Supreme Court of India
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 446
- Decided
- 2 April 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- P P NAOLEKAR
Holding
The Court upheld the conviction and death sentence, finding the eyewitness evidence reliable and the murder to be a "rarest of rare" case justifying capital punishment.
Summary
The appellant, Prajeet Kumar Singh, who had been living with the family of the informant for four years, was convicted of brutally murdering three children (ages 8, 15 and 16) and assaulting the parents and another child with a dagger. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three injured eyewitnesses who were also close relatives of the victims, and medical evidence corroborating the injuries. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness evidence was cogent and that the crime was of a diabolic, superlative degree, satisfying the "rarest of rare" test for capital punishment as laid down in Bachan Singh. Applying the guidelines, the Court found no mitigating circumstances sufficient to outweigh the aggravation and affirmed the death sentence. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction and death sentence was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The credibility and sufficiency of the eyewitness testimony to establish guilt under s.302 IPC.
- Whether the offence qualifies as a "rarest of rare" case warranting the death penalty under the Bachan Singh guidelines.
- Whether any mitigating factors merit a sentence of life imprisonment instead of death.
- Whether a separate sentence under s.307 IPC is required in addition to the death penalty.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 34
Subjects
murderdeath penaltyrarest of rareIPC s.302IPC s.307eyewitness testimonycapital punishmentIndian criminal law
Judgment
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 969
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No.1621 of 2007)
APRIL 2, 2008
B
[P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Brutal murder of 3 innocent
defenceless children -Also injury to parents and another child
- Conviction under s. 302 and award of death sentence - c
Justification of - Held: Justified as evidence of eyewitnesses
cogent and point to the guilt of accused - They were residing
in the house where incident happened and therefore their
presence at the time of incident cannot be ruled out - These
witnesses were direct relations of deceased children and thus
D
". plea of false implication of accused leaving actual culprit is
highly improbable and unacceptable - Punishment of death
sentence appropriate as case falls in category of 'rarest of rare
cases' - The act was diabolic of superlative degree in
conception and cruel in execution and would not fall within
any comprehension of basic humanness which cannot be said E
to be amenable for any reformation - Sentence/Sentencing -
Death sentence.
The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant
was friend of son of informant (PW-3) and was living in F
their house for four years prior to the date of incident and
~,
was also taking meals for which he was paying Rs.500/-
p.m. For several months he did not pay the dues and
owed Rs.4000/- as rent and food for which PW-3 was
making regular demands. In the afternoon of 18th April,
G
1988, father, brother and a relative of the accused-
appellant came to the residence of PW-1, at about half past
,;
four and enquired about PW-3. At that time PW-3 had gone
to the market. After dinner, the informant and his wife went
969 H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
'
A to sleep in their room which was on the third floor of the
house. The accused also went to sleep in the adjoining
room on the third floor. All the children of the informant
were sleeping on the second floor. At night, the informant
and his wife heard the noise of crying from the second
B' floor and they thought that the children were quarrelling.
Both of them came down and saw that the accused
murdered their younger son with a dab (dagger like
weapon). When the accused saw the informant and his
wife, he caused injury to them and also gave fatal blow to
C their elder son, daughter and niece using the same dab.
The Sessions Court found him guilty of the offence
under s.302, IPC and sentenced him to death penalty. He
was also found guilty of the offence under s.307, IPC.
However, as the extreme penalty of death was imposed
D on the accused-appellant, the Sessions Court did not
impose a separate sentence under s.307, IPC. The High
Court accepted the death reference and dismissed the
appeal filed by the accused-appellant. Hence the present
appeal.
E Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The evidence of the three eye-witnesses
is cogent and points to the guilt of the accused-appellant.
They were injured in the same incident wherein the three
F persons were killed. They were residing in the house
where the incident happened and their presence at the
time of the commission of crime cannot be doubted. The
evidence of the informant-PW3 is supported by the First
Information Report. The sti;ltements of the witnesses
G implicating the accused-appellant in the commission of
crime and the injuries caused to them and the deceased
persons are fully supported by the medical evidence.
