http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: RAVJI @ RAM CHANDRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995

BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  787            1996 SCC  (2) 175  JT 1995 (8)   520        1995 SCALE  (6)745

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T G.N. RAY,J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  is directed  against judgment  dated March 22, 1995  passed by the Division Bench, Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench).  By the  impugned judgment,  the High Court affirmed the death sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions  Judge,  Banswara,  in  Sessions  Case  No.  122/93 against the  appellant in D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 3/94 and  dismissed D.B.  Criminal (Jail). Appeal No. 602/94 preferred by the appellant before the High Court against the conviction under  Section 302  I.P.C. and  sentence of death awarded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the said Sessions Case No. 122/93.      The appellant  sent a  special leave  petition from the Jail where he is lodged. Initially a learned counsel of this Court was  appointed as  Amicus Curiae to represent the case of the  appellant. Later on, the appellant wrote a letter to the Registry of this Court expressing his intention that one of the three advocates mentioned by him in his letter may be engaged to represent his case before this Court. Pursuant to such request, Mr. Natarajan, a senior advocate of this Court agreed to appear as amicus curiae in deference to the desire of the  appellant. We appreciate such gesture on the part of Mr. Natarajan,  for accepting  the case  of the appellant as amicus curiae.      The appellant  was committed  to a  Sessions  Trial  in Sessions Case  No.  122/93  before  the  learned  Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, on the charge of committing murder of five  persons including  the wife and three minor sons of the appellant  and attempting  to murder  his own mother and the wife  of a  neighbour. The  trial court after relying on the evidences  of witnesses  including injured eye-witnesses inter alia  came to  the finding  that the  prosecution  had established by  leading cogent  evidence that  the appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

was guilty  of murdering five persons and he was also guilty for attempting to murder his mother Smt. Mangi (PW 12) and a neighbour’s wife  Smt. Galal  (PW 4).  Considering the  fact that the  commission of  the said murders was committed in a brutal and barbaric manner, the trial court after convicting the appellant  under Sections 302 IPC sentenced him to death penalty.  Such   sentence  of  death  was  referred  to  the Rajasthan High  Court for  confirmation. The  reference  for confirmation of death sentence was numbered as D.B. Criminal Murder Reference  No.3/94. The  appellant also  preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions  Judge in Sessions Case No. 122/93. Such appeal was  numbered as  D.B.  Criminal  (Jail)  Appeal  No. 602/94. Both  the said  Murder Reference  No. 3/94  and Jail Appeal No.  602/94 were  disposed of  by the High Court by a common  judgment   dated  March  22,  1995,  dismissing  the Criminal Appeal No. 602/94 and confirming the death sentence by allowing Murder Reference No. 3/94.      Mr. Natarajan,  the learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curiae  for the  appellant, has submitted that in the instant case  there is  no  direct  evidence  regarding  the allegation of murdering four persons by the appellant namely his wife  and three  minor children. Admittedly, besides the said dead  persons, only mother of the appellant was present in the  house at  the  time  of  murdering  wife  and  minor children of  the appellant.  The  mother  of  the  appellant herself was  injured  by  the  assailant  who  had  murdered appellant’s wife  and three  minor children.  But the mother who was  examined as  PW 12  did not support the prosecution case. She  has deposed that some unknown person murdered her daughter-in-law and  three grand  children and  also injured her. She  was declared  hostile by  the prosecution.  Hence, there is  no direct evidence that the appellant had murdered his wife and three minor sons. The prosecution case has been sought to  be proved  by circumstantial evidence. But motive for murdering  wife and  three minor sons is totally absent. In  a   case  of  circumstantial  evidence,  motive  assumes considerable significance.  Mr. Natarajan has submitted that even if  this court  accepts the  concurrent finding  of the courts below  that appellant is guilty of murdering his wife and three  minor  children  besides  murdering  another  man Gulabji the  absence of motive requires to be considered for sustaining the  death penalty.  Mr. Natarajan  has submitted that there  are eye-witnesses  to prove the prosecution case of murdering  Gulabji and  attempting to  murder Smt. Galal. The wife  of Gulabji  before whose eyes Gulabji was murdered and Smt.  Galal  herself  has  deposed  in  support  of  the prosecution case.  