Supreme Court of India

OM PRAKASH @ RAJAversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: 2002 INSC 520
Decided: 5 December 2002
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: S RAJENDRA BABU

Holding

The conviction and death sentence are upheld as the evidence proves the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the crime qualifies as the 'rarest of rare' deserving capital punishment.

Summary

The appellant, a domestic servant employed by retired Brigadier Shyam Lal Khanna, was convicted of murdering three members of the Khanna family and attempting to murder the wife. The prosecution proved the offences through the testimony of the surviving wife (PW‑1), corroborated by a sweeper and forensic evidence, showing the appellant used a sword, chilly powder, a stone slab and other weapons in a pre‑planned, brutal attack. The appellant argued lack of direct eyewitnesses, absence of a clear motive, his alleged juvenile status and that the death penalty was unwarranted. The Supreme Court held that the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that motive or age are not decisive where the crime is of the "rarest of rare" category. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and confirmed the death sentence, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

The prosecution evidence sufficiently proves the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite lack of direct eyewitnesses to each murder.
Whether the absence of a clear motive can invalidate the conviction.
Whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence, affecting the appropriateness of the death penalty.
Whether the death sentence is justified under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine.
Whether conviction under Section 302 IPC is legally sound.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 366
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

murdermultiple murderdeath penaltyrarest of raredomestic servantcircumstantial evidencemotivejuvenile offenderIPC 302IPC 307criminal appeal

Judgment

OM PRAKASH @ RAJA A
v.
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

DECEMBER 5, 2002

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860:

Section 302-Multiple murder-Death sentence-Rarest of rare case-
Accused-domestic servant ghastly attacking the entire family of employer- C
Committing murder of three out offour inmates of house single handedly with
different weapons-Also attempting to murder the fourth inmate-Convicted
and sentenced to death-High Court corifirming the same-On appeal, Held:
circumstances and events unfolded by the evidence of survivor incompatible
with the innocence of accused and murder cleverly pre-planned and committed D
in brutal and diabolical manner-Hence conviction and death sentence
confirmed.

Motive-Held, lack of sufficient motive cannot be the criteria to test
conviction, if the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
committed the crime. E
Appellant was working as domestic servant in the house of retired
Brigadier. The Brigadier and his wife decided to dispense with the services
of accused on account of his misbehavior. According to prosecution, the
next day accused murdered three members of the family single handedly
with different weapons and also attempted to kill the Brigadier's wife-PW F
1 but she had providential escape. Trial Court convicted accused and
' sentenced him to death. Appellant filed an appeal. High Court dismissed
the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present
appeal.

Appellant contended that he was roped in on mere suspicion, that G
there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect him with the
crime; that appellant had no compelling motive to kill his master and his
kith and kin; that it would be difficult to believe that accused single
handedly killed so many persons at three different places using several
623 H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A weapons; that more than one person would have been involved in these
serial killings; that the version given by informant-PW-I in her deposition
is an improvement over the earliest version in the FIR; that the prosecution
has apparently not come forward with correct version of the incident; that
he was juvenile at the time of commission of crime; and that in any case,
death sentence is not warranted.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The circumstances and events unfolded by the evidence
of PW-1 clinchingly and unerringly point to the fact that none other than
the accused would have killed the husband of PW-1 and are incompatible
C with the innocence of accused. Appellant-accused executed his plan to put
an end to the lives of the entire family in a calculated manner. First, he
directed his attack towards the son of PW-1 who was sleeping so that he
would not be able to come to the rescue of others. It was easy for him to
kill that sleeping young man. The fact that a stone slab was found on the
D body would lead to a reasonable inference that the accused would have
hit him on the head with that stone so as to prevent any resistance being
offered on hue and cry being raised. Then, he targeted the ladies. When
informant's husband returned home, he became the next victim. Thus the
contention that it could not have been possible for appellant to single-
handedly commit three murders one by one by using different weapons
E cannot be accepted. [631-H; 632-A-C]

1.2. The FIR was given to police within one and a half hours after
the incident. Informant gave all essential and relevant details of the
incident naming the accused as culprit. It cannot be expected of a person
F injured and overtaken by grief to give better particulars. The possibility
of PW-1 inventing a story at that juncture trying to implicate accused is
absolutely ruled out. The contents of FIR, broadly and in material
particulars, conform to the version given by PW-I in her deposition. It is
also corroborated by PW 4-sweeper who regularly came to the house for
cleaning in morning times. He heard the earliest version of the incident
G from PW-1 and also noticed the accused running away after scaling the
wall. Both the courts believed his evidence. The criticism based on the
alleged improbabWties is not justified. Another circulnstance to be borne
in mind is that appellant absconded and he was apprehended only after
five long years. !632-E-HJ

