarter. It is, in my view, a rarest of the rare cases which is of exceptional nature. Facts and circumstances of the case justify the extreme penalty provided under Section 302 IPC. The accused seems to be a menace to the society and in my view, sentence of life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate, because the crime is so brutal, diabolical and revolting as to shock the collective conscience of the community. Extreme penalty, in my view, is necessary in such cases to protect the community and to deter others from committing such crime. 12. The High Court also referred to various judgments of this Court and found on facts : There cannot be any manner of doubt that in the present case murders have been committed by the accused after premeditation with a motive to commit a theft. The crime can be described to be heinous, dastardly, gruesome and cruel. The persons asleep have been killed in a merciless manner by the accused who has no value for human lives. The crime committed by the accused falls within the aggravating circumstances as it has been committed after previous planning involving extreme cruelty. The murders in the present case involve exceptional depravity. In view of all this the question arises whether the single circumstance of the accused being too young should be good enough for us to award lighter punishment or not. We have not been able to lay our hands upon any observations of the Apex Court and none has been brought to our notice during the course of arguments that even if all the aggravating circumstances are present in a particular given case, single circumstance of the accused being too young or too old would outweigh other aggravating circumstances and the court must on the basis of a single circumstance grant lighter punishment. Having given our deep and thoughtful consideration and after giving due weight to the mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances which have been referred to above, we are of the view that the accused in the present case must be given death sentence. The present is one of the rarest of rare cases in which infliction of extreme penalty is called for. 13. It is true that in a civilised society a tooth for a tooth, and a nail for a nail or death for death is not the rule but it is equally true that when a man becomes a beast and menace to the society, he can be deprived of his life according to the procedure established by law, as the Constitution itself has recognised the death sentence as a permissible punishment for which sufficient constitutional provision for an appeal, reprieve and the like have been provided under the law. It is true that life sentence is the rule and death sentence is an exception. We are satisfied that the present case is an exceptional case which warrants the awarding of maximum penalty under the law to the appellant-accused. The crime committed by the appellant is not only shocking but it has also jeopardised the society. The awarding of lesser sentence only on the ground of the appellant being a youth at the time of occurrence cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in view of our findings that the murders committed by him were most cruel, heinous and dastardly. We have no doubt that the present case is the rarest of the rare requiring the maximum penalty, imposable under law. After going through whole of the evidence, perusing the record, thoughtfully considering the submissions made before us and before the trial court as well as the High Court, we have come to an unmistakable conclusion that the present case is one of the rarest of rare cases warranting the extreme penalty imposable by law. The case of Appellant 2 Jitu is not distinguishable. But for his active participation in the conspiracy and its execution, Accused 1 could not have succeeded in committing the murder of six persons including a pregnant woman and a teenaged (sic) child. The manner in which Jitu, Appellant 2 committed the murder of Pratik is not only ghastly but reflects his beast-like mental attitude. The appellants do not deserve any sympathy from the law and society. 14.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned defence counsel that as the statement of the approver was recorded after a prolonged delay, no reliance could be placed upon it. The delay in granting the pardon may be a just criticism, where it is found that the pardon had been tendered at the end of the trial and in effect was intended to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case. Such is not the present case13. It is true that in a civilised society a tooth for a tooth, and a nail for a nail or death for death is not the rule but it is equally true that when a man becomes a beast and menace to the society, he can be deprived of his life according to the procedure established by law, as the Constitution itself has recognised the death sentence as a permissible punishment for which sufficient constitutional provision for an appeal, reprieve and the like have been provided under the law. It is true that life sentence is the rule and death sentence is an exception. We are satisfied that the present case is an exceptional case which warrants the awarding of maximum penalty under the law to the appellant-accused. The crime committed by the appellant is not only shocking but it has also jeopardised the society. The awarding of lesser sentence only on the ground of the appellant being a youth at the time of occurrence cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in view of our findings that the murders committed by him were most cruel, heinous and dastardly. We have no doubt that the present case is the rarest of the rare requiring the maximum penalty, imposable under law. After going through whole of the evidence, perusing the record, thoughtfully considering the submissions made before us and before the trial court as well as the High Court, we have come to an unmistakable conclusion that the present case is one of the rarest of rare cases warranting the extreme penalty imposable by law. The case of Appellant 2 Jitu is not distinguishable. But for his active participation in the conspiracy and its execution, Accused 1 could not have succeeded in committing the murder of six persons including a pregnant woman and a teenaged (sic) child. The manner in which Jitu, Appellant 2 committed the murder of Pratik is not only ghastly but reflects his beast-like mental attitude. The appellants do not deserve any sympathy from the law and society.