The finding  by the Courts below that the appellant has  murdered Gulabji cannot be said to be without any basis  and he  fairly concedes that an attempt to assail such finding  may be  an exercise in futility. Mr. Natarajan has, therefore,  submitted that in the facts of the case, it will be  only appropriate  for him to confine his submission on the  question  of  sentence  to  be  passed  against  the appellant.      Mr. Natarajan  has submitted that unfortunately in this case, the  prosecution has failed to lead any evidence as to why the  appellant suddenly  killed  his  wife  who  was  in advanced stage  of pregnancy  and three  minor children when his wife  and his  three minor  children were  asleep in his house. Mr. Natarajan has also submitted that the prosecution has also  failed to lead any evidence to indicate or even to suggest as  to what was or could be the motive that impelled the appellant immediately after murdering his wife and three minor children and injuring his own mother when she tried to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

prevent him  from committing  such crime,  to  rush  to  his neighbour’s house  and to  attempt to  kill the  wife of the neighbour Smt. Galal (PW 4) who was admittedly then sleeping with her daughter in their house. He has also submitted that unfortunately, there  is also  no evidence  from  which  any motive can even remotely be inferred as to why the appellant thereafter killed  another neighbour,  an elderly  man  with whom appellant  had no enmity, when the said old man Gulabji was coming towards the house of Smt. Galal after hearing her shrieks on being injured by the appellant.      Mr. Natarajan  has submitted  that there is no evidence to  suggest  that  the  appellant  had  ever  suspected  the fidelity of  the wife  or any  extra marital relationship of his wife  with anybody  or with  the neighbour,  namely  the husband of  Smt. Galal. There is not even any whisper by the prosecution witnesses  that Smt.  Galal had  in  any  manner caused annoyance  to the appellant and had ever attempted to disturb the  conjugal life  of the  appellant so  that there might be  an occasion  for the  appellant to  entertain some wrath or hatred against PW 4 Smt. Galal.      Mr. Natarajan has submitted that commission of crime is perpetrated for some reason which may be even ill founded or ill-conceived. Sudden fit of passion, anger etc. actuated by various  considerations  like  hatred,  wrath,  a  sense  of revenge etc. often induce an accused to commit murder.      Mr. Natarajan  has submitted  that motive  constituting mens rea  is a  very  relevant  factor  in  the  process  of delicate balancing  between the  gravity of  the  crime  and consequential sentence  to be  passed against  an accused on consideration of mitigating factors.      Mr. Natarajan  has further  submitted that  there is no material on  record to  justify a finding that the appellant was insane  at the time of commission of crime and he failed to understand the implication of his misdeeds. The appellant has also  not taken  any such  plea. Even  then, the  sudden impluse, without  any plausible  motive to  kill his wife in advanced stage  of pregnancy  and three  minor children with whom love  was not  lost and  attempt to  kill innocent  old mother who  only tried to prevent the commission of crime of murder of  his own  wife and children and above all taking a mad rush  to a  neighbour’s house and attempting to kill the neighbour’s wife while she was asleep and thereafter killing another old neighbour Gulabji on the way, remains absolutely inexplicable. Such  wild behaviour of the appellant having a fair standard  of education  and upbringing  and exposure to teachers training,  only suggests  that he  was  temporarily seized of  a gigantic  psychic disorder.  Why and  how  this wretched transformation  had happened remains a mystery. The investigating  officer,  unfortunately,  did  not  make  any sincere effort  to  cause  enquiries  in  this  regard.  Mr. Natarajan  has   submitted  that  this  inexplicable  sudden psychic disorder  as an  important mitigating  factor on the question of awarding the extremely penalty of death has been last sight  of both by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and by the High Court.      Mr. Natarajan  has referred to a decision of this Court in Dahyabhai  Chhaganbhai Thakkar  versus State  of  Gujarat (1964 (7)  SCR 361) for the purpose of contending that it is a fundamental  principle of  criminal jurisprudence  that an accused is  presumed to be innocent and therefore the burden lies on  the prosecution  to prove  the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable  doubt. The  prosecution, therefore,  in a case of  homicide should  prove beyond reasonable doubt that the  accused  caused  death  with  the  requisite  intention described in  Section 299  of the  Indian Penal  Code.  This

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

