http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: DHARMA RAMA BHAGARE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/12/1972

BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. ALAGIRISWAMI, A. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1973 AIR  476            1973 SCR  (3)  92  1973 SCC  (1) 537

ACT: Criminal Trial-Evidence-Alleged discrepancy between  medical evidence  and testimony of eye-witnesses  whether  justifies acquittal   F.I.R.  whether  can  be  used   to   contradict statements  of  witnesses  other than  the  marker  thereof- Sentence  of death-No leniency when only reason for  killing is difference of religion.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  v.-as  convicted by the  Sessions  Judge  of offences  under  ss. 148,323 and 302 I.P.C. The  High  Court maintained  his  conviction and confirmed  the  sentence  to death.  in  appeal  by special leave to this  Court  it  was contended  that (i) the evidence of the  eye-witnesses  went against  the  medical evidence and thereof  the  former  was wrongly relied on by the courts below; (ii) the evidence  of the  three  eye-witnesses  on which the  conviction  of  the appellant was based was contradicted by the F.I.R. lodged by S,  one of the victims of the incident and therefore  should not  have  been relied on; and (iii) the sentence  of  death passed against the appellant was excessive. Dismissing the appeal, HELD:(i)  The fact remained that an arrow was  actually found ,underneath A’s dead body and according to the  doctor the  injury on the ,deceased could be caused by that  arrow. The  mere fact, therefore that in the opinion of the  doctor the arrow with the hook, unless skillfully pulled out of the wound was likely to cause more damage was not a sufficiently strong  factor  to reject the testimony of  the  three  eye- witnesses  believed  by  the courts below  and  about  whose trustworthiness there could ’be no reasonable doubt. (ii)The  F.I.R.  could only discredit the  testimony  of  S whose  evidence  had  not been relied upon  to  support  the appellant’s  conviction.   The F.I.R. could by no  means  be utilised   for  contradicting  or  discrediting  the   other witnesses  who obviously could not have any desire to  spare the  real  culprit and to falsely implicate  the  appellant. The evidence of the eye-witnewes believed by the two  courts appeared  to be free from any serious  infirmity  justifying its rejection.  The case was obviously not one in which  any reasonable doubt could be cast on the testimony of the  eye-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

witnesses  on the mere ground that S who apparently  in  his attempt to  save himself from  the  fierce  indiscriminate assault by the assailants was not able carefully to see  and remember  as  to  in what manner and  ’by  what  weapon  his parents and eldest brother had been killed. (iii)The  relevant  considerations in  determining  the sentence,  broadly stated, include the Motive for, and  the magnitude of, the offence and the manner of its  commission. In this case the victims of the assault had given no offence to  the  appellant or his associates.   They  were  actually runni ng in panic on seeing the mob, to save themselves. The  commission of offences motivated only by the fact  that the victim professes a different religious faith could  not be treated with leniency.           92 93

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 281  of 1971. Appeal  by special leave from the Judgment and  order  dated May 18, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Cr.  A. No. 262  of 1971 and confirmation case No. 57of 1971. S. K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia, for the appellant. H. R. Khanna and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent. DUA,  J.  The  appellant in this  appeal  by  special  leave (accused  no.  1 in the trial court) was  convicted  by  the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Thana of offences  under ss.  148,  323 and 302, I.P.C. and was  sentenced  to  death under  S. 302 and to various terms of rigorous  imprisonment under  ss.  148 and 323 of the said Code.   The  High  Court maintained  his  conviction and confirmed  the  sentence  of death.  He has now appealed to this Court and Shri Dholakia, learned  counsel  appearing in support of this  appeal,  has addressed lengthy arguments challenging both the  conviction and the sentence. This case is an off-shoot of the unfortunate communal  riots which  occurred  on May 7, 1970 in the town of  Bhiwandi  in Thana  District  in the State of  Maharashtra.   Though  the trouble originally-started in the town of Bhiwandi it spread to the neighboring towns and villages.  In the Thakurpada of Tansa  village  there lived one Abdul Khalil aged  about  55 years  along  with his family members.  This  was  the  only Muslim family in Thakurpada.  He and his wife Sahebi had ten children.   Their names and ages in the order  of  seniority are  : Shaukat (son) about ’2’3 years, Shamsuddin (son,  who has  appeared as P.W. 1) about 19 years, Kasam  (son)  about 17, Hanif (son) about 15, Jubeda (daughter) about 13,  Nizam (son)   about  11,  Fatma  (daughter)  about   9,   Hamshera (daughter) about 4, Salim (son) about 3 and Nazar (son about 4  or 5 months).  Abdul Khalil, Shaukat and Shamsuddin,  all three used to work in Nevigation Company at Mohilla about 2- 21  miles away from Tansa.  Abdul Khalil was a truck  driver and  Shaukat,  a clearner.  As communal  trouble  spread  to other  places  in the district, some danger  to  the  Muslim families  in Tans a-’village was also apprehended.  In  that village there were perhaps about 5 or 6 Muslim families.  On the outskirts of this village there is the great Tansa  lake which  supplies  water  to Bombay city.   Mr.  Khatkhate,  a Hydraulic  Engineer  is in charge of that lake.  He  has  an office  on the site with several employees of the  Municipal Corporation of Bombay working under him living on the  site. Mr.  Khatkhate met Abdul Khalil on May 12, 1970  and  warned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