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 having been the residents of the
same house, their presence at the place of occurrence in
H the dead hours of night and they having witnessed the
•
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 971
incident, cannot be ruled out. These witnesses are close A
and direct relations of the deceased children and,
therefore, implicating a false person, leaving out the actual
culprit, is highly improbable and unacceptable. These
witnesses corroborate each other in the material
particulars and the manner in which the incident B
happened. PW-3 and PW-2 at the relevant time were in
their room on the third floor and came down on hearing
the noise to the second floor where they watched the
drastic act being committed. When they tried to intervene,
they were also attacked. PW-1 was in the adjoining room c
where the incident happened and he came to the place of
incident immediately after hearing the noise. Nothing has
been brought about in the cross-examination to disbelieve
the ocular version of the witnesses. Two courts below
on detailed scrutiny of the evideRce of these witnesses,
0
did not find any infirmity in the evidence pointing finger
towards the accused-appellant. [Para 14]
2. The guidelines for imposing death sentence were
laid down in Bachan Singh* that (a) the extreme penalty
of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of E
extreme culpability. (ii) Before opting for the death penalty
the circumstances of the "offender" also require to be
taken into consideration along with the circumstances of
the "crime". (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception. The death sentence must be F
imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an
altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the
relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and
only provided, the option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised G
having regard to the nature and circumstances of th~
crime and all the relevant circumstances. (iv) A balance
sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has
to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating
circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A just balance has to be struck between the aggravating
and the mitigating circumstances before the option is
exercised. [Para 17]
*Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
Machhi Singh and Ors. V. State of Punjab (1983) 3 sec 470 -
B followed.
3. The accused-appellant was living as a family
member of PW-3 and PW-2 and was provided with shelter
and meals, although for a sum of Rs.500/- per month, being
c a friend of PW-1. He lived with the family not for a month
or two, but for a continuous period of four years. There
does not appear to be any apparent provocation or reason
for committing the ghastly brutal murder of three innocent
defenceless children who were aged 8, 15 and 16 years.
Assumingly, the time at which the incident happened, the
0
children must be asleep and were not in a position to
defend themselves. It has come in the evidence of PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3 that the accused-appellant had assaulted
them when they were running here and there to save
themselves. The medical evidence led by the prosecution
E indicates the brutality in the commission of crime. Several
incised wounds were caused to the deceased persons.
The victims apparently did not have any weapon with
them. When PW-3 and PW-2 on hearing the noise came
down to find out the cause for it and entered the room,
F they were also brutally attacked without the slightest of
consideration by the accused-appellant that he had lived
with them for four years. Not only that, when his friend
on whose account he was accommodated in the house
reached the place of incident on hearing the noise of his
G brother and sisters, he was also attacked and seriously
injured. It is clear from the material placed on record by
the prosecution that all these persons were unarmed and
the accused-appellant was the only person in the room
having the deadly weapon in his hand. He could have
H escaped from the place giving the threat to the persons
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 973
[P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
without causing any harm to the witnesses, but he acted A
in a different manner. The enormity of the crime is writ
large. The accused-appellant caused multiple murders
and attacked three witnesses. Thus, all the members of
the family who were present on that day in the house
became the victims of the accused. The brutality of the s
act is amplified by the manner in which the attacks have
been made on all the inmates of the house in which the
helpless victims have been murdered, which is indicative
of the fact that the act was diabolic of the superlative
degree in conception and cruel in execution and does not c
fall within any comprehension of the basic humanness
which indicates the mindset which cannot be said to be
amenable for any reformation. [Para 20] [986-E, F, G, H;
987-A to F]
4. In view of the aforesaid facts, there would be failure D
of justice in case death sentence is not awarded in the
present case. The case falls in the category of the rarest
of the rare cases. The Session Court and the High Court
were justified in imposing death sentence on the accused-
appellant. [Para 21] [987-F, G] E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1621 of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Death Reference No. 1/2004 F
with Crl. A. No. 4/2004.
Ranjana Narayan (A.C.) for the Appellant.
Gopal Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1621 of 2007.
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order
of confirmation in Death Reference No. 1 of 2004 & order in H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
.-
A Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2004 filed by the accused-appellant,
whereby the High Court was of the view that in the facts and
circumstances the case falls under the purview of 'rarest of the
rare case' and, thus, the death sentence imposed on the
accused-appellant is completely justified.