general  burden   never  shifts  and  always  rests  on  the prosecution. Mr.  Natarajan has  submitted that  it has been indicated in  the said  decision that  although primarily an accused  has   a  burden   to  satisfy   the  existence   of circumstances to satisfy the test of a ’prudent man’ that at the time  of commission of offence, by reason of unsoundness of mind,  the accused  was incapable  of  understanding  the nature of  his act,  but if  the materials placed before the Court raise  a reasonable  doubt in  the  mind  of  a  Judge whether the  accused had requisite intention as laid down in Section 299  I.P.C., he has to acquit the accused because in that event,  the  prosecution  will  have  failed  to  prove conclusively the  guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between general  burden which  is always  on the prosecution and which  never shifts and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out a defence of insanity.      Mr. Natarajan  has submitted  that although  no plea of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of offence has been taken by the accused and no material in support of such plea has been placed by the accused, but even then if on the materials placed  by the  prosecution, a  lurking  doubt  is reasonably raised  in  the  mind  of  the  Judge  about  the temporary psychic disorder of the accused thereby making him incapable to  understand the  effect of his act, the accused is entitled  to the  benefit of  absence of  mens rea  under Section 299  I.P.C. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that even if the materials  on record  may not  justify inference of such complete  incapacity   of  the  accused  to  understand  the implication of  his action  but if  the materials  at  least justify probability  of existence  of some degree of psychic imbalance at  the time  of commission  of offence. The Court must address  to itself the probability of existence of such factor  in  awarding  the  extreme  penalty  of  death.  Mr. Natarajan has  submitted that in the absence of any material which might have thrown light on the mysterious behaviour of the accused  in perpetrating  the crime alleged against him, the court  may reasonably  hold that  for  the  inexplicable reason, not  attempted to be unearthed, the accused had been suffering from  a pyschic  disorder for  which the extremely penalty of  death for  knowingly perpetrating  a brutal  and ghastly crime,  shocking the  conscience of  the society, is not warranted.      Mr. Bhati,  learned counsel  appearing for the State of Rajasthan has  refuted the  contentions of Mr. Natarajan and has submitted  that the  charge of murder perpetrated on the appellant’s pregnant  wife and three minor children and also attempt to  murder his  own mother  by the  accused when she tried to  prevent the  appellant from  committing  the  said heinous crime, has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the  mother  of  the  appellant  (PW.12)  who herself was  injured, did  not support  the prosecution case for which  she was  declared hostile.  There are very strong reliable and clinching evidence which clearly indicates that it is  the  appellant  and  none  else  who  was  guilty  of murdering the wife and three minor children and injuring his mother. From  the deposition  of the mother of the appellant though declared  hostile, it transpires that accused and the deceased wife and minor children and the mother were present at home at the time of commission of the murder and no other person was present at home at that time. Both the mother and the deceased  wife and  the minor children suffered injuries caused by  an axe  and immediately  after the said incident, the accused  also attempted  to murder  the neighbour’s wife Smt. Galal  (PW 4)  oy an  axe and  also  murdered  Gulabji, father-in-law of  Smt. Galal  by the  axe.  There  are  eye-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

witnesses who  had seen  the accused attempting to kill Smt. Galal and  also murdering Gulabji by the axe. There is clear evidence by  the eye-witnesses  that when the son of Gulabji tried to  apprehend the  accused he fled away from the scene of  occurrence.  Although  murder  of  the  wife  and  minor children and  attempt to  murder his mother, further attempt to murder  Smt. Galal and the murder of Gulabji had happened at three  different  places,  all  the  said  incidents  had happened in a quick succession and entire chain of incidents really constitute one continuous course of action.      The learned  Additional Sessions  Judge has  found  the evidences in  support of  the prosecution case as convincing and reliable  and by giving cogent reasons, has clearly came to the  finding that  the entire  prosecution case  had been established beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Bhati has submitted that the  motive for  the crime  is undoubtedly an important factor for  appreciating the  correctness of testimony vis a vis complicity of the accused with the crime alleged against him. But  human mind  is so  complex that at times it is not always possible  to precisely comprehend as to why and how a man has  reacted in  a particular  manner for  committing  a crime. The  learned counsel  has submitted that law is well- settled that  if there  is  clear,  clinching  and  reliable evidence establishing  the  guilt  of  the  accused,  it  is immaterial that  the motive  for the commission of crime has not been established.      