him  that there was a likelihood that he and the members  of his  family  might be attacked and that  they  should  leave Tansa village and go to a safer place.  As 94 a  result of this warning, Abdul Khalil and the  members  of his  family abandoned their home and left Tansa  village  at about  6  p.m. on May 12, 1970.  They went into  the  forest area  surrounding  the great Tansa lake and  encamped  on  a hilock  known as Maholi hillock about 2 1/2 miles away  from the village.  They spent the night at the hillock but having run  short of water in the morning they shifted at about  10 a.m. on May 13, 1970 to the Nursery area of Tansa lake which is near the water’s edge.  This spot was about three or four furlongs  away from Tansa village.  They spent most  of  the day  there.  In the evening at .about 6 or 6.30  Shamsuddin, the. second son, went a little distance away from the family members to ease himself when he saw a mob of about 30 or  35 persons  armed with axes, spears and sticks coming from  the side of the Tansa lake towards the place where Abdul  Khalil and  his  family were staying.  Seeing the  mob  approaching them  Shamsuddin ran back to his parents and  informed  them about  what he had seen.  The mob was raising  shouts.   The members of Abdul Khalil’s family feeling frieghtened started running  in  different  directions.   They  roughly   formed themselves into three groups.  One group consisted of Kasam, Hanif,  Nizam,  Salim and Hashma, the  other  consisted  of’ Jubeda, Fatma and their mother Sahebi who was also carrying in her arms the baby Nazir and the third group which was the last to leave the spot consisted of Khalil and Shaukat.   As these  two persons were the last to leave the spot  the  mob had  in the meantime come close to them.  They  thus  became the  first target ,of the attack by the mob.  The  appellant Dharina  Rama Bhagare, who was armed with a bow  and  arrows shot  an  arrow  at Khalil which pierced him  in  the  back. Khalil fell down and was surrounded by other assailants, who started belabouring him.  Abdul Khalil’s eldest son  Shaukat seeing  his father being attacked went to rescue him but  he had hardly gone a few paces when another arrow discharged by the  appellant  struck  him  at  his  back  near  his  right shoulder.  Shaukat also fell down as a result of the  injury caused  by the arrow about two or three paces away from  his father.  He was also assaulted by some members of the  mob., On  seeing  her  husband  and  her  eldest  son  being  thus assaulted  Sahebi raised alarm but she was also attacked  by the appellant who shot the third arrow at her.  This  struck her  on the left side above the waist with the ’result  that she  also fell down with her infant child in her arms.   She died instantaneously.  Some of the other members of Khalil’s family  hid themselves behind the trees or  Karvandi  bushes round about the spot whereas some of them were still running away  to  save themselves.  Jubeda, the  young  daughter  on seeing  her  father, mother and brother being shot  at  with arrows, shouted.  This apparently annoyed the appellant  who picked  up a stone and flung it at her, thereby  causing  an injury on hear head.  Budhya, 95 one  of the accused, also struck a blow at her with an  iron bar  thereby  injuring her right hand.  Shamsuddin  who  was hiding  himself  behind a tree was noticed by  some  of  the accused  persons.   Budhya  accused  ran  towards  him   and assaulted  him  with the butt end of-an- axe.  Some  of  the other  accused  persons also assaulted him with  the  result that   Shamsuddin   lost  consciousness.    Thereafter   the assailants left the scene, of occurrence and went away.   As a  result  of this occurrence three members of  this  family