B 2. The proceedings in the matter arose in the following
facts: In the fardbeyan of Pawan Kumar Thakur (PW-3), it is
said that the accused Prajeet Kumar Singh, a friend of Prakash
Kumar (PW-1) (son of the informant), was living in the house of
PW-3 at Supriya Road in Mirja Toli of Bettiah Town for the last
C four years and was also taking his meals for which he was paying
Rs. 500/- per month. However, for the last several months, he
had not paid the amount and owed Rs.4,000/- altogether as
rent for the house and for food to the informant for which the
informant was making demands regularly. Four-five days before
o the incident, when the informant made a demand, the accused
said that he was going home to bring money and thereafter he
went home. The day before the incident, the accused came back
at 3.00 p.m. After having dinner, when the informant asked the
accused for the dues, the accused told him that he should
E accompany him to his home where he would be paid his money.
Thereafter, the informant and his wife went to sleep in their room
which was on the third floor of the house. The accused also
went to sleep in the adjoining room on the third floor. All the
children of the informant were sleeping on the second floor. At
night, the informant and his wife heard the noise of crying from
F the second floor and they suspected that the children had been
quarrelling. Both of them came down and saw that the accused ,.--
having picked up dab (dagger like weapon) from the house,
had murdered their younger son Deepak Kumar. When the
accused noticed the informant and his wife, he caused injury to
G them and their elder son Prakash Kumar, daughter Kiran Kumari
and niece Pooja Kumari, using the same dab. During the course
of investigation, the involvement of three more persons came
to light to the investigating agency and chargesheet was
submitted against the four persons, namely, accused No.1 (the
H appellant herein) Prajeet Kumar Sing'h, accused No.2 Ram
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 975
[P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
Badai Singh, father of accused No.1 as well as Ajit Singh, brother A
of accused No.1 and Chandra Bhushan Pandey, relative of
accused No.1. During the course of trial, two accused Ajit Singh
and Chandra Bhushan Pandey remained absent and their cases
were separated. The trial proceeded against two persons only,
namely, the accused-appellant and his father. B
3. The accused-appellant has been charged under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") for committing
the murder of informant's son Deepak Kumar, aged about 16
years, daughter Kiran Kumari, aged about 15 years and niece
Pooja Kumari, aged about 8 years, and further under Section C
307, IPC for attempting to commit the murder of the informant
Pawan Kumar Thakur (PW-3) and his wife Geeta Devi (PW-2).
The Session Court found him guilty of the offence under Section
302, IPC and sentenced him to death penalty. He was also found
guilty of the offence under Section 307, IPC. However, as the D
extreme penalty of death was imposed on the accused-
appellant, the Session Court did not impose a separate
sentence under Section 307, IPC. Father of the accused-
appellant, Ram Badai Singh, has been charged for the offences
under both the Sections read with Section 34, IPC. However, E
he was acquitted of the charges framed against him as the
evidence of the witnesses that when the accused fled away from
the place of incident after jumping from the top floor, they saw in
the light the other accused also present beneath the house along
with other persons, was not believed by the Session Court. The F
High Court has accepted the death reference and dismissed
the appeal filed by the accused-appellant.
4. It is contended by Ms. Ranjana Narayan, the learned
Amicus Curiae that on a minute scrutiny of the evidence of the
eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is clear that the G
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt and thus the appellant should have been acquitted of the
charges framed against him. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted
that in any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
offence committed by the accused~appellant does not fall within H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
.-
A the purview of 'rarest of the rare case' and, therefore, the courts
below should not have imposed death sentence on the accused-
appellant.
5. To prove the case against the accused-appellant, the
prosecution examined Prakash Kumar (PW-1 }, son of the
8 informant Pawan Kumar Thakur (PW-3), Geeta Devi (PW-2),
wife of PW-3 and the informant Pawan Kumar Thakur himself
(PW-3), who are the injured witnesses residing in the house
where the incident took place in the night between 18th & 19th
April, ·1998 at about 2.30 a.m. The prosecution also examined
C three doctors, namely, Dr. Mahashray Singh (PW-5) who
conducted the post-mortem of Deepak Kumar on 19th April,
1998, Dr. Madhusudan Shukla (PW-6) who did the autopsy on
the dead bodies of Kiran Kumari and Pooja Kumari on 19th
April, 1998 and Dr. Ganga Narayan Singh (PW-7) who examined
D PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in the afternoon of 19th April, 1998.
6. It has come in the evidence of Prakash Kumar (PW-1)
that he was 19 years of age at the time of the incident and is the
son of Pawan Kumar Thakur (PW-3). PW-1 studied in the same
school with the accused-appellant and they were classmates.