Mr.  Bhati  has  also  submitted  that  the  facts  and circumstances  revealed   from  the   depositions   of   the witnesses, do  not support the contention that the appellant had been  suffering from  any psychic  disorder for which he momentarily failed  to appreciate  as to  what he  had  been doing at the time of committing the heinous crimes one after the other. The learned counsel has submitted that it is true that evidence  has not  been led  as to what was or could be the probable  motive for  committing the  crime. But  is has been clearly  established that  the appellant  in a cool and calculated manner  killed his wife who was in advanced stage of  pregnancy   and  being   asleep  could   not  offer  any resistance. The  appellant similarly  killed the three minor children while  they were  sleeping in their house. The only other person  present at  that time  in the  house  was  his mother. The  mother has  not indicated  that there  was  any quarrel or  altercation between  the husband  and  the  wife immediately or  shortly before  the murders had taken place. The facts  revealed from the evidences adduced only indicate that there  was no  occasion for any sudden provocation or a fit of  impulse  which  had  impelled  or  could  impel  the appellant to  commit the said ghastly murder of his helpless wife  and   three  minor  children.  On  the  contrary,  the evidences  point  out  that  such  heinous  crime  had  been perpetrated in  a cool  and calculated manner. When the poor mother tried to prevent the appellant even did not spare his own mother  and also  caused injuries  on her  person in  an attempt to  kill her by the same axe with which the wife and the three  minor children  had been  murdered.  The  learned counsel  for  the  State  has  further  submitted  that  the appellant thereafter  went to the house of his neighbour and attempted to  kill the  neighbour’s wife  Smt. Galal who was also asleep  in her house. There is no evidence on record to suggest that  there was  any occasion  for the  appellant to harbour any  ill feeling, hatred or wrath against Smt. Galal which might  have prompted  him to  murder her.  The learned counsel  for  the  State  has  further  submitted  that  the appellant was  quite keen  in fleeing away from the place of commission of  crime and only when the father-in-law of Smt.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

Galal, namely,  Shri Gulabji came on his way and enquired of him as to what had happened, the appellant, in an attempt to escape from  the place,  mercilessly murdered the old man by giving a  number of  axe blows  on his  person. The  son  of Gulabji and  others on  hearing the shouts came to the place where Gulabji  was  murdered  and  tried  to  apprehend  the appellant  but   could  not  do  so  because  the  appellant succeeded in  escaping from  the place  and went to the next village.      Mr. Bhati  has therefore,  submitted that the appellant was quite  conscious as to what he had been doing and he was neither confused  nor stupified  for what  he had  done  but being  fully   conscious  of  the  gravity  of  the  offence committed by  him, wanted  to flee  away from  the place  of occurrence. Mr.  Bhati has also submitted that the appellant was not  remorseful even  after the  incident.  He  did  not attend the  funeral of  his wife  and minor children who had been brutally  murdered by  him. The appellant did not go to the hospital  to see her ailing mother. There is recovery at the instance  of the  accused, of  the blood stained vest of the accused  and the  axe with  which the  murders had  been committed.  There   are  eye-witnesses  in  support  of  the prosecution case  of attempting  to murder  Smt.  Galal  and murdering Gulabji.  In the aforesaid circumstances, both the learned Additional Sessions Judges and the High Court had no hesitation in  finding that  the appellant had committed the murder of five persons and attempted to kill two others in a brutal and cruel manner.      Mr. Bhati  has submitted  that the evidences adduced in the case  clearly establish  that the appellant had murdered his helpless  wife and  three  minor  children  without  any provocation whatsoever  in a  very cruel  manner.  The  said helpless wife  and the minor children had been murdered by a person who  had a duty to protect them. Such dastardly crime perpetrated  in   a  brutal  manner  cannot  but  shock  the conscience of the society. Mr. Bhati has also submitted that it is  an act  of gravest unkindness that the appellant even attempted to  kill his  own mother who only tried to prevent him from  committing the  said heinous  crime. Mr. Bhati has submitted that  the  appellant  even  then  did  not  become remorseful but  attempted to kill the neighbour’s wife while she was  sleeping and also killed another elderly neighbour, Gulabji without  any  provocation  whatsoever.  Gulabji  was hacked to  death by the appellant by giving successive blows with the  axe thereby  killing him  on the  spot, before the eyes of  his wife.  