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

died  on  the spot whereas two  members  suffered  injuries. After  regaining consciousness Shamsuddin and the  surviving members  of  the  family seeing  their  parents  and  eldest brother  dead,  were so terrified that they  left  the  dead bodies  at the scene of the occurrence and picking up  their belongings  proceeded  on foot towards Shahpur town  in  the Taluk  headquarters  where one Gafoor, a  brother-in-law  of Shamsuddin  lived.   Sending Kasam, Hanif and Nazir  to  the house  of Gafoor, Shamsuddin himself along with others  went to the police station.  At the police Station there was only a  head  constable  by  name Bendhari  (P.W.  4)  who  found Shamsuddin  not  in  a fit condition to  make  a  statement. Shamsuddin,  who had sustained many injuries, was soaked  in blood.  The headconstable, therefore, after making an  entry to  this  effect in the Station Dairy, sent  Shamsuddin  and Jubeda  to  Shahpur dispensary for treatment.  At  about  10 O’clock  in  the  morning of May 14, 1970  the  police  Sub- Inspector in charge of the police station, Dattatreya Potdar (P.   W.  13),  came  to the police  station  and  on  being apprised of Shamsuddin and Jubeda having gone to Shahpur for treatment  he  sent for Shamsuddin from the  dispensary  and recorded   the  first  information  report,  Ex.  4.   After registering  the offence he took up investigation.  He  sent for Kasam from Gafoor’s house and proceeded with him to  the scene of the occurrence, reaching there at about 2 p.m. They remained there till about 5 p.m. The Sub-Inspector  prepared panchanamas  of  the  dead bodies and of the  scene  of  the offence.  The scene of the offence was about 400 ft. away on the  southern  side  of  Tansa lake in  the  area  known  as Nursery.  Underneath the dead body of Abdul Khalil was found an  arrow which had blood-stains on it.  The exact words  of the panchanama relating ,to the recovery of this arrow are : "There  is  seen an arrow and a bow pressed in  the  stomach between both the legs of the deceased.  On taking the  arrow out  it is found that its length is 5" and is of iron".   On examination  by  the Chemical Analyser the  stains  on  this arrow were found to be of human blood.  Thereafter the three dead  bodies  were  sent through constable  Mahadik  to  the Medical  Officer  at  Shahpur  for  postmortem  examination. After proceeding to Tansa village the Sub-Inspector arrested the appellant along with eight other persons at about 8 p.m. They  were  accused nos.  1 to 9 in the  trail  court.   The following morning, that is, May 15, 1970 96 the  P.S.I.  recorded the statements of Kassam  and  Jubeda. Hanif  was also called but as he was crying all the time  he was  not  able to make any statement.  On May 16,  1970  the appellant made a statement leading to the recovery of a  bow and  four  arrows from a spot in Karvandi  shrubs  about  85 paces  away  from  his house.  The recovered  bow  and  four arrows  were exhibited as 11, 11a, 12a, 12c and 12d.   These articles  were hidden under dry leaves.  One of  the  arrows had,  blood gains on it but on examination the stains  being disintegrated  it  could not be said if they were  of  human blood.   The statement of Hanif was recorded by  Vishwanath, Police  Inspector in July, 1970 after he had taken over  the investigation. The  Additional  Sessions Judge, Thana, who tried  the  case relied  on the evidence of Kasam (P.W. 2), Jubeda  (P.W.  3) and Hanif (P.W. 5).  These witnesses, according to the trail court, had not displayed any tendency to introduce falsehood in their statement though it felt that the evidence of Hanif (P.W.  5) should be read with a certain degree of  care  and caution  because of his statement having been.  recorded  by the investigating authorities more than two months after the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

