Case: Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary  Vs. State Of Maharashtra

Three desperadoes, the two appellants and one Raju (PW 2) who had gone amuck, committed the heinous crime of murders in a most ghastly and shocking manner for which the appellants were charged with various offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 34, 342, 392, 297 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code. On proof of the charge that the appellants had committed the murder of five innocent women, one of whom was pregnant, and two children of tender age of one-and-a-half years and two-and-a-half years, they were convicted and sentenced to death along with other sentences, by the trial court. The High Court accepted the reference made for confirmation of the death sentence and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants for setting aside their convictions.On the date of occurrence the appellants were of 20-22 years of age. The deceased, victims of the crime, included Meerabai Rathi, aged about 45 years, her daughter-in-law Babita @ Nita Rathi, aged about 24 years, her unmarried daughter Preeti aged about 19 years, her married daughter Hemlata aged about 27 years, her maidservant Satyabhamabai Sutar aged about 42 years, Chirag, son of Babita aged two-and-a-half years, Pratik, son of Hemlata aged one-and-a-half years.All women and children were killed one by one by inflicting numerous knife-blows on their persons. All the deaths, except of Pratik (child of one-and-a-half years), were actually caused by the brutal knife-blows inflicted by Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as Accused 1). Pratik was killed by Jitendra @ Jitu Nayansingh Gehlot (hereinafter referred to as Accused 2). Raju, PW 2 actively participated and facilitated the commission of the crime. The murders were apparently committed to wipe out all evidence of robbery and theft committed by the accused persons.The prosecution case, as revealed from the investigation and official report filed in the Court, is that complainant Sanjay Rathi (PW 1) along with his father Keshrimal Rathi, his mother, deceased Meerabai Rathi, his younger sister, deceased Km Preeti, his wife, deceased Babita and his son, deceased Chirag were residing in Flat No. 6 on the second floor of Himanshu Apartment, Shilavihar Colony, Puad Phata, Kothrud, Pune. One of the daughters of Keshrimal Rathi, deceased Hemlata was married to Shri Shrikant Navandhar, PW 15 in the year 1992 and had come to her parents house along with her son on the fateful day. Raju Rajpurohit who was Accused 3 and later after becoming approver appeared as PW 2, a resident of Muklava District, Ganganagar, Rajasthan after passing 11th standard examination in the year 1993-94 came to his elder brother Kalyan Singh at Pune for the purposes of getting further education while working or serving there. He was employed in Bombay Vihar situated at Laxmi Road, Pune since June 1994. Accused 1 and Accused 2 were also working at the said Bombay Vihar during the aforesaid period as Cook and Counter Salesman respectively. After being acquainted with each other, all the three became friends. Raju, PW 2 was removed from Bombay Vihar on 8-6-1994 whereafter he got the service at Sagar Sweet Mart owned by Keshrimal Rathi and his son Sanjay Rathi (complainant). In the course of his employment he used to go to the house of Rathis to bring chappatis for servants of the shop daily and thus acquainted himself with the family members of the complainant as also their maidservant. Raju worked with the Rathis for about two to two-and-a-half months. When his request for enhancement of salary was declined by the Rathis, he left their service. At this time Accused 2 went to him and informed that he too has left the job at Bombay Vihar and, therefore, Raju should talk to his employer to keep Jitu in their service. Raju requested Sanjay Rathi to employ Accused 2 but as he demanded a salary of Rs. 1200, Sanjay Rathi expressed his inability to provide him the job. Meanwhile Raju learnt that Accused 1 has also left the job at Bombay Vihar. Thereafter all the three went to a room in Nagpur Chawl in which Accused 1 was residing and started living there.After being rendered jobless and the limited amount they had with them being spent, they started thinking about their future. They hatched a conspiracy and made up a plan of robbing the house of some seth i.e. a businessman. On the night of 23-8-1994 they decided to commit theft/robbery at the house of Rathis. Accused 1 told the other accused that before committing the theft/robbery they have to make some further preparations. He suggested to purchase a knife because all the inmates of the house were to be killed so that no one could depose anything against them. They also decided to sprinkle chilly powder in the mouth and eyes of their victims to immobilise them for easy killings by the accused. On 24-8-1994 all the accused persons discussed the details of the plan to commit the theft and killings at the house of Rathis. Accused 2 