E The accused used to pay frequent visits at the house of PW-1
and during this period came in close contact with the family
members of PW-1. Three to four years prior to the occurrence,
the accused requested the family members of PW-1 to allow
him to stay with them and in return he would pay Rs.500/- for
F lodging & boarding and since then he had started living with
!her; .. Five to six months before the occurrence, the accused
stopped making payment but assured that he would get the
money from his home and pay it. In the afternoon of 18th April,
1998, Ram Badai Singh, the other accused charged for the
G offence and father of the accused-appellant, Ajit Singh, brother
of the accused-appellant and Chandra Prakash Pandey, a
relative of the accused-appellant came to the residence of PW-
1, at about half past four and enquired about his father on which
he said that his father had gone to the market. At that very time,
H two other persons Aseshar Pandey and Sukhaj Pandey came
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 977
[P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
-. to the residence and they conveyed the message that his father A
was supposed to deposit the money in the bank and not spend
. it. During the conversation, the accused and his relatives were
present and thereafter the accused left the residence with the
relatives. After dinner, PW-1 went to sleep in his room on the
second floor and his two sisters Kiran Kumari and Pooja Kumari B
and his younger brother Deepak Kumar were sleeping in another
room adjacent to the said room. On the night intervening 18th
and 19th April, 1998, he woke up to the sound of screaming,
crying and knocking of the door. He saw the accused assaulting
his younger brother Deepak Kumar and as a result thereof his c
brother got injured and fell down on the floor. When he tried to
intervene, the accused gave him a blow on his head with a
dabiya which resulted in a cut that extended below the left eye.
Thereafter, he gave him a push. He saw his two younger sisters
Pooja Kumari and Kiran Kumari crying in an injured condition.
D
His father and mother were asleep on the 3rd floor and on hearing
the commotion, they came down to the 2nd floor. The accused
Jo-
assaulted his father and mother with dabiya and thereafter fled
towards the 3rd floor of the house. It is then said that he looked
through the window and identified the father of the accused Ram
Badai Singh, his brother Ajit Si~gh and relative Chandra E
Bhushan Pandey and two unknown persons who had come to
his residence earlier during the day time and saw them fleeing
towards the north direction towards the railway line. In the cross-
examination, PW-1 admitted that during the period of last four
years when the accused used to stay in his house the witness F
did not come across any enmity of the accused, nor did he get
·-... to know anything about his bad habits.
7. Another witness examined by the prosecution is PW-2
Geeta Devi, the wife of the informant. According to her, the
G
occurrence took place at 2.30 in the midnight of 18th and 19th
April, 1998. On 181hApril, 1998, the accused came to the house
and went to the 3rd floor of the house where his room was situated.
The accused had been staying in their house for the past four
years, he being the friend of her son PW-1. He used to ~Y
H
I'
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A Rs.500/- per month as monthly rent. Though he had not paid ,-
that amount for quite some time. a sum of Rs.4000/- was due
from him. The accused had assured her husband that he would
get the said amount from home. At 2.30 a.m .. they woke up due
to lot of noise and screaming by their children. They thought that
B their children were quarrelling among themselves so they
descended from the 3rd floor to the 2nd floor. They saw that
accused Prajeet Kuma.rwith his dabiya assaulted their younger
son Deepak who had succumbed to his injuries. The accused
had also assaulted Pooja Kumari, Kiran Kumari and Prakash
c Kumar as a result of which they were bleeding profusely and
were running inside the room here and there to save themselves.
Her husband tried to prevent the accused and she approached
her children to save them. But the accused intervened and
attacked her on her head and on the right side of her shoulder
with the dabiya as a result of which she sustained injuries and
D
tumbled on the floor. The accused also assaulted her husband
PW-3 with the dabiya as a result of which her husband sustained
~
a deep cut injury on the right side of his face from the eye to the
lower portion of the cheek and a deep cut injury was caused on
the left side of his neck. The accused assaulted her husband
E indiscriminately with the intention to kill him who tried to avoid
the assault with the help of a cricket stump. Thereafter, the
accused fled to the 3rd floor. This witness stated that she fell
unconscious after that. In her cross-examination. she said that
the accused used to visit her room to watch T.V. and had been
F staying at their house for four years prior to the occurrence. She
had never seen the accused indulging in any ill-minded activities.
