JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for having murdered his wife, four minor daughters and a minor son all between 1 and 16 years of age and was sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa by judgment dated 24th April, 2006. On an appeal and reference to the High Court, the conviction and sentence has been maintained leading to the present appeal. The prosecution story is as follows:

(2.) At about mid night of the 19th August, 2005 PW1 Ramprasad, the brother of the appellant, on being informed by PW-4 Balchand that he had heard a huge commotion from the appellant's house, rushed that side and looking through the window saw the appellant sitting in the room with a bloodstained knife in his hand and his clothes soiled in blood and the dead bodies of his wife Amribai, and daughters Karibai, Vidhyabai, Rajubai and Rachna aged 16 years, 12 years, 8 years and 6 years respectively and his son Dilkhush aged 1 year lying besides him. Ramprasad asked the appellant as to what he had done but he threatened him with dire consequences and told him that he would kill him as well. Ramprasad thereupon retreated and raised an alarm which attracted the occupants of the neighbouring houses, and also locked the room from the outside to prevent the appellant's escape. He also rushed to Police Station, Manasa accompanied by Sarpanch Devilal (PW3) and recorded the F.I.R.. He then returned to the village with a police party, headed by PW15 SI Karulal Patel. The appellant was arrested on the spot and on interrogation a bloodstained pajama and knife hidden in a quilt were seized. On the completion of the investigation, he was brought to trial on six counts of murders. He pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The trial court observed that the case rested almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence and then went on to examine the various circumstances. The court found that the evidence of PW1 Ramprasad that the dead bodies were lying in the room was supported by the evidence of PW3 Devilal, PW11 Vinod as also PW15 SI Karulal. The court also observed that the medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. R.K. Joshi and PW-9 Dr. Dinesh Bansal, who, between themselves, had carried out the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies to the effect that the murders had been committed with a knife and that the knife which had been recovered at the instance of the appellant from inside the room could be the murder weapon, corroborated the ocular account. The court further held that though in a case of circumstantial evidence motive was of great significance, it could not be said as a matter of principle that the absence of motive would render the prosecution story weak and in the light of the fact that the murders had been committed in the family home which was locked from the inside, with no other person present at that time, it was to some extent obligatory on the appellant to have given some explanation as to the murders. The court then observed that the explanation in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was unacceptable as it had been simply pleaded that he had been sleeping in the room and had woken up on hearing a noise outside and the police had entered the room and caught hold of him and had immediately arrested him. The appellant also undertook to produce evidence in defence, but ultimately did not do so. PW-1 Ram Prasad's statement at the trial that some thief had been present in the room on the date and time in question was rejected, as being an after thought as he was the appellant's brother, and was making a belated attempt to save him. The court finally found that the extra judicial confession made before Ramprasad PW1 and Devilal PW3 and the fact that he had been arrested from the spot, clearly proved his involvement. On a cumulative assessment of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the appellant was involved in the multiple murders. The question as to the sentence to be imposed was then examined in depth and relying on various judgments of this Court and in particular on Mohan Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 949; Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 916; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898; Mahesh and OTHERS v. State of M.P., AIR 1987 SC 1346; Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 747; Dhananjay Chatterji v. State of West Bengal 1994 JT 33 SC and Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1221 held that the offence which the appellant had committed was reprehensible and truly diabolical and that the only sentence appropriate to the gravity of the crime was a sentence of death. The plea on behalf of the appellant's counsel based on the judgment of this Court in Nathu Garam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 716 that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence should not ordinarily invite a death penalty, was rejected. A Reference was thereafter made by the Sessions Judge to the High Court as postulated by Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. and the accused too challenged the judgment in appeal. The High Court first examined the appeal and concluded that the evidence against the appellant was conclusive as to his involvement and though there was no apparent motive, the other circumstances were sufficient to bring home the charge. The merits of the murder reference were then examined and after days consideration it was held that the matter fell within the category of the rarest of rare cases and relying on the judgments of this Court in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175; Umashankar Panda v. State of M.P., (1996) 8 SCC 110; Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, JT 2003 (5) SC 590 State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, JT 2003 (7) SC 419 Sushil Mumu v. State of Jharkhand, JT 2003 (10) SC 340 and Union of India and OTHERS v. Devendra Nath Rai, (2006) 2 SCC 243 observed that as the murders were particularly foul, vile and senseless, the death penalty was the only appropriate sentence in such a situation. The High Court, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Reference. The matter is before us by way of special leave in this backdrop.

(3.) This Special Leave Petition first came up before this Court on the 1st September, 2006 and was adjourned to call for the records. On 25th September, 2006, when the case was again taken up, it appears that an argument was raised that the appellant had been suffering from some mental ailment at the time of the murders and the counsel sought time to go through some documents pertaining to his treatment. On 8th January, 2007, this Court made an order that the counsel should find out, if possible, the date and place where the petitioner may have been treated. On 12th February, 2007, the counsel made a statement that the appellant's family members had been able to collect some documents which would be received by him shortly. On 12th March, 2007 leave was granted, limited however, to the question of sentence only. During the pendency of this appeal, and on the direction of this Court, yet another enquiry was made to find out if the appellant had any mental disorder and had been undergoing any treatment to this effect. Consequent to the enquiry, a report has been tendered to this Court supported by an affidavit of Shri Vineet Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police, District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh to the effect that no medical record which could establish that the appellant had undergone treatment for a mental or psychological problem had been found but statements of his family members and others including Mohan Lal, his elder brother and his parents Mohan Lal and Sita Devi and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Achalpur which were to the effect that the appellant had been addicted to drugs, particularly to Ganja, and had become mentally disturbed and had been under treatment, and it was on account of this mental illness that he had killed his family, had been received, were being put on record.