H
OM PRAKASH@ RAJA v. STATE OF UTT ARANCHAL 625

1.3. The correctness of conviction cannot be tested on the touchstone A
of lack of sufficient motive, if the evidence establishes beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused committed the crime which is available iu
abundance. 1633-CI

1.4. Appellant adduced no proof regarding his age. However both
trial court and High Court observed that appellant admittedly opened a B
bank account and pass book and cheque book were exhibited in trial and
he would not have been in a position to open an account unless he was a
major and declared it himself. This approach of court's below cannot be
faulted with. 1633-D, El

1.5. High Court rightly observed that the crime had been cleverly C
pre-planned and committed in a brutal and diabolical manner, thus the
sentence of death is the appropriate and proper sentence. Appellant
accused eliminated three out of the four inmates of the house in which he
was employed and also attempted to kill the fourth person also. He inflicted
injuries on the young son of informant-PW I in such a cruel manner that D
his neck was practically severed from his body. Multiple injuries were
inflicted on the vital parts of other victims. The cruel tendency of appellant
\'Vas writ large even in the manner of attack. His antecedents also revealed
a cruel and savage behavior on his part. The evidence on record revealed
that he killed a pet bird and pierced feathers inside the nose of the hen.
He was determined to kill all the members of the family to take revenge E
on a flimsy ground. Alternatively, he stooped to the ghastly crime in order
to take away the valuables in the house. His conduct and behavior is
repulsive to the collective conscience of the society. It is fairly clear that
he did not value the lives of others in the least. The crime committed by
the appellant shocks the conscience of the society at large and of the Court p
and the facts and circumstances unfolded in the case leave the Court with
an irresistible feeling that he is beyond reformation though he is young.
Moreover, none is dependant on appellant. There are no mitigating
· circumstances in his favour. He is a menace to the society and it seems
that the death sentence is the most appropriate punishment. Hence
conviction under section 302 and sentence of death is confirmed. G
(633-G, H; 634-A-D)

Amrutlal SomeshwarJoshi v. State of Maharashtra, 1199416 SCC 186,
relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 824 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.2001 of the Uttaranchal High
Court in Jail Crl. A. No. I 08/200 I and Crl. R. No. 2 of 200 I.

Dr. Shyamla Pappu, (A.C.) Shakeel Ahmed (A.C.), Anil Goel and R.
B Krishnamorthi, for the Appellant.

A.S. Rawat and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C P. VENKAT ARAMA RED DI, J. The appellant-accused wa& working
as a domestic servant in the house of retired Brigadier Shyam Lal Khanna.
According to the findings of the Sessions court and the High Court, the
accused put an end to the life of three members of the family including Mr.
19lanna and endeavoured to kill the informant Mrs. Khanna. The ghastly
incident occurred in the morning hours of 15.11.1994 in Vasant Vihar area
D of Dehradun. The appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 307 lPC.
Another person by name Nitish with whose sister the appellant had illicit
intimacy was also charged under Section 120 B IPC. The learned additional
Sessions Judge, Dehradun, convicted the accused-appellant under Sections
302 and 307 IPC. For committing the offence of murder, death sentence was
E imposed. Under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7
years. The other accused was acquitted of the charge. The Sessions Judge
made a reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence.
The appellant also preferred an appeal from jail. The High Court dismissed
the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant and confirmed the death sentence
and other sentences passed against him for the offences under Sections 302
F and 307 IPC. It is against this judgment of the High Court dated 19.9.2001,
the present appeal has been preferred by the accused through Jail authorities.

