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

PETITIONER: SARVESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/09/1977

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1977 AIR 2423            1978 SCR  (1) 560  1977 SCC  (4) 596  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1979 SC 916  (193)

ACT: Sentence--Sentence  of  death, special reasons  as  required under  s. 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act  If  of 1974),  1973  recorded by the Sessions and the  High  Court- Interference  by  the Supreme Court under Art. 136  only  in special cases.

HEADNOTE: The   appellant,  a  qualified  medical  practitioner,   was convicted  for  nine gruesome, murders of  his  friend,  the latter’s wife, aged parents, two sons and three daughters of the  age  of 16, 13, 8, 5 and 3  respectively,  entirely  on circumstantial  evidence  and was sentenced to  death.   The entire  family  was  exterminated due  to  greed  for  cash, ornaments  and other valuables.  The Sessions and  the  High Court  gave convincing and special reasons for  passing  the death sentence. Dismissing  the  special  leave  which  is  limited  to  the question of sentence, the Court, HELD : Law directs the course of the court.  After enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1973 (Act 2 of 1974),  the judgment in a murder case "shall state the special  reasons" for  a  sentence  of  death,  only  in  special  cases  with recording  of  reasons  so that these  may  be  examined  by superior  courts.  None of the guidelines indicated by  this court  in several decisions in this is problem area of  life and death as a result of judicial verdict can be cut and dry nor exhaustive.  Each case will depend upon the totality  of the facts and circumstances and other matters revealed.   In the  instant  case the horrid enormity of the crime  with  a deliberate motive of wrongful gain cannot be minimised  when considering  the appropriate sentence.  The special  reasons mandated  under the law are duly recorded by both  the  High Court and the Trial Court and those are adequate to  justify the sentence of death in these cruet and diabolical  murders [561 E-F, 562 F]

JUDGMENT:

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

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1971, Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated 13-4-77 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal  Appeal No.  37/77 and Death Reference No. 1/77. Mohan Behari  Lal (amicus curiae) for the Appellant. I. N. Shroff for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI,  J.  We  have granted special leave  in  this  case limited  to the question of sentence and heard  the  learned counsel, appearing as amicus curiae and also for the State. These  are gruesome murders wiping out all entire family  of nine persons including two infants.  The  accused  (31),  Bachelor  of  Ayurvedic  Medicine  and Surgery (B.A.M.S.), a qualified medical practitioner, was  a close friend of one  of the deceased, Ram Swaroop (40),  who was  an Upper Division Clerk in the Madhya Pradesh Girls  N. C. Battalion at Gwalior.  The 561 accused  lived only about a furlong away from the  deceased. Deceased  Ram  Swaroop used to practice  Homeopathy  as  his hobby.   There was thus a certain degree of common  interest between the accused and deceased Ram Swaroop. Ram  Swaroop had his parents, aged 60 years, his wife  (35), their two sons and three daughters of the age of 16, 13,  8, 5 and 3 respectively.  As stated earlier, the entire  family was exterminated.  Cash, ornaments and other valuables  were also removed at the same time. Murder was committed on the night of 4th July, 1976 and  the dead bodies were locked up inside the room and the house was locked  from outside.  On 6th July foul. smell  was  emitted from  the  closed house and the police  was  informed.   The house was broken open by the police and the nine dead bodies were recovered. There is no direct evidence as to who actually committed the crimp, or even whether there was more than one person taking part  in this dastardly crime.  The accused stood  convicted entirely  on circumstantial evidence and his conviction  is, now beyond question. We have heard learned counsel of both sides on the  question of  sentence.  The recent benign direction of the penal  law is  towards  life  sentence,  as a rule,  and  death  as  an exception awarding of which must be accompanied by  recorded reasons. This Court has in several decisions indicated guidelines  in this problem area of life and death as a result of  judicial verdict but none of these guidelines can be cut and dry  nor exhaustive.  Each case will depend upon the totality of  the facts, circumstances and other matters revealed. Law  directs the course of the court.  After,  enactment  of the  Criminal  Procedure Code in 1973 (Act 2 of  1974),  the judgment in a murder case "shall state the special  reasons" for  a  sentence of death.  That is to say,  there  will  be sentence  of death only in special cases with  recording  of reasons so that these may be examined by superior courts. The  trial  court  dealing with  the  question  of  sentence observed as follows : -               "Even  beasts do not show  unfaithfulness  but               this case is a shining example of the  heinous               unfaithfulness.    Firstly  to   commit   nine               murders and that to(, of small children               committed  by inflicting more than one  injury               which is sufficient in the ordinary course  of               nature  and therefore gravity of  the  offence               has  surpassed its last limit due to which  it

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

             would  be  proper  to say  that  the  acts  of               accused  are  not  only  beastly  but  ghastly               injoined with extreme greediness.  There being               12-930SCI/77               562               total  lack of extenuating  circumstances  the               accused  deserves to be punished with  extreme               penalty without hesitation".               The High Court dealing with the same  question               made the following observation :-               "The  accused  was  a trusted  friend  of  the               deceased  Rain Swaroop.  But, for  achievement               of  Ms  vicious object to relieve him  of  his               cash  and  valuables he not  only  killed  Ram               Swaroop but also exterminated his whole family               including his aged parents, his wife and  five               children  two of whom were infants  aged  five               years  and three years respectively.  He  com-               mitted  these  blood-chilling murders  of  the               nine innocent persons for monetary gain and to               destroy.  the  evidence of the  crime  he  had               committed.   It  is difficult  to  find  words               strong  enough to condemn these  gruesome  and               dastardly  murders.   Ironically  the  accused               chose  not  to  spare  even  the  two   infant               daughters  of Ram Swaroop who dearly  used  to               address   him  as  ‘Dr.   Chacha’   and   were               incapable of giving evidence even if they  had               been   left  alive.   The  tragedy   has   few               parallels The accused was neither demented nor               mentally   sick.   There  are  absolutely   no               extenuating circumstances for passing a lesser               sentence.  On the other hand, the case, in our               opinion,  is  eminently fit for  imposing  the               extreme penalty of law". It is submitted that the accused was financially in  straits with  wife and two small children and this should  be  taken into   consideration  to  merit  clemency  for  the   lesser sentence.  These grounds had also been urged earlier  before the trial court, but the horrid enormity of the crime with a deliberate motive of wrongful gain cannot be minimised  when considering  the  appropriate sentence.  We agree  with  the courts below that there are no extenuating circumstances  to justify  the lesser penalty.  The special  reasons  mandated under  the law are duly recorded by both the High Court  and the  trial  court and we are not in a position to  say  that those  are  inadequate to justify the sentence of  death  in these   cruel  and  diabolical  murders.   The   appeal   is accordingly dismissed. S.R. Appeal dismissed. 563