Sunil Vithal Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 6317 Bom

                                                       212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt
                                            1




                                                                        
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 OF 2013 

              Sunil s/o. Vithal Raut,  
              Age: 28 Years, Occu: Labour,  




                                               
              R/o. Dhobi Galli, Waluj, 
              Taluka Gangapur, 
              District Aurangabad              APPELLANT
                                            (Orig.Accused)




                                       
                   VERSUS 
                             
              The State of Maharashtra                    RESPONDENT

                                   ...
                            
              Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the Appellant 
              Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for Respondent - State    
                                   ...

                              CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
      


                                      SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ. 

Reserved on : 23.09.2016 Pronounced on : 25.10.2016

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the

Appellant-Original accused no.3, challenging

the judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.277/2012 (Old

No.319/2009), thereby convicting the

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC') and sentenced to suffer

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6

months.

Facts of prosecution case, in brief,

are as under:

2. On 30.05.2009, accused no.1 Vitthal

lodged the report at Police Station Waluj

(Exh.60) alleging that his daughter-in-law

deceased Swati has not woke up as usual in

the morning, and when he tried to awaken her

she was not responding, therefore, he took

her to the Hospital where the Medical Officer

found her dead. On his report, A.D. bearing

No.15/2009 was registered.

3. PSI Suresh Bhale (PW5) conducted the

inquiry of A.D. He sent dead body for post

mortem examination and prepared inquest

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

panchanama (Exh.51). He visited the spot and

prepared spot panchanama (Exh.52). He seized

the cloths of deceased Swati vide seizure

panchanama (Exh.53).

4. During inquiry of A.D., informant

Machindra Vishwanath Sonule (PW1) lodged the

report at Police Station Waluj on 02.06.2009

stating that deceased Swati was his daughter.

Her marriage with the appellant was

solemnized on 11.12.2008. It is alleged that

the accused were subjecting her to cruelty

and asking her to bring an amount of

Rs.50,000/- from her parents. It is further

alleged that Rs.50,000/- was paid to the

accused prior to 2 days of the incident. On

30.05.2009, he received the phone call of

neighbour of the accused, informing that his

daughter is serious. Then, he went to the

house of accused and found his daughter in a

dead condition. He further alleged that the

appellant was missing since night of

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

30.05.2009, and other accused persons in

furtherance of their common intention

committed the murder of his daughter Swati.

On his report, offences punishable under

Sections 302, 498-A r/w. 34 of the IPC vide

Crime No.57/2009 was registered against the

accused in the Waluj Police Station.

5. PSI Bhale (PW5) conducted the

investigation of the said crime. During

investigation, he arrested the accused and

recorded the statements of the witnesses. He

sent the seized article to C.A. for analysis

and collected the P.M. report. The Medical

Officer opined that the death of the deceased

is due to head injury. During investigation,

it is revealed that the accused subjected the

deceased to cruelty and committed her murder.

Therefore, after completion of the

investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet

before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Gangapur.

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

6. After receipt of the charge-sheet,

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Gangapur noticed that the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively

triable by the Court of Session. Hence, the

case was committed to the Court of Session

vide order dated 15.09.2009.

7. The accused nos.1, 2, 4 and 5

appeared before the Court of Session. The

charges were framed against the accused nos.1

to 5 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A r/w. 34 of the IPC and under

Sections 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC against the

accused nos.1 to 3 and 5 (Exh.18) to which

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. In order to prove charges, the

prosecution examined five witnesses.

8. The learned counsel Mr.S.S.Jadhavar

appearing for the appellant submits that the

prosecution has not proved that the appellant

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

was present in the house during intervening

night between 29.05.2009 to 30.05.2009. The

informant Machindra (PW1) lodged the FIR

after 4 days from the date of incident. The

trial Court found that the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses is not sufficient, and

they have admitted in the cross examination

that Swati was leading happy married life,

and therefore, the trial Court has rightly

acquitted all the accused from the offences

punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the

IPC.

9. It is submitted that once accused

are acquitted from the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A r/w. 34 of the IPC, the

prosecution has not brought on record other

evidence to prove that the accused had motive

to kill Swati. The entire case rests upon the

circumstantial evidence, and therefore, the

prosecution ought to have brought on record

the evidence to establish motive for such

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

commission of offence. It is submitted that

if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

is considered in its entirety, it suffers

from the improvements, contradictions and

omissions and the same is not sufficient to

hold the appellant guilty. The Police

Officer, who reduced the FIR in writing, is

not examined by the prosecution. It is

submitted that though the bedroom of the

appellant and kitchen facility is separate in

the house, but the appellant was required to

go outside for answering natures call. It is

also deserved to be appreciated that one day

prior to the marriage of Ramdas, deceased

Swati made phone call to PW1 and informed

that they are coming for attending the

marriage of Ramdas. The prosecution witness

Prakash (PW3) stated in his evidence that, he

handed over the amount of Rs.50,000/- to

accused nos. 1 to 3, but said version is not

appearing in his statement recorded by the

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

Police. Therefore, the prosecution has

failed to prove any demand on behalf of the

accused. The statement of the Dr.Sachin (PW4)

does not reveal the exact cause of death and

has only mentioned about the head injury.

