STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAKANT KRISHNA BANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Turning to the question of sentence and the reference, we have already made a reference in the beginning to the statement at Ex. 3B filed in this Court by the accused. In the light of the evidence, we have already excluded the turn possibility of any scuffle or there being any immediate provocation for use of the 1930 gun. The statement merely shows what a is the age of the accused and who are the persons dependent on him. That does not necessarily throw light on the state with which we are concerned and which alone has to be kept in view for the in purpose of imposing adequate legal punishment.

(2.) The ultimate question in all such matters is what punishment would, be. legally just and fair ? To impose adequate the punishment according to law, is not only cats the duty of the Court, but it is the social obligation clearly enjoined upon it. A far -reaching question is always asked in such matters, as to whether a giver, punishment deters ? Juridical questions have been multiplied around initial inquiry as to the objects of penal system so as to find out whether the punishment reforms or whether it would restitute back the criminal as a good citizen to the society. Whatever may be the complex canvass of such queries, one thing is clear, and appears to us well settled, that we have to keep in view not only the crime but also the criminal. After examining both on the basis of the materials in a given case, if we come to the conclusion that here is a typical criminal who is shown to be degenerate and who has acted in a cool and calculated manner so as to achieve his cruel objects, then it would be idle to talk of deterring him by subjecting him to classical method of imprisonment. The requirement of justice would be that this would be a case which could hardly admit improvement or hit could be met by restitutive process of meeting human justice. Once we hold that the crime was the result of a structural reaction of the debased mind, then the case is answered as one of being rarest of rare and must be met by the highest punishment.

(3.) The decisions on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the defence do not support the submission that this is a case which cannot be treated as rarest of rare. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. : 1979CriLJ792 , the Supreme Court found, as is evident in para 106, that the genesis of the crime showed a family feud and the person was not a murderer born but made by the passion of family quarrel, and he could be saved for society with correctional techniques and directed into repentance like the Chambal dacoits. The case does turn on its own facts. The decision in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab : 1980CriLJ636 laid down a broad criterion in para. 194 in the matter of sentencing a person convicted of murder under S. 302 I.P.C. and it is stated, as a principle of law that the extreme penalty can be inflicted only in gravest cases of extreme culpability and in making choice of the sentence, in addition to the circumstances of the offence, due regard must be paid to the circumstances of the offender also. Thus, the matter in each case has to be appreciated the basis of facts and circumstances available therein.