'-
8. According to the informant witness PW-3 Pawan Kumar
Thakur, the occurrence took place at 2.30 in the midnight of
181h and 19th April, 1998, at which time he was sleeping in his
G
room with his wife and woke up to the sound of screaming, which
he thought was a quarrel between the children. He came to the
2nd floor and saw that the accused was holding a dabiya in his
hand and had assaulted his younger son and had killed him. He
also saw that the accused had assaulted his elder son Prakash
H
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 979
[P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
-;
Kumar, daughter Kiran Kumari and niece Pooja Kumari with an A
intention to kill them. He tried to prevent the accused and his
wife tried to rescue the children. In the process, the accused
inflicted dab blows on the right rib of his wife; with the same
dabiya, another blow was inflicted on the elbow of her left hand
and she started bleeding profusely and she ultimately tumbled B
on the floor. Thereafter, Prajeet Kumar inflicted a .blow on his
face below the right eye with the same dabiya. He said that he
defended himself with the help of a cricket stump. Thereafter,
Prajeet Kumar fled to the upper floor of the house. The cross-
examination of this witness has not brought out any material so c
as to doubt the veracity of the statements made by the eye-
witnesses to the occurrence.
9. Deepak Kumar, Kiran Kumari and Pooja Kumari
succumbed to the injuries sustained by them. The post mortem
was conducted by PW-5 Dr. Mahashray Singh and PW-6 Dr. D
... Madhusudan Shukla. All the three injured witnesses were
. examined by PW-7 Dr.Ganga Narayan Singh. On 19th April,
1998, PW-5 Dr. Mahashray Singh conducted post-mortem on
the de~d.body of De!'lpak Kumar, aged about 16 years, and the
following 'ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the E
deceased:
(1) Incised wound over the right cheek 2" x 1" x muscle
deep;
(2) Incised wound over the occipital region of the head F
size 4" x 1" (torn) x bone deep;
(3) Incised wound over the back of the neck transversely
4" x 1" x bone deep;
(4) Incised wound over the right scapular region 4" x 2"
G
x bone deep;
(5) Incised wound from shoulder to the mid of upra 8" x
3" x bone deep;
(6) one incised wound transversely over the shoulder
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A joint 3" x 1" humeral head transversally;
(7) Incised wound over the right elbow 2" x 1" bone deep;
(8) Incised wound over the right forearm 3" x 1" bone
deep;
B (9) Incised wound over the right hand 3" x :h " bone
deep;
(10) Incised wound over the right forearm from the base
of the middle finger to the lower part of the forearm
c 6" x 2" bone deep;
(11) Incised wound over the left hand 2" x 1" x bone deep;
(12) Incised wound over the left palm. All the thinner muscle
up to carpel bone were cut;
D (13) Incised wound over the left temporal region of the
(faint) 2" x 2" x up to bone.
All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by
sharp cutting substances. The doctor was of the opinion that
E the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock due to
above mentioned injuries. These injuries are sufficient to cause
death in normal circumstances.
10. PW-6 Dr. Madhusudan Shukla conducted post mortem
on the dead body of Kiran Kumari. The external appearances
F and injuries found on the deac;I body were to the effect that the
eyes were closed, mouth open, fists clinched, bleeding from
nostril. R. M. present, dried blood smear present on chest, neck
and on feet. Stitched wound on front and left side of the neck.
After opening the stitches, there was an incised wound 4" x W'
G x 1" deep. Trachea was found cut. The muscles and jubular
vessels on the left side of the neck were found cut. The doctor
stated that the above injuries were caused by sharp cutting
substance and ante mortem in nature. In the opinion of the doctor,
the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to
H the above noted injury.
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 981
[P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
_,
11. On the same day at 5.30 p.m., PW-6 conducted post A
mortem on the dead body of Pooja Kumari, niece of PW-3.
The following injuries were found on the dead body:
Injury No 1: Stitched wound on the right side of the face.
After opening the stitches there was an incised wound of 5" x
" %" x bone and brain cavity deep. The wound extends from right B
j ear to the skull. The parietal bone of the right side was found cut
and brain matters were found peeping outfrom the cut portion
of the bone.
Injury No. 2: Stitched wound on upper portion of right arm. c
After opening the stitches the wound was an incised wound 3" x
1" x none deep. The head of humerus was found cut through
and through.
Injury No. 3: Stitched wound on upper portion of right wrist
on its dorsem. After opening the stitches, the wound was an D
incised wound 2 1/2" x %" x none deep. The bone beneath the
wound were found cut.