One of the victims-a retired Brigadier working with ONGC at Dehradun
was living in his house with his wife Rama Khanna the informant, and his
son Sarit Khanna who had returned from U.K. after ccmpleting his studies
G two weeks earlier. The sister of the infomiant by name Bishna Mathur was
also staying in the house at the relevant time. The appellant was engaged as
servant at their house about six months earlier. According to the prosecution,
the day before the incident, it was decided to terminate his services on account
of his objectionable behaviour and he was informed of their decision. A day
H later, he indulged in the ghastly attack against the entire family. The crucial
0\1 PRAKASH@ RAJA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REDD!. J] 627

evidence on behalf of the prosecution is that of PW I Smt. Rama Khanna A
\Vho gave the first infonnation report to the police soon after the occurrence.
Tile prosecution case as unfolded by her deposition is this :

The accused was residing in the servant's quarter, he having been
employed about six months prior to the incident. There were instances in
which the accused proved to be unreliable. He had stolen money from the B
purse of her husband once when she and her husband went to outstation. He
killed.her pet sparrow and also put feathers inside the nose of her hen. She
and her husband discussed about the conduct and mentality of the accused
and decided to dispense with his service from !st December, 1994. To this
effect her husband informed the accused. On 14.11.1994, the accused served C
bed tea at about 8 A.M. to her, her husband and her sister. At that time her
son was sleeping in the bed room. After the bed tea, her husband left the
house for a morning walk as usual. PW I and her sister went into the bath
rooms adjacent to each other. When she wanted to come out of the bath
room, PW I found it was bolted from outside. From the window of the bath
room, she communicated to her sister to open the bolt. As her sister just came D
out of the bath room, PW I heard her cries for about five minutes and then
there was pin drop silence. At this PW I became suspicious that some untoward
incident had happened. Then, the accused himself opened the bath room door
in which PW I was confined; but, before fully opening the door and
confronting the accused, she noticed that the accused was holding chilly E
powder in one hand and sword in another. The sword happened to be of her
husband. As sooa as the door was opened, the accused threw chilly powder
on her and attacked with the sword. The sword luckily hit the golden bangle
which she was wearing as a result of which her left wrist was fractured and
in this process, the bangle got dented. She managed to get into the bathroom
and bolted the door from inside. The accused kept banging the bath room F
door. At that juncture, her husband returned from morning walk and on
hearing her panicky voice from the bathroom, he came straight to the bed
room to which the bathroom was attached. She pleaded with her husband to
open the door as the accused Raja (alias name of accused) was upto some
mischief. Her husband replied that Raja was not there, but immediately G
foereafter, she heard the cries of her husband as the accused started attacking
'.iim with sword after throwing chilly powder on his face. She heard her
husband remarking Raja "why are you doing this? We have not l>armed you".
After sometime, the cries of her husband subsided. Thereafter, the accused
tried to injure her with the help of a danda from the window of the bathroom.
In the meanwhile, her husband gathered strength to open the bathroom door H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A from outside. Then PW I ran towards the main gate of the house and closed
it from inside to prevent re-entry of the accused inside the house as he was
standing outside at that time. At this, the accused started banging the main
door repeatedly and thereafter left the spot. When she came inside the bed
room, she found that her husband was lying injured with profuse bleeding
B and heavy breathing. She noticed the injuries on his neck and chilly powder
smeared on his face. Then she rushed to the bed room of her son and found
that he was lying dead in a pool of blood with his neck severed from his
body. A stone slab was found on his legs. On entry into the room of her
sister, PW I found that chilly powder was spilled all over the room and her
sister was ~ead with severe injuries on her face and neck. On opening the
C drawing room window, she found Jamadar Raju (PW 4) approaching the
house. She cried out and asked him to open the main gate and told him that
the accused had murdered the inmates of the house. Then the· neighbours
gathered and took her and her injured husband to ONGC hospital. He was
declared dead at the hospital. PW I was given first aid and then she was
dropped back at the house. PW 8 who was known to the family of PW I was
D in the crowd and he scribed the complaint as per her dictation. She handed
over the report at Vasant Vihar Police post at about 10.30 A.M. The police
then inspected the place of occurrence, took photographs and sent the dead
body for post-mortem. Again, PW I was taken to ONGC hospital and x-ray
of her wrist was taken and she was treated for her fracture. The photographs
E of various rooms in the house wherein the dead bodies lay and the weapons
and other incriminating material were shown to PW I and she testified to the
contents thereof. A khukri was found in the bed room of PW l's son Sarit
Khanna. A stone slab was also visible in the same bed room. PW I had stated
that she had removed tha:t slab from the legs of her son. A knife was found
lying on the floor of the drawing room. In the bed room where her sister was
F lying dead the cover of the sword was found and the sword was recovered
from the curtains of Puja room. Chilly powder jar which was kept in the
kitchen was also found in the trolley used for serving the bed tea: Blood
stained clothes worn by the deceased and ~ed sheets were· also identified by
her. The accused absconded and he was arrested nearly five years after the
G incident. From the room of the accused, the photpgra:ph was found in which
the accused was in army Brigadier's uniform, which shows that he had
stealthily removed his master's dress for the pt1rpose of photograph.