Mr. Bhati  has submitted  that both  the learned Additional  Sessions Judges  and the High Court very carefully considered  the question  of sentence  after being fully alive  to mitigating  circumstance if any in favour of the appellant. As in the instant case, the appellant without any provocation  committed murder  of five persons in a very cruel and  barbaric manner  in a  cool and calculated manner and also  attempted to  kill two  others including  his  own mother, the  enormity and  brutality of  the crime  had been taken note  of by the courts below and in the absence of any mitigating factor  the extreme  penalty of  death  has  been awarded against  him.  In  this  connection  Mr.  Bhati  has referred to  a decision  of this  Court in  Shankar @  Gauri Shankar and  others Versus State of Tamil Nadu (1994 (4) SCC 478). After referring to a number of decisions of this Court on the  question of  sentence and  in particular  the  death sentence to  be awarded  in a  case of  murder, it  has been indicated in the said decision that :      "the choice  as to  which one of the two      punishments provided  for murder  is the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    proper one  in a  given case will depend      upon  the  particular  circumstances  of      that case  and the Court has to exercise      its discretion  judicially and  on well-      recognised  principles  after  balancing      all  the   mitigating  and   aggravating      circumstances of  the crime.  The  Court      also  should   see  whether   there   is      something uncommon about the crime which      renders sentence of imprisonment of life      inadequate and calls for death sentence.      The  nature   of  the   crime  and   the      circumstances of  the offender should be      so revealing  that  the  criminal  is  a      menace to  the society  and the sentence      of  imprisonment   of  life   would   be      inadequate. The sentence of death should      be reserved for the rarest of rare cases      after  a   due  consideration   of  both      mitigating        and        aggravating      circumstances. What  circumstances bring      a particular  case under the category of      rarest of  rare cases  vary from case to      case depending  upon the  nature of  the      crime, weapons  used and  the manner  in      which it is perpetrated etc."      Mr. Bhati has also referred to another decision of this Court in  Jashubha Bharatsingh Gohil and others versus State of Gujarat  (1994 (4) SCC 353). It has been indicated in the said decision  that the  protection of society and deterring the criminal  is the  avowed  object  of  law  and  that  is required to  be achieved  by imposing  appropriate sentence. The change  in the  legislative intendment relating to award of capital  punishment notwithstanding the opposition by the protagonist of  abolition of capital sentence, shows that it is expected  of the  Courts to  so  operate  the  sentencing system as  to impose such sentence which reflects the social conscience of  the society. The sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.      Mr. Bhati  has also  submitted that although the motive of the heinous crime committed by the appellant has not been established but  such motive  looses its importance when the prosecution case  is totally proved beyond reasonable doubt. When there is a direct evidence, it is not necessary to find out the  motive for the offence. For the said contention Mr. Bhati has referred to the decisions of this Court in Tarseem Kumar versus Delhi Administration (1994 (Suppl. 3) SCC 367), Jamna and  Others versus  State of U.P. (1994 (Suppl. 1) SCC 185) and  Kuriakose and Another versus State of Kerala (1994 (Suppl. 1)  SCC 602).  Mr. Bhati has submitted that although Mr.  Natarajan,   the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant, has  very strongly  contended that  it was  quite likely  that   the  appellant  was  suffering  from  psychic disorder otherwise  such facts, without any motivation could not have  been perpetrated  and likelihood of sudden psychic disorder ought  to be  considered as  a mitigating factor in awarding the  extreme penalty of death, there is not an iota of evidence regarding sudden psychic disorder of the accused appellant at  the time  of commission of the said crime. The evidences  on  the  contrary  reveal  that  in  a  cool  and calculated manner,  and without  any provocation whatsoever, he committed one after the other the said dastardly crime in a very  brutal and  ghastly manner.  Mr. Bhati has submitted that the number of murders in one continued course of action and attempt  to kill  two others including the mother of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