occurrence.  For accepting Hanif’s evidence, therefore,  the trail  court  required corroboration.  With respect  to  the evidence  of Shamsuddin (P.W. 1), however, the  trail  court felt  that it was not safe to rely on his testimony  because his statement in court was at variance with the statement in the information lodged by him with the police.  On the basis of the testimony of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 the trail court came to the conclusion that the appellant was definitely present  at the scene of occurrence with bow and arrows and was a member of  the unlawful assembly and further that he had  shot  the arrows at Abdul Khalil, his eldest son Shaukat and his  wife Sahebi,  the  three  deceased  victims  of  the  unfortunate occurrence.  In that court’s opinion the three witnesses had no  reason  to  screen the real  offenders  and  to  falsely implicate the appellant. The  appellant  (Dharma Rama Bhagare, accused no. 1  in  the trial  court) and Budhya Dhaklya Valvi (accused no 7 in  the trial court) appealed to the High Court.  It may be recalled that  during  the  investigation one arrow  had  been  found underneath  the  dead body of Khalil and  four  arrows  were recovered   at  the  instance  of  appellant.   As   already observed, the arrow recovered at the scene of occurrence had blood-stains on it which were on examination found to be  of human origin whereas one of the four arrows recovered at the instance  of the appellant was found on examination to  have on  it blood-stains but being disintegrated it could not  be said  if they were of human origin.  It appears  that  there was some confusion in putting the exhibit 97 marks  on the arrows and the bow produced in evidence.   The High Court, in the circumstances, considered it necessary to have the matter clarified by taking additional evidence.  By means  of  an  order dated April 27,  1971  the  High  Court required the trial court to recall the investigating officer (P.W.  13) and the two witnesses P.Ws 6 and 10 and have  the matter clarified.  The counsel- for the accused appearing in the  High  Court also expressed a desire to  ask  some  more questions  from Dr. Deshpande (P.W. 12).  This  request  was granted.  The High Court thus disposed of the appeal and the murder   reference  after  taking  into  consideration   the additional evidence received under s. 428, Cr. P.C. The High Court,  after appraising the evidence on the record did  not see any cogent reason for not accepting the evidence of  the three eye witnesses believed by the trial court.  That court was  also  unable  to find any reason  why  these  witnesses should  falsely  implicate the accused  persons.   From  the nature of the occurrence and its surrounding  circumstances, in  its  opinion,  there could not be  any  independent  eye witnesses  present  and in a position to  depose  about  the complicity  of the accused persons.  The locality where  the occurrence  had taken place being uninhabited and  the  only persons  present being the assailants and their  victims  it was  not  possible normally to expect  any  independent  eye witness.  The recovery of a bow and four arrows received  at the instance of the appellant were also held to support  the prosecution version as these arrows were similar to the  one recovered from the scene of the occurrence.  The High  Court further  took into consideration the circumstance  that  the bow  and four arrows were found concealed in a  place  where they  are  normally not kept.  The  appeal  was  accordingly dismissed. In this Court Shri Dholakia the learned counsel appearing in support  of  the  appeal has very  strongly  challenged  the conclusions  of the two courts below.  He has  advanced  two principal  contentions.  According to him  the prosecution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