agreed to sell his silver anklet and out of its sale proceeds to purchase a new knife. They went to the shop of Shrinagar Jewellers on 24-8-1994 in the evening. Accused 2 requested the proprietor of the shop to purchase his said silver anklet. As Accused 2 was not having the purchase receipt of his anklet, the shopkeeper refused to purchase it. However, as the accused persons were then residing at Nagpur Chawl which was adjacent to the Shrinagar Jewellers shop, the anklet was kept as pledge and they were given a sum of Rs. 90 as loan. They went to the shop of Jaswant (PW 5) and purchased on a utility knife of Fiscar-make (art. 147) for Rs. 55.On 25-8-1994 at about 11 a.m. to 12 noon, the accused persons went towards the house of Rathis to observe the situation. They stayed and surveyed the said area and found that the area remained isolated during 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. They decided to commit the act of theft after killing all the persons, whosoever were found at the house of Rathis during the aforesaid period only.On 26-8-1994 at about 8.45 a.m. the complainant Sanjay Rathi is stated to have left his house for his shop. Thereafter Hemlata, deceased with her husband and son arrived at the house of Rathis in connection with tying rakhi to her brother PW 1 as she had not come for the said purpose on the day of Rakhi, Poornima Festival on 21-8-1994. Sanjay Rathi, PW 1 came to his house at about 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. on his motorcycle. Sanjay and his brother-in-law Shri Shrikant Navandhar, PW 15 took their meals and went to the complainants shop. Accused persons left their room at about 12 noon for going to the house of Rathis. Accused 1 was armed with the new knife and Accused 2 with the old one. They had taken with them chilli powder regarding which decision had already been taken, as according to them its throwing in the eyes of victims would have facilitated the commission of the crime. They reached near the house of Rathis at about 2 p.m. They saw one motorcycle kept near the said building which was identified by Raju, PW 2 as belonging to Sanjay Rathi, PW 1. Realising that Sanjay Rathi, PW 1 was at his house, they returned to the main road and watched. After about one hour they again returned near the building of Rathis. After noticing that the motorcycle of Sanjay Rathi was not there, they decided to execute their plan. Accused 1 told Accused 3 (PW 2) to go ahead into the house of Rathis and start talking with the family members in respect of his service and by that time they would reach there after chaining the doors of other flats in the said building from outside. After the doors of all other flats were chained from outside, Raju (PW 2) went to the flat of Rathis. He found that the door of the flat was half-open and when he peeped into the said flat he saw the maidservant, deceased Satyabhamabai Sutar cleaning the floor with water. He entered the flat and the appellants followed him. Appellant Jitu closed the door from inside.Accused 2 Jitu threw chilli powder on the inmates of the flat who had collected into the hall on hearing the call made by the maidservant. All the inmates were made to keep quiet and surrender to the orders of the accused persons lest they may be deprived of their lives with the knives which the appellants had in their hands. The family members of Rathis were taken to different rooms in the flat.Realising that the middle-aged woman Meerabai, who had raised her voice, was the lady of the house, Accused 1 promptly asked her about the valuables. Seeing a knife in his hand and realising the danger to her life as also the lives of the rest of the members of the family she immediately pointed out a finger towards an almirah inside the room. Accused 1 and 2 took her to the said room. Accused 2 handed over the packet containing the remaining chilli powder to Raju, PW 2 and directed him to sprinkle it on the victims if they started shouting or made any other effort.Smt. Meerabai was done to death with the knife-blows inflicted by Accused 1 and was left to lie on bed where she died. Thereafter Babita @ Nita was taken to another room, apparently for getting the valuables and was killed by Accused 1 by inflicting knife injuries on her person. Her son Chirag was also likewise killed by the aforesaid accused. Raju, PW 2, took Preeti into the bathroom at the instance of Accused 1 who cut a length of wire of the washing machine and used it to choke her to death, who, however, survived. When they came out of the bathroom, they heard some noise from the bathroom which prompted Accused 1 to go again inside. In the bathroom he found Preeti alive and told his other colleagues that she was still alive and had not died. To accomplish the conspiracy hatched he gave knife-blows to her which resulted in her death. Raju, PW 2 took Satyabhamabai Sutar in the kitchen where Accused 1 had already reached and was washing the bloodstained knife. Raju held Satyabhamabai Sutar and Accused 1 gave knife-blows resulting in her