Dr.Sachin (PW4) has also not stated cause of

head injury. The suggestion was given to the

PW-4 that the head injury mentioned in the PM

report is accidental. The spot panchanama

(Exh.52) regarding description of the place

of occurrence shows that there are clothes

scattered around bed and the steel cupboard

was also opened and Swati's clothes were

lying on the ground and also on cot sarees

and blouse were scattered, and it indicates

that Swati and appellant were about to leave

the house in the morning for attending the

marriage of Ramdas i.e. the relative of the

deceased Swati, and in the early morning,

when she was removing the clothes, she had

fallen from the cot while removing the

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

articles from the cupboard. Hence, the

defence of the accused seems to be most

probable in respect of death of deceased

Swati. There is nothing incriminating against

the accused in respect of inquest panchanama

(Exh.51), spot panchanama (Exh.52) and

seizure panchanama (Exh.53) and P.M. report

(Exh.57).

10. We have considered the submissions

of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned APP appearing for

the respondent - State. With their able

assistance, carefully perused the entire

evidence. It has come on record that defence

advocate admitted the document i.e. arrest

panchanama (Exh.56 to 59), inquest panchanama

(Exh.51), spot panchanama (Exh.52) and

seizure panchanama of the clothes of the

deceased Swati (Exh.53).

11. Since the prosecution case rests

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

upon the circumstantial evidence, the

following circumstances can be deduced from

the evidence brought on record by the

prosecution:

i) On 29.05.2009, the appellant and the deceased Swati had gone to

Ranjangaon at about 6.00 p.m. and

they returned to the house at about 10.00 to 11.00 p.m. There was

separate bedroom, and they had gone to sleep in their separate bedroom.

ii) The appellant and deceased Swati did not wake up as usual in the morning,

therefore, Vithal went inside the bedroom. He noticed that the

appellant (Sunil) is not present in the bedroom. Vithal tried to wake up Swati, however, she did not respond, therefore, she was taken to the

Hospital wherein the Medical Officer declared her as dead.

iii) The appellant absconded from the house.

iv) The Medical Officer Dr.Sachin (PW4)

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

who performed the P.M. Examination expressed opinion that the injuries

on the body of the Swati are ante- mortem in nature and death is homicidal.

v) When Machindra (PW1) went to the house of the accused, appellant was

not present.

vi) Appellant did not offer any explanation in his defence under

what circumstance Swati died.

12. Since the prosecution case solely

rests upon the circumstantial evidence, this

Court, while appreciating the evidence, has

to bear in mind the exposition of law by the

Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Govind

Nargundkar and another Vs.State of M.P.1

wherein it is held that conjecture or

suspicion should not take place of the legal

proof and each of the circumstances relied

upon by the prosecution has to be established

fully and further chain of the circumstances

1 AIR 1952 SC 343

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

is so complete which would lead to hypothesis

of guilt of the accused. The circumstances

should be of conclusive nature and tendency

and they should be such as to exclude every

hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.

It is also required to be borne in mind that

the prosecution must establish each

circumstance firmly.

13. In circumstantial evidence, an

important circumstance is deceased last seen

in the company of the accused. In the present

case Vitthal lodged the A.D. (Exh.60) at

Police Station Waluj. He stated that on

29.05.2009 at 6.00 p.m. his son i.e.

appellant and daughter-in-law i.e Swati went

to the village Pan Ranjangaon for festival.

They returned back at 10.30 to 11.00 p.m. and

slept in their bedroom. Today i.e. on

30.05.2009, when he woke up from sleep at

5.00 a.m., even after 6.00 a.m., the

appellant and deceased Swati did not wake up

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

from sleep, he went in their bedroom.

However, he found that Swati alone was

sleeping and the appellant was not in the

said bedroom. He called Swati, however, she

did not respond. Therefore, he tried to wake

up her by touching her, but she did not talk

or respond. Therefore, she was taken to the

Tirupati and Sai Hospital. In the Hospital,

they came to know that she is dead. The dead

body was taken to the house and accordingly

message was sent to the relatives. It appears

that the said A.D. was registered by him by

visiting the Police Station Waluj, Taluka

Gangapur, District Aurangabad at 10.50 a.m.

on 30.05.2009. Shri Suresh Vasantrao Bhale

(PW5), working as PSI, Police Station Kadim,

Jalna, in his evidence has stated that, on

30.05.2009 A.D. bearing No.15/2009 was

registered at Police Station Waluj, and he

made inquiry of the said A.D. (Exh.59 and

60).