case  that three deaths were caused by arrows like  the  one found at the scene of occurrence conflicts with the  medical testimony because the medical evidence shows that it was not possible to cause by such an arrow the injuries found on the dead  persons.  The learned counsel complains  that  neither the  trail  court nor the High Court  examined  the  medical evidence  from  this point of view.  In  the  second  place, according  to  learned counsel, the conclusions of  the  two courts  below  are irrational and both the courts  have  not cared  to attach proper importance to the first  information report which was lodged by Shamsuddin who had also  himself appeared  as  an  eye witness in  the  case.   According  to learned  counsel,  Shamsuddin had all along  been  with  the other members of the family with the result that the initial version given by him to 8-L63ISupCII73 98 the  police which constituted the first  information  report must  be considered to have been given by him after  knowing all  the  facts  from the other members of  the  family  who claimed  to  have witnessed the occurrence and  appeared  as witnesses in court.  This version as contained in the  first information  report  must, according to the  submission,  be held to contradict the evidence given in court by the  other eye  witnesses as well.  On this premise, according to  Shri Dholakia, the prosecution evidence must be considered to  be unacceptable  and it cannot form safe basis for holding  the appellant  guilty  of  the  offence  charged.   Indeed,  the learned  counsel went to the length of submitting  that  the appellant  has  been  involved  not  as  a  result  of   the observation  by the prosecution witnesses of  what  actually happened  at  the  time of the unfortunate  assault  on  the victims  but  as  a result  of  calculated  deliberation  to falsely implicate him. So  far  as the first point is concerned main  reliance  has been  placed  on the examination of  Dr.  Vinayak  Deshpande (P.W. 12) when he was recalled pursuant to the order of  the High  Court dated April 27, 1971 under s. 428, Cr.  P.C.  We have been taken through that evidence which was recorded  on May  4  and  5,  1971 along  with  the  evidence  originally recorded  but we am unable to find anything in the  doctor’s testimony  which would show that the injuries  sustained  by the  three dead persons could not be caused by the  kind  of arrows recovered from the scene of occurrence and from  near the appellant’s house at his instance.  The real argument is founded  on the opinion of P.W. 12 where he states that  the Injuries sustained by Abdul Khalil and injuries sustained by Sahebi  could be caused by an arrow with or without  a  hook and that the removal of arrow with the hook from the  injury would  be likely to cause more damage to the abdominal  wall and also to the internal organs.  Both in the case of Sahebi and Abdul Khalil the doctor did not notice any injury to the abdominal  wall which could have been caused  while  pulling out  the  arrow.   Relying on this  part  of  the  evidence, according  to Shri Dholakia, all the recovered arrows  which are  alleged  to have caused the injuries  to  the  deceased persons  having  been found out of the  dead  bodies  should have, caused severe internal’ damage expected by the  doctor and since no such damage was discovered by him the injuries, as  a result of which the deceased persons died,  must  have been caused by some weapon other than the arrows with hooks. It has been suggested that the injuries might well have been caused by someone with a spear.  The appellant, it has  been emphasised,  is  not stated to have used a  spear.   We  are wholly  unable to sustain this sub. mission on the  existing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

record.  The doctor also explained in his evidence on  which reliance is placed that if the arrow with a hook is  removed skilfully out of the injury then it may not 99 cause more damage to the abdominal wall when removed out  of the  injury though if it is removed forcibly it may  do  so. It is also noteworthy that all the arrows recovered did  not have  hooks  on them.  The circumstances in  which  and  the person by whom the arrow was removed from the body of  Abdul Khalil  is not known.  When the investigating  officer  went there  it  had already come out of the wound and  was  lying underneath  the dead body pressed near the  stomach  between both the legs of the deceased.  Any attempt by this Court to determine  whether  the arrow had come out IV  itself  as  a result of some movement of the injured body after  receiving the  arrow  injury whether before or during  Abdul  Khalil’s last  moments  of life or whether someone from  amongst  the party of the accused had attempted to remove it but was  for some  reason unable to, do so or whether the arrow had  come out of the body in some other way, would be mere speculation and  it would be unfruitful to hazard a guess.  We  are  not unmindful  of  the fact that the doctor has  stated  in  his additional evidence that if the arrow with the hook is  shot at from a distance with force it would not come out from the injury  without  being pulled out by someone and  also  that looking  at  the  injuries of Abdul Khalil  and  Sahebi  the arrows  must  have been shot at with force.   But  the  fact remains  that an arrow was actually found  underneath  Abdul Khalil’s dead body and according to the doctor the injury on the deceased could be caused by that arrow.  The mere  fact, therefore, that in the opinion of the doctor the arrow  with the  hook,  unless  skilfully pulled out of  the  wound  was likely  to  cause  more damage is, in  our  opinion,  not  a sufficiently  strong factor which should persuade us on  the existing  record  to reject the testimony of the  three  eye witnesses believed by the courts below and about whose trust worthiness we do not entertain any reasonable doubt.  It  is noteworthy that this contention was not raised either in the trail court or in the High Court.  Indeed, during the cross- examination  of  Dr. Deshpande (P.W. 12) even  when  he  was recalled no straight and direct question was put to him,  if keeping  in view the nature of the injuries on Abdul  Khalil and  Sahebi and the recovered arrows and assuming  that  the arrows causing the injury had not been taken out  skilfully, he  could confidently depose that the injuries  in  question were not possible to be caused by these arrows.  It is  also pertinent  to point out that from the order dated April  27, 1971, it does not appear that the counsel for the  appellant specifically desired to clarify this point from the  doctor. The  submission  now forcefully advanced  by  Shri  Dholakia appears  to  us to be an afterthought and in  any  event  is clearly  not supportable on the medical evidence.   We  are, therefore,  unable  to  reject the  testimony  of  the  eye- witnesses  merely  on  the medical evidence to  which  our attention has been drawn. 100 In  so  far  as the information lodged with  the  police  by Shamsuddin  is  concerned  both the courts  below  have  not considered  it proper to reject the testimony of  the  other three  eyewitnesses on the ground of variance between  their statements   in   court  and  the  contents  of   the   said information.   The  first  information  report,  it  may  be pointed  out,  is never treated as a  substantive  piece  of evidence.   It  can  only  be  used  for  "corroborating  or contradicting  its  maker  when he appears  in  court  as  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

