Ramnaresh & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh

(5) The High Court has erred in law in relying upon the statement of the witnesses which are not reliable. The courts are expected to examine statements of such witnesses and/or sole witness cautiously. The learned Trial Court as well as the High Court has failed to apply these settled principles correctly to the facts of the present case.

4. Before we proceed to discuss the merits or otherwise of the above contentions, it will be necessary for us to state the case of the prosecution and the evidence on record. Rajkumari (the deceased) was residing at Village Gullidand, Police Station Marwahi, with her husband Indrajeet and two infant children. On 8th August, 2006, her husband had gone to the house of his father at Rajnagar. Rajkumari was at her residence with her children. On 9th August, 2006, Rajkumari had called Dhaniram, their domestic servant, to sleep in their house in the night. It was the day of Raksha Bandhan. Anita (PW3), Savita (PW2) and Bela Bai (PW5), neighbours of Rajkumari, visited her house to view television in the night. At about 9 ob�clock, they went back to their houses after viewing television. Ranjeet Kewat, is the brother of Indrajeet and brother-in-law of Rajkumari. He had a house near the house of Indrajeet. Vishwanath, Amar Singh, Kamlesh and Ramnaresh, who used to reside at the house of Ranjeet came to his house, sat there for some time and then went away. At about 11.30 p.m., they are stated to have again come to the house of Ranjeet and consumed alcohol. Thereafter, at about 12 ob�clock in the night, when Rajkumari had gone to sleep in her room and the servant, Dhaniram, was watching television in the verandah, the accused persons, Ranjeet, Vishwanath, Amar Singh and Ramnaresh came into the house of Rajkumari and told Dhaniram that they would have illicit relations with Rajkumari and if he disclosed anything to anybody, he would be eliminated. Ramnaresh and Amar Singh sat down along with Dhaniram while Ranjeet and Vishwanath went into the room of Rajkumari and committed rape on her. After committing the offence, they came out and took Dhaniram into the courtyard. Then Ramnaresh and Amar Singh entered the room of Rajkumari. They also committed rape on her and came out after some time. Then, the accused asked Dhaniram to go away to which he objected. Upon his objection, he was threatened of elimination. Thereafter, Dhaniram went to the room of Rajkumari and saw that she was breathing heavily, was not able to speak and blood was oozing from her mouth and nose. Dhaniram came out of the room and was again threatened by all the accused. Ranjeet asked him to go to the house of his aunt (bua), mother of Rajkumari and tell her that Rajkumari is not waking up. Before leaving, they extended the threat again and told him to act as per their directions. Dhaniram went to the house of Sugaribai, mother of Rajkumari, PW12 and narrated the incident as he was directed by the accused. Sugaribai asked him to stay at her house while she went to the house of Rajkumari. There she noticed that Rajkumari was lying dead. She called the neighbours and thereafter, the information was given to Indrajeet, husband of the deceased, who came in the morning. Indrajeet visited the Police Station Marwahi and informed about the death of Rajkumari vide Ex.P1. The police visited the spot and took the body of the deceased vide Ex.P3 and also collected other materials from the place of occurrence. Dr. Sheela Saha and Dr. Mahesh Raj conducted the postmortem of the dead body and submitted the postmortem report, Ex.P12, wherein it was opined that death of Rajkumari had taken place due to blockage of breathing on account of strangulation and the act of commission of rape on her was also established. The police registered a case under Section 376/302 IPC vide Ex.P16 and started its investigation. Statements of as many as 14 witnesses were recorded by the police. Various items like blood stained underwear and piece of yellow-coloured saree on which blood spots were visible at various places were also seized from the place of occurrence and were exhibited as Ex.P10. Slide of semen of the accused from the hospital was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P13. Thereafter, the accused were arrested. During further investigation, clothes, shirts and underwear of the other accused persons and the petticot and saree of the deceased were also seized. After the medical examination of the accused, report of the FSL and recording of statements of the witnesses, the police filed the report before the court of competent jurisdiction. The accused were committed to the Court of Sessions and tried in accordance with law, which resulted in their conviction, as afore-noticed. As per Ex.P12, there were following injuries upon the person of the deceased:-

9. PW12, Sugaribai, is the mother of the deceased and she had also supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the statement of PW6. She stated that when she visited the house of Rajkumari, Ranjeet was holding the younger infant of Rajkumari in his lap and she had sent Ranjeet to call the people but instead he called Rewa Lohar, a witch doctor.