Then, we have the evidence of PW. 4 the JamasJar who used to come
to the house of the deceased for cleaning. When he reached the house at
H about 9 A.M., the main iron gate was locked from inside. He heard the
OM PRAKASH@RA.IA v STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REDD!. J.]629

screams of PW I as she was crying aloud that the accused Raja had murdered A
all inside the house. He entered the house by sc~ling the boundary wall. PW
4 stated that he had seen a person who was scaling the boundary wall and
running towards south. He further stated that he had a glimpse of the person
running avvay and it \Vas the accused Raja. ln the cross-exan1ination, he
deposed that he had seen the accused from a distance of 70 'paces'.
B
Coming to the medical evidence. PW 6 is the medical officer who
conducted post-mortem of the dead bodies in the evening of 15th November,
1994 :

Out of injuries found on the body of Brig. Khanna two were incised
wounds, six lacerated wounds, one subconjuctrial haemorrhage on c
right eye and one traumatic swelling over occipital region. One of the
incised wounds was 7 cm x 3 cm_ x bone deep over left side of scalp-
2 cm. above upper border of upper left ear lobe. One of the lacerated
wounds 6 cm x 3 cm. x bone deep was over mid scalp-2 cm. above
injury no. I with clotted blood. The rest of the injuries were on different D
parts of the body. According to him, the death had occurred due to
shock and haemorrhage as a result of these ante mortem injuries.

Though he stated in the post-mortem report that death would have
occurred about 12 hours back, he clarified that there was possibility
of injuries being rec.eived at about 9 A.M. E
Deceased Sari! Khanna was aged about 27 years. Four lacerated
wounds were found as ante mortem injuries on his person. One
lacerated wound 2 cm x I 0 cm. was over anterior aspect of neck.
Muscle tissues were exposed on both the sides. On internal
examination, it was found that the wind pipe was lacerated and both F
the vessels of the neck were cut. The right chamber of heart was full
while the left chamber was empty. The entire neck of the deceased
was slit upto spinal cord. He would have been attacked with a sword
or khukri or any other sharp edged weapon while the victim was
sleeping, according to PW 6.
G
He died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem
injuries.

Deceased Smt. Bishna Mathur was aged about 65 years. As many as
eight injuries had been inflicted on her person and amongst them, six
were incised wounds, one was punctured wound and the other was H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] ·SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A lacerated wound. Five of the incised wounds were on the neck. She,
too, died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of coma on
account of ante mortem injuries.

It is the contention of the learned senior counsel who appeared as
Amicus curiae that the appellant was roped in on mere suspicion, that there
B was no reliable evidence direct or circumstancial to connect the accused with
the crime and that the appellant had no compelling motive to kill his master
and his kith and kin and that it would be difficult to believe that the accused
single handedly had killed so many persons at three different places using
several weapons. It is further contended that more than one person would
C have been involved in these serial killings and that the prosecution has
apparently not come forward with correct version of the incident. Finally it
is submitted that in any case, death sentence is not warranted.

The most important evidence in the present case is that of PW I - Smt.
Rama Khanna whose husband, son and sister were brutally killed and who
D was also targeted for attack by the accused. No doubt, she is not a direct
witness in the sense that she had not witnessed the actual attack on the three
victims. In the cross-examination she made it clear that she did not see the
accused killing her sister and her son. She. further clarified that she had not
seen the accused attacking her husband but heard the voice of her husband
questioning the accused "Why are you doing so? We have not harmed you".
E So also, she heard the cries of her sister soon after she responded to PW l's
call to open the bolt of the bath room door and they stopped all of a S!ldden.
Soon thereafter, she peeped out of the bath room door (after the bolt was
opened by the accused) to find to her utter surprise the accused holding chilly
powder and sword. The appellant then attacked her with the sword and she
F providentially escaped with an injury on the left wrist as her bangle bore the
impact of the sword. She then managed to get into the bath room again and
closed the door from inside. Even thereafter, the accused kept the bath room
door banging and then tried to injure her with the aid of a danda from the
bath room window. Thus, !ibe was attacked by the accused with a deadly
weapon at that juncture when· her sister and son were lying dead and when
G she was questioning him about their safety. It follows from this sequence of
events that there exists an inextricable nexus between the accused and the
murderous assault on the victims. There was no one else in the house and
none other than the accused was seen by PW 1. Who else other than the
appellant would have killed the sister and son of PW 1? - is a question which
H conspicuously stares at the face of the accused. The circumstances do not err
OM PRAKASH@RAJA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REDD!. J.] 631