death. Thereafter Raju and Accused 1 went towards a room where the married daughter of Rathis was held up by Accused 2. Pratik, her son was tried to be taken from her, which she resisted. Accused 2 assured her that he will not kill the child but will give him to his grandmother and threatened that if the child was not given to him, he will kill the child. Hemlata was also killed by inflicting knife injuries. Accused 2 and Raju, PW 2 took the child into the room where Meerabai was lying dead in the pool of blood. The child was suffocated by gagging and when his movements stopped, Accused 2 put down the child on the floor saying he had died. Accused 2 and Raju, PW 2 then came out and joined Accused 1 who was standing before Hemlata. Upon enquiry about the child she was told by Accused 2 that the child had been given to her grandmother. Accused 1 then caught hold of Hemlata who put up some resistance and in the process fell down. Accused 2 gave her blows by putting his knees on her stomach and when she was immobilised this way, Accused 1 gave her knife-blows on her neck with the result she also died.Almirahs found in the flat were emptied to the extent the accused could put articles and other cash and valuables in the air bag obtained from the said flat. Before leaving the scene of occurrence Accused 1 changed his pant which was bloodstained and also put on him khaki jerkin clothes which were available in the house. Accused 2 helped himself to a black shirt. Bloodstained clothes of Accused 2 were put in the air bag along with the stolen articles. At the time when they were about to leave the flat, the phone installed therein started ringing. Accused 1 cut the telephone wires with his knife. At this stage they heard the cries of child from the room where Meerabai was lying dead. All of them went inside and found that the child Pratik had not died. Despite the death spree caused, they did not think, even to leave that child alive. Accused 2 took the knife from Accused 1 and gave blows to the child and killed him.After completing the crime of theft/robbery and murders, the accused persons came out of the house with the air bag in which they had kept the bloodstained clothes, knives and stolen property. Vishwajit Joshi, PW 9 saw the accused persons coming out of the compound wall of the Himanshu Apartments concerned where the flat of the Rathis was located. On the road they boarded a rickshaw and came back to their room in Nagpur Chawl.As noticed earlier, Sanjay Rathi, PW 1, his brother-in-law Shrikant Navandhar (PW 15) had left the flat before the accused attacked the victims. Both of them went back to the house of Rathis by 6.45 p.m. Sanjay Rathi, PW 1 rang the doorbell and as nobody opened the door, he made inquiries from Smt. Khara and Smt. Dhade as to whether the key of the door of his flat was kept at their houses. On getting reply in the negative, Sanjay Rathi made inquiries from his relatives and family members by making phone calls from the house of Mrs. Khara as to whether his family members had gone there and on receiving the information in the negative he telephoned his father at the shop. His father told him that nobody from the family members had come to the shop nor did he receive any message from them. Sanjay Rathi went to the shop and brought the duplicate key. Meanwhile Damu Sutar, the husband of the maidservant had also come there. Sanjay Rathi, PW 1 opened the door with the duplicate key in the presence of Shrikant Navandhar PW 15, Damu Sutar and Smt. Sharmila Dhade. Upon entering in the flat they saw the maidservant Satyabhamabai Sutar lying dead in a pool of blood. They rushed out crying and saying that the police be called. On hearing the cries of the complainant Sanjay Rathi, the neighbours and passers-by got collected in front of the building. Two of the neighbours went to Kothrud Police Station and informed the police that several persons had gathered in front of the Apartment in which the flat of Rathis was situated. Entry about the information was recorded in the station diary whereafter PI Vikram Pawar along with his staff rushed to the Apartment building. The said Shri Vikram Pawar along with Sanjay Rathi, PW 1 and Shrikant Navandhar, PW 15 entered the flat and saw the maidservant Satyabhamabai Sutar, Preeti, Meerabai, Pratik, Babita, Hemlata and Chirag lying dead in pools of blood in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and the store of the flat of Rathis. The almirahs were found open. Sanjay Rathi was asked to verify the purportedly stolen articles. Sanjay Rathi was not in a condition to check the articles on account of the shock received after having seen the dead bodies all around in his flat. However, after the passage of sometime and consolation by Vikram Pawar, Sanjay Rathi told the police that cash of Rs. 85, 000 besides gold and silver ornaments was missing.Meanwhile, after reaching Nagpur Chawl, where the accused persons were residing, Accused 2 asked PW 2 Raju to bring liquor and some edibles for which he was given Rs. 200. The air bag was opened