witness.   Its  value must always depend on  the  facts  and circumstances  of  a given case.  In the  present  case  its value  has  not been considered to be  of  much  significant because  of the nature and circumstances of  the  occurrence and  the  extent  and nature of  the  injuries  suffered  by Shamsuddin who quite naturally must have been subjected to a very  severe  shock.  The surviving members  of  the  family could  not go back to their home even after  the  occurrence and  felt compelled to trek the whole night on foot to  find shelter in the house of Gafoor at Shahpur where they reached the following morning.  In these circumstances the  contents of the F.I.R. made by Shamsuddin have rightly not been given any  importance  by the trail court and by the  High  Court. The  F.I.R. can only discredit the testimony of  Shanisuddin whose evidence has not been relied upon for supporting_  the appellant’s  conviction.   The  F.I.R. can by  no  means  be utilised  for  contradicting,  or  discrediting  the   other witnesses  who obviously could not have any desire to  spare the  real  culprit and to falsely implicate  the  appellant. The evidence of the eye-witnesses believed by the two courts appears  to  us  to  be  free  from  any  serious  infirmity justifying its rejection.  The case is obviously not one  in which  any reasonable doubt can be cast on the testimony  of the  eye-witnesses  on the mere ground that  Shamsuddin  who apparently  in his attempt to save himself from  the  fierce indiscriminate  assault  by  the  assailants  was  not  able carefully  to see and remember as to in what manner  and  by what weapon his parents and eldest brother had been  killed. That  they  were actually killed during  the  occurrence  in question is undisputed., Equally undisputed is the nature of injuries  found on their bodies.  We are, therefore,  unable to agree with Shri Dholakia that the prosecution case should be  thrown  out  on  the  mere  ground  that  in  the  first information report an altogether different version was given by  Shamsuddin.   The  evidence of Shamsuddin  as  given  in court,  it  may be recalled, has not been  relied  upon  for sustaining the appellant’s conviction.  We accordingly  feel little hesitation in agreeing with the concurrent conclusion of the  trial court and the High Court that the  appellant was responsible for killing the three deceased persons. 101 The last contention by Shri Dholakia relates to the question of sentence.  According to him the present is not a case for extreme  penalty.  We are unable to agree.  The question  of sentence  is a matter of judicial discretion.  The  relevant considerations  in determining the sentence broadly  stated, include  the motive for, and the magnitude of,  the  offence and the manner of its commission.  In this case the  victims of the assault had given no offence to the appellant or  his associates.   Indeed  the unarmed innocent members  of  this family  had to leave their heath and home and were  actually at the moment of the offence running in panic, on seeing the mob, to save themselves, when the three senior most  members were  shot with arrows from behind and killed.  One  of  the victims  was  a  woman with a baby in her  arms.   The  only reason  for  these murders is the  profession  of  different religious   faith   by  the  victims.   According   to   the investigating  officer, P.W. 13, Abdul  Khalils  residential house  had also been set on fire on May 12 at 8.30  p.m.  In our  country  where  the  Constitution  guarantees  to   all individuals  freedom of religious faith, though, belief  and expression  and where no particular religion is  accorded  a superior status and non subjected to hostile  discrimination the  commission of offences motivated only by the fact  that the  victim professes a different religious faith cannot  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

treated with leniency.  They are no only destructive of  our basic  traditional  social order founded  on  toleration  in recognition  of the dignity of the individual and  of  other cherished human values, but have also a tendency to mar  our national  solidarity.  We are, therefore, wholly  unable  to find any cogent reason for reducing the sentences imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.  The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. G.C.                                                  Appeal dismissed. 102