169. The accused persons were not criminals. They were friends. The deceased was said to have been selected because his father was rich. The motive, if any, was to collect some money. They were not professional killers. They have no criminal history. All were unemployed and were searching for jobs. Further, if age of the accused was a relevant factor for the High Court for not imposing death penalty on Accused 2 and 3, the same standard should have been applied to the case of the appellant also who was only two years older and still a young man in age. Accused 2 and 3 were as much a part of the crime as the appellant. Though it is true, that it was he who allegedly proposed the idea of kidnapping, but at the same time it must not be forgotten that the said plan was only executed when all the persons involved gave their consent thereto.

23. In the present case, the accused have denied their presence on the spot, at the time of occurrence. Thus, it was for them to prove that they were not present at the place of occurrence and were entitled to plea of alibi. In our considered opinion, they have miserably failed to establish this fact. On the contrary, the behaviour explained by the defence witnesses appears to be somewhat unnatural in the social set up in which the accused, the deceased and even some of the prosecution witnesses were living. They knew each other very well and the normal course of life in a village is that they are quite concerned with and actively participate in each otherb�s affairs, particularly sad occasions. Ranjeet was present at the place of occurrence and was holding one of the minor children of PW1. This supports the statement of PW6 that he was constantly under threat and watch from either of the accused. The version put forward by the accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is unbelievable and unacceptable. There is no cogent evidence on record to support their plea.

24. For the reasons afore-recorded, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are guilty of committing the offence under Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 IPC. We hold them guilty of committing these offences.

The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy Conditions (3) and (4) above.

171. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or in the alternative with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons thereof. We do not think that the reasons assigned by the courts below disclose any special reason to uphold the death penalty. The discretion granted to the courts must be exercised very cautiously especially because of the irrevocable character of death penalty. Requirements of law to assign special reasons should not be construed to be an empty formality.

172. We have previously noted that the judicial principles for imposition of death penalty are far from being uniform. Without going into the merits and demerits of such discretion and subjectivity, we must nevertheless reiterate the basic principle, stated repeatedly by this Court, that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an exception. Each case must therefore be analysed and the appropriateness of punishment determined on a case-by-case basis with death sentence not to be awarded save in the b�rarest of the rareb� case where reform is not possible. Keeping in mind at least this principle we do not think that any of the factors in the present case discussed above warrants the award of the death penalty. There are no special reasons to record the death penalty and the mitigating factors in the present case, discussed previously, are, in our opinion, sufficient to place it out of the b�rarest of rareb� category.

173. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where death penalty should be imposed. The appellant, therefore, instead of being awarded death penalty, is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Subject to the modification in the sentence of the appellant (A-1) mentioned hereinbefore, both the appeals of the appellant as also that of the State are dismissed.b� (emphasis in original)

36. The above judgments provide us with the dicta of the Court relating to imposition of death penalty. Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be a sufficient reason for the imposition of death penalty without reference to the other factors and attendant circumstances.

Aggravating Circumstances :

Mitigating Circumstances :

40. While determining the questions relateable to sentencing policy, the Court has to follow certain principles and those principles are the loadstar besides the above considerations in imposition or otherwise of the death sentence.

Principles :

44. Wherever, the offence which is committed, manner in which it is committed, its attendant circumstances and the motive and status of the victim, undoubtedly brings the case within the ambit of b�rarest of rareb� cases and the Court finds that the imposition of life imprisonment would be inflicting of inadequate punishment, the Court may award death penalty. Wherever, the case falls in any of the exceptions to the b�rarest of rareb� cases, the Court may exercise its judicial discretion while imposing life imprisonment in place of death sentence.

45. Guided by the above principles, now, we shall proceed to deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants that the present case is not one of the b�rarest of rareb� cases where the Court should find that imposition of life imprisonment would be entirely inadequate, even if the accused are held guilty of the offences charged.

50. Accordingly, while commuting the sentence of death to that for life imprisonment (21 years), we partially allow their appeals only with regard to the quantum of sentence.

[Swatanter Kumar] New Delhi;

February 28, 2012.