in which they had kept their bloodstained clothes, mouth organ, knives, camera, one bundle of Rs. 500 denomination currency notes, one bundle of Rs. 100 denomination currency notes, one bundle of Rs. 50 denomination currency notes and bundles of Rs. 10 denomination, besides gold and silver ornaments. Raju kept for himself a mouth organ, camera and a ladies wristwatch of Rico-make as also some coins of Nepal origin. Mangalsutra and one HMT watch was taken away by Accused 1. Golden chain, three golden bangles and one golden ring, having S.R. written on it, were taken away by Accused 2.Raju, PW 2 was asked by Accused 1 to wash the bloodstained clothes. While washing the pant of Accused 1 Raju found one gold ring in the pocket which he took out and kept with him. As he could not wash the bloodstained clothes of Accused 1 he put back the ring in the pocket of the pant which was later on concealed in the tin roof. The accused thereafter went to the jewellery shop where the silver anklet was pledged. After making the payment they got the silver anklet released. On reaching back in the room in the Nagpur Chawl, they consumed the liquor brought by PW 2 and moved around the area for about an hour or so. Again coming back to the said room, Accused 1 declared that he will go and hide the knives. He went away and on his return, upon enquiry, he told that the knives were hidden near the latrine.On the next day at the instance of Accused 1 Raju brought the newspapers Prabhat and Aaj ka Anand wherein the incident of murders and dacoity was reported without indicating the identity of the accused persons. In the afternoon they purchased the evening newspaper Sandayanad which carried further details of the incident and mentioned the name of Accused 2 being probably responsible for the crime. After reading such news-item they agreed to part company and to meet at Ahmedabad on 29-8-1994. They met at Ahmedabad and again dispersed. Accused 1 was arrested on 5-9-1994, Accused 2 on 21-11-1994 and Raju, PW 2 on 15-10-1994 from different places in Rajasthan. They made disclosure statements consequent to which various articles were recovered vide panchnamas prepared in accordance with law. In the identification parades they were identified by various witnesses.All the three accused persons were committed to the Court of Session for standing trial of various offences under the Indian Penal Code as noticed earlier.After the commitment but before the commencement of the trial Accused 3 Raju Rajpurohit sent a letter to the Commissioner of Police repenting and expressing his wish to make a confessional statement. P. I. Shinde (PW 63) filed an application in the trial court along with the letter of accused Raju dated 22-11-1995 praying the permission of the court for getting the confessional statement of the accused Raju Rajpurohit recorded. The trial court accepted the application and directed the Superintendent of Prisons to allow to get the confessional statement of Raju recorded. Shri Khomane, Special Judicial Magistrate was also directed to record the confessional statement of Raju. The confessional statement, as recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate (PW 41) was received by the trial court in a closed envelope.On 3-1-1996 an application under Section 307 CrPC was filed on behalf of the prosecution with a prayer to tender pardon to the accused Raju Rajpurohit, on making necessary inquiries and on the condition of his making true and full disclosure of all the facts within his knowledge. On receipt of the said application, the trial court directed the Superintendent of the jail concerned to produce the aforesaid accused in the court on 4-1-1996 at 11 a.m. The arguments on the application of the prosecution were heard after affording the advocates of the appellants an opportunity of addressing the court. The trial court, after hearing accused Raju observed :On query by this court he stated before me that he is prepared to make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge regarding these offences and the entire incident involved and that he is ready to accept the pardon. I have carefully perused the entire record of this case and also the confessional statement of this accused Rajendrasingh alias Rajusingh Ramlal Purohit which has been recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate, Pune. The said confessional statement was received in this court in a closed envelope on 21-12-1995 from Shri G. H. Kohoma, Special Judicial Magistrate and since the said envelope was not bearing lac seals on the packet I kept the said envelope in another envelope, closed the said envelope and got the lac seals put on it. Today I opened the said sealed envelope of this court and also the inner envelope and took out the said confessional statements in open court and then perused the same. I am satisfied from the said confessional statements made by this accused Rajendrasingh alias Rajusingh Ramlal Purohit and other material on the record of this sessions case that this accused Rajusingh alias