http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MAHESH S/o. RAM NARAIN ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/03/1987

BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1346            1987 SCR  (2) 710  1987 SCC  (3)  80        JT 1987 (1)   793  1987 SCALE  (1)594  CITATOR INFO :  R          1991 SC1463  (8)

ACT:     Indian Penal Code, 1860: s. 302--Murder of five  persons Root  cause--Marriage  of a lady of High  Caste  to  Harijan boy--High  Court  homing act of  accused  extremely  brutal, gruesome and shocking to judicial conscience--Death sentence given--Confirmed by Supreme Court. Criminal Trial.     Sentence--Imposition  of extreme penalty--Necessity  for in cases of gravest killings and ghastly murders.

HEADNOTE:     The prosecution alleged that the appellants--father  and son, had committed the murder of five innocent persons.  The root  cause  of  the crime was said to be that  one  of  the daughters  of the deceased had taken a Harijan as  her  hus- band,  and  for that the appellants were  treating  them  as lower  caste.  The evidence showed that the  appellants  had assaulted and axed the wife, husband and his mother  without any  provocation from them. A neighbor, who asked as to  why the appellants were murdering those people, was also axed to death.  A young girl aged about 14 years, who  was  standing near the scene of occurrence, was also not spared. The blood thirst  of  the  appellants was so intense  that  they  then knocked  and tried to break open the door of the room  where P.W.  Nos. 1 and 2 were hiding to save themselves, and  they left the place only when the door could not be broken.     The  appellants were convicted under s. 302, I.P.C.  and sentenced  to death. The High Court observed that  the  case was  one of the gravest killings and ghastly  murders,  that the  act of the appellants was extremely brutal,  revolting, gruesome  and shocking to the judicial conscience, and  that the  nature  of  crime being so cruel and  barbaric  it  was necessary to impose the maximum punishment under the law  as a  measure  of social necessity to work as  a  deterrent  to other potential offenders. Dismissing the Appeals of the appellants, the Court, 711     HELD:  There is no alternative but to confirm the  death sentence.  The evidence has been considered minutely by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

courts  below.  It will be a mockery of  justice  to  permit these  appellants to escape the extreme penalty of law  when faced  with such evidence and such cruel acts. To  give  the lesser punishment for them would be to render the  justicing system  of  this country suspect. The common man  will  then lose  faith in courts, for in such cases he understands  and appreciates the language of deferrence more than the reform- ative  jargon.  To say so, is not to ignore the need  for  a reformative approach in the sentencing process. [713A-C]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  Nos. 285 & 286 of 1986.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  7/10.2.86  of  the Madhya  Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.  1403  to 1404 of 1985. U.R.  Lalit, G.K. Sharma and S.K. Sabharwal for  the  Appel- lants. T.C. Sharma for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KHALID, J. The appellants Ram Narayan and his son Mahesh have  been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and  sentenced to death. They are the residents of Village Hinota. They are alleged to have committed five murders on 21-6-1984 at about 6.30  P.M. The deceased are Puran Baraua, his  wife,  Narbad Bai, his mother, Mula Bai, his daughter Kumar Nanhi Bai  and his neighbour Gulab. The learned counsel for the  appellants tried to take us through the evidence to persuade us to  re- appreciate it. The evidence has been considered minutely  by the  Courts  below. Then he put forward a  feeble  right  of private  defence  which  has no substance. Then  he  made  a fervent appeal before us regarding the sentence imposed.     It  is useful to advert to one fact which has  come  out the  evidence  in the case. The root cause of  the  gruesome murder  appears to be the marriage of a lady belonging to  a higher  caste with a Harijan boy. The High Court deals  with it in paragraph 19 as follows:               "19.  It may be pointed out that it  is  clear               from the evidence that the incident occurrence               when  the  appellant  Mahesh  had  broken  the               earthen pot of the deceased Narbad Bai at  the               well on the ground that the appellents               712               treated  Pooran and his inmates of  the  lower               caste  because Jankibai, one of the  daughters               of Pooran had taken a Harijan as her husband."     The  High  Court felt compelled to express  its  concern about  the evil of untouchability in paragraph 18,  at  page 46, as follows:               "It is unfortunate that evil of untouchability               was  still  prevalent  in some  parts  of  our               country  even after 38 years  of  independence               and  30  years  of coming into  force  of  the               untouchability Act, 1955, which evident by the               facts  of  the instant case. Indeed  it  is  a               matter of great concern that very often  there               occur  grave occurrences including group  mur-               ders resulting into untimely death of innocent               persons by those who still believe in  toucha-               bility as their way of life. The present  case               is one of those gravest killings, and  ghastly               murders of five persons by the appellants  who               deserve  condemnation  by  awarding   severest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

             punishment provided under the law."     The  evidence shows that Mahesh axed  Narbadbai  without any provocation, from any member of his family.  Thereafter, Pooran was assaulted and axed by Mahesh. When the assault of these two persons, by the father and son, was on, the mother of  Pooran  came from inside and questioned as to  why  they were doing this. She too was killed by giving her axe  blows by the appellants. When the neighbour Gulab asked the appel- lants  as  to why they were murdering these people,  he  was also  axed  to death by the appellants. A  young  girl  aged about 14 years standing near the bathing place at the corner of  the  house was also not spared. Mahesh gave her  an  axe blow, on receipt of which she fell down at some distance and died.  The evidence further shows that the blood  thirst  of the  accused was so intense that they knocked and  tried  to break  open the door of the room where Nandram, P.W.  1  and his wife Savithri Bai, P.W. 2 were hiding to save themselves and  they  left the place only when the door  could  not  be broken.     It  is against this background that the request  of  the appellants’  counsel for interference with the sentence  has to  be considered. The High Court observes that the  act  of the appellant: "was extremely brutal, revolting and gruesome which shocks the judicial conscience." And again as "in such shocking  nature of crime as the one before us which  is  so cruel,  barbaric  and revolting, it is necessary  to  impose such maximum punishment under the law as a measure of social necessity 713 which work as a deterrent to other potential offenders."     We  share  the concern of the High Court. We  also  feel that it will be a mockery of justice to permit these  appel- lants  to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced  with such  evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser  pun- ishment for the appellants would be to render the  justicing system  of  this country suspect. The common man  will  lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and  appreci- ates  the language of deferrence more than  the  reformative jargon.  When we say this, we do not ignore the need  for  a reformative approach in the sentencing process. But here, we have  no  alternative  but to confirm  the  death  sentence. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. P.S.S.                                               Appeals dismissed. 714