Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral vs State Of Maharashtra

3. Earlier the accused had lived at Ludhiana. However, it appears that he suffered business losses there, and so he shifted to 3 Mumbai with his family and started residing in Jyotsna Building.

After some time, the accused shifted his catering business to Kamlesh building which is situated in the same locality of Shere-

Punjab colony, Andheri. There were several employees of the accused to assist him in the business of catering. Those servants used to sleep in front of his flat in the verandah. The accused was having a Maruti Zen Car and his son was having a motorcycle.

4. According to the prosecution, the accused was a hot tempered man. He was like a dictator in the family, and dominated his wife and children in the family, on account of which there was resentment in his family members. Further, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was ill-treating his wife and twice he had assaulted her with a leather belt.

5. On the night of 9.4.2003 the accused and all his family members were in their flat. All the servants were sleeping outside.

The accused was seen coming to the flat between the night of 9.4.2003 and 10.4.2003 at about midnight. There were two bed rooms in the flat of the accused. Ordinarily the accused and his wife used to sleep in one bed room while the children slept in another. There was a quarrel on the night of 9.4.2003 between the accused and his wife after he had returned back from work.

Between 4.00 and 4.30 a.m. some of the servants heard a big noise of something bursting followed by or preceded by someone crying in pain. The servants woke up and found that the flat of the accused was on fire. There was utter confusion and chaos.

The investigation soon started and inquest Panchanama, spot panchanama etc. were made. The bodies were then sent for post mortem.

6. In their preliminary inquiry, the police found that the Maruti Zen car of the accused was not there and the accused was also not there. Attempts were made to trace and search him, and ultimately the accused was arrested on or near Kishangadh, Madanganj in Ajmer District in Rajasthan on 14.4.2003. The car which the accused was driving was seized, and so also an amount of Rs.7,68,080/- in cash along with about 24 silver coins, 7 safari dresses and 7 turbans. A police officer was deputed from Mumbai and the accused was brought to Mumbai.

7. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and a red bucket from which he had allegedly thrown petrol on the persons of all the four members of his family was recovered at his instance.

9. In the inquest, it was found that the son of the accused, Amandeepsingh had certain injuries on his body. Because of fire, the glass pieces were shattered in the room and one piece was removed from one of the injuries on the stomach of the son. An expert electrician was called, and he inspected the premises and opined that there was no short circuit. The Air-Conditioner's compressor was intact. Post mortem of all the bodies was conducted and it was found that all the four persons died as a result of burning.

Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge, recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In all 19 witnesses were examined as the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded.

The accused expressed his desire to examine witnesses in defence of his plea of alibi and, accordingly four witnesses were examined by the accused. The Additional Sessions Judge heard the arguments and also took on record the written arguments submitted by the advocate for the accused and, ultimately came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed murders of all four members of his family. So far as sentence was concerned, the Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion, after considering the cases cited before him by both the sides, that this was a rarest of the rare case and imposed penalty of death upon the 8 accused.

16. Phuldeepsingh Marva, PW3 also supported the prosecution case. His wife and the wife of the appellant were real sisters. In his deposition he has stated :

30. The incident happened at 4 or 4.30 a.m. and hence there was a time gap of only about 4 hours from the time when the appellant was seen with his wife (deceased) and the time of the incident.

37. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the plea of alibi was totally false and bogus.

(c) Those who are specifically qualified to express an opinion on the subject, including particularly the majority of the replies received from State Governments, Judges, Members of Parliament and Legislatures and Members of the Bar and police 35 officers - are definitely of the view that the deterrent object of capital punishment is achieved in a fair measure in India.

(d) As to conduct of prisoners released from jail (after undergoing imprisonment for life), it would be difficult to come to a conclusion, without studies extending over a long period of years.

After the commission of the crime the accused absconded from judicial custody for nearly four years, which indicates the fact that 51 the possibility of any remorse are rehabilitation is nil. Held the extreme penalty of death was justified.

mother, and with this intention went to her house, closed the doors and mercilessly inflicted 37 knife injuries on the vital parts of the victims' bodies.

Present Case

96. In our opinion, a person like the appellant who instead of doing his duty of protecting his family kills them in such a cruel and barbaric manner cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. The balance sheet is heavily against him and accordingly we uphold the death sentence awarded to him.

98. In our opinion a distinction has to be drawn between ordinary murders and murders which are gruesome, ghastly or horrendous.

While life sentence should be given in the former, the latter 62 belongs to the category of rarest of rare cases, and hence death sentence should be given.

100. We fully agree with the above view and we are of the opinion that all the requisites for death penalty as noted above are satisfied in the present case for the reasons given above.

Abolition of Death Sentence

102. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

103. Before parting with this case, we would like to mention that we are not dealing with mercy petitions under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution, but are confining ourselves to the question of imposing death penalty on the judicial side.

September 13, 2011