Injury No. 4: Stitched wound on the dorsem of the left
hand. After opening the stitches, the wound was an incised
wound 1 ~,, x %" x none deep. The vessels and bones beneath E
the wounds were found cut.
The doctor stated that the above injuries were ante
mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting substance. In his
opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage F
as a result of above noted injuries. The injuries found on the
-, dead body were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.
12. PW-7 Dr. Ganga Narayan Singh in his deposition
stated that he examined PW-3 Pawan Kumar Thakur on 19th
April, 1998 in the M.J.K. Hospital in emergency room and found G
following injuries on the person:
1) Incised wound on right cheek extending from right
angle of mount to right temporal region 1O" x 1" x
muscle deep.
H
::(
•
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
,-
A 2) Incised wound on left side of neck 1" x Yi'' x muscle
deep.
Age of injuries was stated to be within 12 hours, caused
by sharp cutting weapon and grievous in nature. Disfiguration
of face was stated to be caused by sharp cutting weapon and
B dangerous to life.
On the same day and place at about 2.10 a.m., Geeta
Devi (PW-2) was also examined by PW-7 and the following
injuries were found:
' -
c 1) Incised wound on scalp right side-1 Yi" x Yi" x scalp
deep.
2) Incised wound right shoulder region 1" x 1" x muscle
deep.
D 3) Incised wound left elbow and forearm 1" x 1" x muscle
deep.
~
It was stated by the doctor that the age of injuries was within
·12 hours; the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and
were simple in nature; and if timely and proper treatment had
E not been provided the patient might have died.
On the same day and place at about 2.50 a.m., PW-7
examined Prakash Kumar (PW-1). The following injuries were
found on his person:
F 1) Incised wound on the left side of the skull 1" x Yi" x
scalp deep.
2) C.T. scan of cranium. Report given by the radiologist
··-
P.M. C.H. dated 24th April, 1998 shows that one bony
window fractured of left parietal bone no. 230/1998.
G
Injury No. 2 was noted as grievous.
13. PW-17 Dr. Bishnu Kant Pandey stated that on 19th
April, 1998 he was working on the post of R.S.O. in the unit of
Dr. Ramesh Prasad Singh. He stated that on the basis of the
H discharge ticket it appears that on 19th April, 1998 Geeta Devi,
•
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v.. STATE OF BIHAR 983
[P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.J
Pawan Thakur and Prakash Thakur were admitted in the said A
unit for treatment.
14. The evidence of the three eye-witnesses is cogent and
points to the guilt of the accused-appellant. They were injured in
the same incident wherein the three persons were killed. They
were residing in the house where the incident happened and B
their presence at the time of the commission of crime cannot
be doubted . .The evidence of the informant-PW3 is supported
by the First Information Report which was recorded at 4.00 a.m.
by SI of town P.S. Bettiah at M.J.K. Hospital, where they were
taken by the patrolling party which had arrived at the place of C
the incident after receiving the information. The statements of
the witnesses implicating the accused-appellant in the
· commission of crime and the injuries caused to them and the
deceased persons are fully supported by the medical evidence.
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 having been the residents of the same o
house, their presence at the. place of occurrence in the dead
hours of night and they having witnessed the incident, cannot
be ruled out. These witnesses are close and direct relations of
the deceased children and, therefore, implicating a false person,
leaving out the actual culprit, is highly improbable and E
unacceptable. These witnesses corroborate each other in the
material particulars and the manner in which the incident
happened. PW-3 and PW-2 at the relevant time were in their
room on the 3rd floor and came down on hearing the noise to
the 2nd floor where they watched the drastic act being
committed . When they tried to intervene, they were also F
attacked. PW-1 was in the adjoining room where the incident
happened and he came to the place of incident immediately
after hearing the noise. Nothing has been brought about in the
cross-examination to disbelieve the ocular version of the
witr)esses. Two courts below on detailed scrutiny of the evidence G
of these witnesses, did not find any infirmity in the evidence
pointing finger towards the accused-appellant. We have also
considered the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. We have
no doubt that the statements of the witnesses fully proves the
guilt of the accused-appellant in the commission of murder of H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R
A three persons and causing grievous injuries to the witnesses.
15. The next question is as to what punishment should be
imposed on the accused-appellant.
16. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that
B considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused-
appellant, the punishment of death sentence will be appropriate
punishment, whereas it is urged by the learned Amicus Curiae
that in the facts and circumstances of the case the case does
not fall within the four corners of the 'rarest of the rare case' and,
c thus, the imposition of death sentence would not be appropriate
sentence.
17.AConstitution Bench of this Court in the case of Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, has laid down
certain guidelines for imposing death sentence which have
D been culled out by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Machhi
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470,
1
and accordingly the following propositions emerge from Bachan
Singh:
(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted
E except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances
of the "offender" also require to be taken into consideration
along with the circumstances of the "crime".
F (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is
an exception. In other words death sentence must be
imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an
altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the
relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and
G only provided, the option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised
having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime
and all the relevant circumstances.
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
H
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 985
[P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
-,
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the A
mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full
weightage and a just balance has to be struck between
the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before
the option is exercised.
The Court thereafter observed that in order to apply these 8
guidelines, the following questions may be answered:
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which
renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and
calls for a death sentence? c
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is
no alternative but to impose death sentence even after
according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
D
18. In Machhi Singh, a 3-Judge Bench following the
decision in Bachan Singh observed that in rarest of the rare
cases when collective conscience of the community is so
shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power to
inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as E
regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, the
Court said that the community may entertain such a sentiment
in the following circumstances:
I. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as F
to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the
community.
II. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces
total depravity and meanness.
G
Ill. (a) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste
or minority community, etc., is committed not for personal
reasons but in circumstances, etc., which arouse social
wrath. (b) In cases of "bride burning" and what are known
as "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R.
A to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or
to marry another woman on account of infatuation.
IV. When the crime is enormous in proportion. For
instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the
members of a family or a large number of persons of a
B particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.
V. When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child
who could not have or has not provided even an excuse,
much less a provocation, for murder, (b) a helpless woman
c or a person rendered helpless by old age or infirmity, (c)
when the victim is a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer
is in a position of domination or trust, (d) when the victim
is a public figure generally loved and respected by the
community for the seNices rendered by him and the murder
is committed for political or similar reasons other than
D
personal reasons.
19. The guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh and
Machhi Singh have been followed by this Court time and again
in various cases and the courts are considering the imposition
E of death sentence in the light of the guidelines laid down
aforesaid.
20. In the present case, the accused-appellant was living
as a family member of PW-3 and PW-2 and was provided with
shelter and meals, although for a sum of Rs.500/- per month,
F being a friend of PW-1. He lived with the family not for a month
or two, but for a continuous period of four years. There does not ' -
appear to be any apparent provocation or reason for committing
the ghastly brutal murder of three innocent defenceless children
who were aged 8, 15 and 16 years. We can safely assume that
G the time at which the incident happened, the children must be
asleep and were not in a position to defend themselves. It has
come in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that the
accused-appellant had assaulted them when they were running
here and there to save themselves. The medical evidence led
H by the prosecution indicates the brutality in the commission of
PRAJEET KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 987
[P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.]
-,
crime. Several incised wounds were caused to the deceased A
persons. The victims apparently did not have any weapon with
them. When PW-3 (informant) and PW-2 (his wife) on hearing
the noise came down to find out the cause for it and entered the
room, they were also brutally attacked without the slightest of
consideration by the accused-appellant that he had lived with B
them for four years. Not only that, when his friend on whose
account he was accommodated in.the house reached the place
of incident on hearing the noise of his brother and sisters, he
was also attacked and seriously injured. It is clear from the
material placed on record by the prosecution that all these c
persons were unarmed and the accused-appellant was the only
person in the room having the deadly weapon in his hand. He
could have escaped from the place giving the threat to the
persons without causing any harm to the witnesses, but he acted
in a different manner. The enormity of the crime is writ large.
0
The accused-appellant caused multiple murders and attacked
three witnesses. Thus, all the members of the family who were
.present on that day in the house became the victims of the
accused. The brutality of the act is amplified by the manner in
which the attacks have been made on all the inmates of the
house in which the helpless victims have been murdered, which E
is indicative of the fact that the act was diabolic of the superlative
degree in conception and cruel in execution and does not fall
within any comprehension of the basic humanness which
indicates the mindset which cannot be said to be amenable for
any reformation. F
21. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that
there would be failure of justice in case death sentence is not
awarded in the present case. The case falls in the category of
the rarest of the rare cases. The Session Court and the High G
Court were justified in imposing death sentence on the accused-
appellant.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search