appellant cannot  but shock  the conscience  of the society. The offence  committed by the appellant is one of the rarest and there  is  no  mitigating  circumstances  which  warrant punishment  of   life  imprisonment   instead   of   capital punishment. He  has, therefore,  submitted that the order of death sentence  is wholly justified in the facts of the case and no intereference is called for.      After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record through which we have been taken and after considering the judgments passed by  the courts  below, it  appears  to  us  that  the commission of  crimes by  the appellant,  namely,  murdering five persons  including the wife and three minor children of the appellant  and attempt  to murder  two others  has  been clearly established  beyond reasonable  doubt. Although  the mother of  the  appellant  who  herself  was  injured  while attempting to  prevent her son from committing the murder of wife  and  three  minor  children,  has  not  supported  the prosecution case and has been declared as a hostile witness, the evidences  adduced in  this case  are so  clear that the courts below had no difficulty in holding that the appellant was guilty  of murdering  his wife  and three minor children and injuring  his own  mother in  an attempt to kill her. In our view,  such finding  has been  made on  the basis of the reliable and  clinching evidence  adduced in the case and we find no reason to take a contrary view. The prosecution case that the  appellant had  murdered Gulabji and also attempted to  kill   Smt.  Galal   has  also   been   established   by unimpeachable, convincing and reliable evidences. Smt. Galal who herself  was injured  has deposed  and the  wife of Shri Gulabji who has seen the commission of murder of Gulabji has also deposed  in the  case. Therefore,  the finding that the appellant is  guilty of  the offence  of attempting  to kill Smt. Galal  and he  is also  guilty of  murdering Gulabji is wholly justified and no interference is called for with such finding.      Mr. Natarajan,  the learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae for  the appellant  has ingeneously contended that no evidence has  been led  in the  case which  may suggest that there was some occasion for the appellant to bear suspicion, hatred or  grudge against  his wife  or Smt.  Galal  or  her husband which might have induced the appellant to commit the offences. Mr.  Natarajan has  submitted  that  normally  for every crime  there is some motive and even though conviction can be  based  if  there  is  reliable  evidence  about  the commission of crime without establishing any motive for such crime, such  motive, according  to  Mr.  Natarajan,  assumes significance in  awarding the  sentence  particularly  in  a murder case.      Mr. Natarajan  has contended that the appellant appears to have  suddenly lost  the equillibrium  of  his  mind  and behaved in a strange manner thereby committing murder of his wife  and   three  minor  children  apparently  without  any provocation and  even attempting to kill his own mother when she tried  to restrain him. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that in the  absence of  any evidence  suggesting  harbouring  of hatred, grudge  or ill  feeling against  the  wife  or  Smt. Galal, the  sudden spree of murderous assault unusual to the social and  educational background of the appellant, becomes inexplicable and  such strange  behaviour only suggests that he must  have been  seized of  psychic disorder momentarily. Mr. Natarajan  has also  submitted that the evidences do not reveal  that  the  appellant  was  insane  at  the  time  of commission of  the crime  and such plea of insanity has also not been  taken by  the appellant.  Hence, the appellant may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

not claim  the benefit  of absence  of  mens  rea.  But  the possibility of  temporary psychic  disorder requires  to  be considered in  awarding the  extreme penalty  of death. Such contention of Mr. Natarajan though ingeneous does not appeal to us.      It has been clearly revealed from the evidences adduced in the  case that  the appellant  was in  his house with his wife, mother  and three minor children. There is no evidence that there  was any altercation between the husband and wife either immediately  or  shortly  before  the  commission  of murder of  wife and  three innocent  minor children  of  the appellant. From  the evidence it clearly transpires that the appellant in a cool and calculated manner wanted to kill the wife and three minor children while they were asleep and had no occasions  to give  any resistance whatsoever. It is also revealed from  the evidence  that he was fully determined to commit the  crime of  murder and was conscious of the nature of the  crime being committed by him. Precisely for the said reason,  when   his  mother   wanted  to  prevent  him  from committing such  heinous crime  he even  did not  spare  his mother and  also injured  her with  the axe in an attempt to kill her  also. There  is no evidence that the appellant was found in  a confused  state of  mind. On  the  contrary,  it transpires from  the evidence  that he  silently went to the neighbour’s house  and attempted  to kill Smt. Galal who was also asleep.  It appears to us that in a cool and calculated manner the  appellant wanted  to kill  Smt. Galal  who being asleep was  not capable of giving any resistance. It is also quite apparent  that the  appellant being  conscious of  the enormity of  the crime committed by him, wanted to flee away from the  place of  occurrence and  when the  poor  old  man Gulabji came  on  his  way  and  enquired  as  to  what  had happened, he  immediately hacked  Gulabji  to  death  in  an extremely brutal  manner and  thereafter fled  away from the place of  occurrence and  tried to hide himself. Such facts, in our  view, clearly  indicate that the appellant committed all the said heinous crimes in a conscious state of mind and in a  calculated manner.  