and they clinchingly point to the hand of the accused in the murders. The A
instantaneous act of the appellant in attacking PW I when she questioned him
about \Vhat \Vas happening instead of saying a word about the victi1ns
estab:is11<S beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant and the appellant alone
had committed the murders of the sister and son of PW I by the time her
husband Brig. Khanna arrived. The circumstances speak for themselves and
they point unerringly to the participation of the accused in the murders. True B
PW I did not hear the cries nor did she have any indication of her son who
was sleeping in the bed room being attacked by anyone. But, the circumstances
coupled with human probabilities ought to be taken into account. PW I
deposed that at the time the accused served them bed tea, her son was sleeping.
The occurrence had obviously taken place thereafter i.e. after Brig. Khanna C
left for morning walk. No one else entered the house excepting the accused
who was actually seen by PW I, when he tried to make a fatal assault on her.
It cannot be imagined that some unknown person would have stealthily entered
and killed Sarit Khanna in the meanwhile and the appellant resorted to a
killing spree in respect of others. The argument sought to be advanced by the
learned Amicus Curiae is highly unrealistic and inconsistent with the telling D
circumstances of the case.

When we come to the murder of Brig. Khanna, here again, the evidence
of PW I is sufficient to establish that the accused is the culprit and none else.
Her evidence reveals that the moment her husband returned home, she cried E
aloud to open the bath-room door and that Raja (accused) was upto some
mischief. Her husband replied that Raja was not there but immediately
thereafter she heard the cries of her husband and her husband remarking
"Raja, why are you doing this? We have not harmed you". The cries subsided
thereafter. Then, the accused tried to injure her with a 'danda' from the
window of the bath-room. At that stage, her husband gathered strength to F
open the door from outside. However, she was ' not sure, whether her husband
opened the door or the accused had opened it. Be that as it may, her evidence
is clear that the bolt was opened. As soon as she got out of the bath-room,
she having noticed the accused outside the main door of the house, acted
with presence of mind in bolting the main door from inside to prevent the re- G
entry of the accused. Then, the accused started knocking at the door repeatedly.
Even though PW-I had not seen the actual attack on the husband, that is,
throwing chilly powder on his face and attacking him with a dangerous
weapon, the sequence of events noted above would clinchingly and unerringly
point to the fact that none other than the accused would have killed the
husband of PW-I. H
632 SUPREME COURT R.EPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The circumstances and events unfolded by the evidence of PW-I are
incompatible with the innocence cf the accused. It is worthy of riote that the
accused-appellant executed his plan to put an end to the lives of the entire
family in a calculated manner : first, he directed his attack towards the son
of PW- I who was sleeping so that he will not be able to come to the rescue
B of others. It was easy for him to kill that sleeping young man. The fact that
a stone slab was found on the body would lead to a reasonable inference that
the accused would have hit him on the head with that .stone so as to prevent
any resistance being offered on hue and cry being raised. Then, he targeted
the ladies who were in the bath-rooms. When Brig. Khanna returned hom·e,
he became the next victim. In this scenario, it is difficult to accept the
C contention of the learned counsel "that it could not have been possible for the
appellant to single-handedly corrµnit three murders one by one by using
different weapons. The doubt .which is sought to be raised by the learned
counsel does not rest on firm hypothesis.