Rajendrasingh Ramlal Purohit has participated in the entire incident involved and thus he is privy to all the happenings at the time of incident.It is clear from the record of this sessions case that there is only circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses of this incident, and therefore, with a view of obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person who might have witnessed the incident, it is necessary to tender pardon to the present accused Rajendrasingh alias Rajusingh Ramlal Purohit as prayed by the prosecution. The accused Rajusingh alias Rajendrasingh Ramlal Purohit has also shown his willingness to become an approver and to make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offences and every other persons concerned whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof and further shown his willingness to accept pardon if the same is tendered to himand ordered that accused Raju was tendered pardon on the condition that he shall make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence. The aforesaid accused was directed to be sent to the District Prison, Satara and be detained there until further orders. Copies of the statement were furnished to the counsel of the appellants.After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses the learned trial Judge recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court undertook a very elaborate exercise by putting almost 600 questions to the accused with respect to the evidence brought on record and the circumstances appearing against them. Accused 1 pleaded alibi by stating that he was not in Pune. Accused 2 admitted of being in Pune and also that he knew the approver as they had been working together in Bombay Vihar Restaurant. He put forth a case of there being enmity with the approver. He has admitted that Raju, PW 2 was working in Bombay Vihar where he also worked. Accused 1 denied that he knew Raju, PW 2 at all. None of the accused, however, led any defence evidence. On behalf of Accused 2 besides making oral submissions his counsel submitted written arguments comprising of 470 pages (Exhibit 349 contained in Vol. 4 of the paper-book).After scanning the whole of the prosecution evidence, hearing the oral submissions and perusing the written arguments, the trial court, in a very lucid and detailed judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :Accused 1 Narayan is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for causing the deaths of deceased Meeradevi Keshrimal Rathi, deceased Babita alias Nita Sanjay Rathi, deceased Preeti Keshrimal Rathi, deceased Chirag Rathi, deceased Hemlata Shrikant Navandhar and deceased Satyabhamabai Damu Sutar), for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for causing the death of deceased Pratik Navandhar), and for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and is sentenced to death and he be hanged by neck till he is dead and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000 in default to suffer RI for three years on all counts.  Accused 2 Jitu is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for causing the death of Pratik Shrikant Navandhar) and for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for causing the death of deceased Meeradevi Rathi, deceased Babita alias Nita Rathi, deceased Hemlata Shrikant Navandhar, deceased Preeti Rathi, Satyabhamabai Damu Sutar and Chirag Rathi) and for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to death and be hanged by neck till he is dead and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000 in default to suffer RI for three years on all counts.  Both the accused persons are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and each is sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 in default to suffer further RI for two years for such offence.Both the accused persons are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 449 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and each is sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 in default to suffer RI for two years for such offence.  Both the accused persons are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each is sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer RI for one month for such offence.  Substantive sentences of imprisonment and sentences of imprisonment in default of fine to run consecutively.  Accused 1 Narayan be given set-off of the period from 5-9-1994 till today and Accused 2 Jitu be given set-off of the period from 21-1-1994 till today during which they were in custody during investigation and trial. *Criminal Appeals Nos. 462 and 415 of 1998 filed by Appellants 1 and 2 respectively were dismissed by the High Court vide an elaborate judgment. The High Court also accepted the reference made to it by the trial court for confirmation of the death sentence. Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the present appeals have been filed in this Court by special leave.

Reasoning: 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.