Hence, case  of temporary  psychic disorder as  sought to  be canvassed by Mr. Natarajan cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case.      In Dhananjoy  Chatterjee @  Dhana versus  State of West Bengal (1994  (2) SCC  220) it  has been  indicated by  this Court that :      "some criminals get very harsh sentences      while  many  receive  grossly  different      sentence for  an essentially  equivalent      crime and a shockingly large number even      go  unpunished   thereby  encourage  the      criminal and  in  the  ultimate  making,      justice suffer by weakening the system’s      credibility."      It has also been indicated that :      "In imposing sentences in the absence of      specific   legislation,    Judges   must      consider variety  of factors  and  after      considering all those factors and taking      an overall view of the situation, impose      sentence which  they consider  to be  an      appropriate  one.   Aggravating  factors      cannot   be    ignored   and   similarly      mitigating circumstances have also to be      taken into consideration. The measure of      punishment in  a given  case must depend      upon the  atrocity  of  the  crime;  the      conduct  of   the   criminal   and   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    defenceless and unprotected state of the      victim.   Imposition    of   appropriate      punishment is  the manner  in which  the      courts respond  to the society’s cry for      justice against  the  criminal.  Justice      demands  that   courts   should   impose      punishment befitting  the crime  so that      the courts  reflect public abhorrence of      the crime. The courts must not only keep      in view  the rights  of the criminal but      also the  rights of the  victim of crime      and   the   society   at   large   while      considering  imposition  of  appropriate      punishment." In our  view, in  the facts  of the  case, it  has been very clearly established  that the appellant has committed one of the most  heinous crimes by killing his poor wife who was in advanced stage  of pregnancy and three minor children for no fault on  their part.  The appellant  had a  solemn duty  to protect them  and to  maintain them  but he has betrayed the trust reposed  on him  in a very cruel and calculated manner without any  provocation whatsoever.  The appellant  did not even soare  his mother who very rightly tried to prevent him from committing  such unpardonable crime. The appellant also attacked his  mother with  the axe which he had used to kill his wife  and minor  children and  caused  injuries  on  her person with  an intention  to kill  her. The  brutality  and cruelty with  which the  crimes have been perpetrated cannot but shock  the conscience  of the society. After killing the wife and three minor children and injuring the mother he did not become remorseful and desist from committing any further crime. But  like a  blood  thirsty  demon,  in  a  cool  and calculated manner  he went  to one  of the neighbour’s house and attempted  to kill  the wife  of the neighbour while she was  asleep  and  as  such  utterly  helpless  to  give  any resistance. When  in his attempt to flee away from the place of occurrence,  the poor  old Gulabji  came on  his way, the appellant did  not hesitate  to kill him in extremely brutal manner before  the eyes  of his  wife. All  the said heinous crimes were committed without any provocation. The appellant was  not   even  remorseful   after  the  said  incident  of successive five  murders and  attempt  to  kill  two  others including the  appellant’s mother.  The appellant did not go to see  the ailing  mother injured  by him  and did not also attend the  funeral of  his wife and even his three innocent minor children.  The crimes  had been  committed with utmost cruelty  and   brutality  without   any  provocation,  in  a calculated manner. It is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment  in a  criminal trial. The Court will be failing  in its  duty if  appropriate punishment  is  not awarded for  a crime  which  has  been  committed  not  only against the  individual victim  but also against the society to which  the criminal  and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded  for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to end be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which  the crime  has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to the  society’s cry  for justice  against the criminal. In our view,  if for  such heinous  crimes the  most  deterrent punishment for  wanton and  brutal murders is not given, the case of  deterrent punishment  will loose its relevance. We, therefore, do  not find  any justification  to  commute  the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The appeal therefore must fail and is dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11