It is next contended by the learned amicus curiae that the version given
D by PW-I in her deposition is an improvement over the earliest version in the
FIR. It is pointed out that the alleged cries of her husband "Raja, why are you
doing this!" did not find mention in the FIR. Nor was it mentioned in the FIR
that the accused replied to PW-I saying "you.have lodged complaint against
me". These remarks attributed to the husband of PW-I and the accused
E cannot be true, according to the learned counsel because they were not
mentioned in the FIR. We find it difficult to accept this contention. It is
axiomatic that the FIR need not contain an exhaustive account of the incident.
It is to be noted that the rep_ort was given to the police within one and a half
hours after the incident. PW-8, a known person, had drafted the report that
she dictated. She had given all essential and relevant details of the incident
F naming the accused as culprit. We cannot expect a person injured and
overtaken by grief to give better particulars. The possibility of PW-I inventing
a story at that juncture trying to implicate the accused is absolutely ruled out.
The contents of the FIR, broadly and in material particulars, confonn to the
version given by PW-I in her deposition. Another corroborating factor is the
G evidence of PW 4 - the sweeper who was regularly coming to the. house for
cleaning in morning times. He heard the earliest version of the incident from
PW-I and also noticed the accused running away after scaling the wall. His
evidence was believed by both the courts. We do northink that the criticism
of his evidence by the learned amicus curiae based on the alleged
improbabilities is justified. Another circumstance to be borne in mind is that
H the appellant absconded and he was apprehended only after five long years.
OM PRAKASH 'ii) RA.IA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REDDL J.] 633
.r
There was no apparent explanation for this. A
As regards the tnotive for the crin1e. the High Court on an analysis of
the evidence found that it could either be a frustrated attempt to commit
robbery or it could be for taking revenge against the 1naster and his fa1nily.
It is in evidence of PW-I that the decision to dispense with his services was
conveyed to the accused on the previous day because the. accused incurred B
the displeasure of the family on account of his misbehaviour viz., suspected
theft and his killing or harming the pet birds. That apart, as stated by the
' accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he was asked to quit the
job for having illicit intimacy with the sister of the co-accused and he was
scolded on that account. The accused would have been aggrieved for one or C
all of these reasons. We are not concerned with the sufficiency or otherwise
of the motive which would have prompted the appellant to commit the crime.
The correctness of conviction cannot be tested on the touchstone of lack of
sufficient motive, if the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused committed the crime. Such evidence is available in abundant
measure in the instant case. D
Regarding the age of the appellant, a contention has been raised that he
was juvenile at the time of commission of crime on 15.11.1994 because he
gave the age as 20 years in his statement recorded under Settion 313 Cr.P.C.
on 07.03.2001. Apart from the fact that on behalf of the appellant no proof
was adduced regarding his age, the High Court noted that he admittedly E
opened the bank account in Punjab National Bank at Dehradun on 9.3.1994.
Pass book and cheque book were exhibited in trial . The High Court observed
that the appellant would not have been in a position to open the account
unless he was a major and declared himself to be so. That was also the view
taken by the trial Court. The approach of the Trial Court as we,ll as the High F
v Court on this aspect cannot be faulted.
(

In view of the foregoing discussion, we affirm the conviction of the
appellant-accused under Section 302 !PC. The question then is about the
sentence. The trial court as well as the High Court categorized it as 'rarest
of the rare cases' which warranted the death sentence. After giving our anxious G
c~nsideration, we are in agreement with the High Court that the sentence of
• death is the appropriate and proper sentence in this case. As rightly observed
by the High Court, the crime had been cleverly pre-planned and committed
in a brutal and diabolical manner. Three out of the four inmates of the house
,, in which he was employed, were eliminated. There was an attempt to kill the
H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A fourth person (PW- I) also. The accused had inflicted injuries on the young
Sarit Khanna in such a cruel manner that his neck was practically severed
from his body. Multiple injuries were inflicted on the vital parts of other
victims. The cruel tendency of the appellant was writ large even in the manner
of attack. His antecedents also reveal a cruel and savage behaviour on his
part. The evidence on record reveals that he killed a pet bird and pierced
B feathers inside the nose of the hen. He was determined to kill all the members
of the Khanna family to take revenge on a flimsy ground. Alternatively, he
stooped to the ghastly crime in order to take away the valuables in the house. (
His conduct and behaviour is repulsive to the collective conscience of the
society. It is fairly clear that he does not value the lives of others in the least.
C The crime committed by the appellant shocks the conscience of the society
at large and of the Court and the facts and circumstances unfolded in the case
leave the Court with a:n irresistible feeling that he is beyond reformation
though young he is. As held in Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi v. State of
Maharashtra, [1994] 6 SCC, 186, mere young age of the accused is not a
ground to desist from imposing death penalty, if it is otherwise warranted.
D Moreover, in the present case, none is dependant on the appellant. There are
no mitigating circumstances in his favour. The accused is a menace to the
society and it seems to us that the death sentence is the most appropriate
punishment in this case. On facts, the case on hand is closest to Amrutlal
Someshwar 's case (supra) where the death sentence was upheld. Accordingly,
E the sentence of death is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.

We must place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance
rendered by the learned senior counsel Dr. Syamala Pappu who appeared as
amicus curiae.

F N.J. Appeal dismissed.
...
-~
.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "murder"Sign in to search