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

14. The question arises whether the

contents of the said report are admissible in

the evidence. The said issue is no more res-

integra and the Supreme Court in the case of

Faddi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2 in para

15 has held as under:

"15. The report is not a confession of the appellant. It is not a

statement made to Police Officer during the course of investigation.

Section 25 of the Evidence Act and

section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not bar its

admissibility. The report is an admission by the accused of certain facts which have a bearing on the

question to be determined by the Court, viz., how and by whom the murder of Gulab was committed, or

whether the appellant's statement in Court denying the correctness of certain statements of the prosecution witnesses is correct or not. Admissions are admissible in evidence under section 21 of the 2 AIR 1964 SC 1850

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

Act. Section 17, defines an admission to be a statement, oral or

documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by

any of the persons, and under the circumstances, thereafter mentioned, in the Act. Section 21 provides that

admissions are relevant and may be

proved as against a person who makes them. Illustrations (c), (d) and (e)

to section 21 are of the circumstances in which an accused could prove his own admissions which

go in his favour in view of the

exceptions mentioned in section 21 to the provision that admissions could not be proved by the person

who makes them. It is therefore clear that admissions of an accused can be proved against him."

Therefore, in the light of the law laid down

by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid

authoritative pronouncement, which is

followed in various subsequent judgments, the

report lodged by the Vithal is not a

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

confession of the accused Vithal. It is not a

statement made to the Police Officer during

the course of investigation. Section 25 of

the Evidence Act and section 162 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure do not bar its

admissibility.

15.

In order to find out whether death

of Swati was accidental, suicidal or

homicidal, it is necessary to discuss the

evidence of Medical Officer Dr.Sachin (PW4),

who performed the P.M. examination on the

dead body along with Dr.M.R.Sane and found

that, there was contusion over right temporo

parital region of size 6 c.m. x 5 c.m.

irregular and reddish. There was also

contusion over left temporal region of size 4

c.m. x 4 c.m. irregular and reddish. The said

Medical Officer reserved his opinion about

cause of death and after receipt of C.A.

report, he found that no poison is detected.

He gave final cause of death of deceased as

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

head injury (Exh.58). He has also mentioned

that the injuries were ante mortem.

Therefore, the evidence of the Medical

Officer unequivocally indicates that the

death of Swati was homicidal.

16. It is the submission of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant that

there was delay of 4 days in filing FIR. It

is not in dispute that the A.D. was already

lodged by the father of the appellant i.e.

Vithal, on very same day at 10.50 a.m. by

visiting the Police Station Waluj. Machindra

(PW1) in his evidence stated that on

30.05.2009, he received phone call and

received information that his daughter was

admitted in the Hospital. Thereafter, he

himself, his wife including children went to

the Waluj by vehicle. Then, they went to the

Police Station Waluj. They have orally

narrated the Police about receiving phone

call about his daughter. Then they went at

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

the house of the accused. They came to know

that his daughter is no more. The thumb of

legs of his daughter have been tied and

Odhani was tied to her stomach. There was

head injury on back side of the head. All

accused persons except the son-in-law i.e.

appellant, other family members were present.

He has made inquiry with accused about the

incident but they did not state anything. The

mother-in-law of his daughter told that Swati

received attack. When he asked whereabouts

of son-in-law Sunil, in-laws of Swati told

that he had been absconding since said night,

the dead body of Swati was taken for P.M. in

GHATI Hospital, Aurangabad. Thereafter, they

have taken dead body of his daughter to his

village. On the same day, they performed

funeral of his daughter. On next day, they

performed religious ceremony by collecting

ash of his daughter. Machindra (PW1) has

specifically stated that when the dead body

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

of his daughter was taken at the Police

Station, at the relevant time he requested to

record his report but his report was not

recorded by P.I. Bahugure. Therefore,

Machindra (PW1) has offered satisfactory

explanation explaining under which

circumstance delay occurred in lodging the

FIR.

17. The prosecution witnesses have

stated in their evidence about the demand of

Rs.50,000/- by the appellant. It is true

that, the prosecution did not prove the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of the

IPC, and consequently all the accused have

been acquitted from the said offence.

However, the fact remains that the

prosecution witnesses have stated in their

evidence about the demand of Rs.50,000/- and

also the said amount was paid to the accused.

18. So far proving motive for commission

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

of offence is concerned, it would be apt to

make reference to the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Mulakh Raj and others

Vs. Satish Kumar and other3 wherein in para

17 it is held, as under:

"17. The question then is, who is the author of the murder? The

contention of Sri Lalit is that the respondent had no motive and the

High Court found as a fact that the evidence is not sufficient to establish motive. The case is based

on circumstantial evidence and

motive being absent, the prosecution failed to establish this important link in the chain of

circumstances to connect the accused. We find no force in the contention. Undoubtedly in cases of

circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The

3 (1992) 3 SCC 43

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-

existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an

indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved.

Therefore, absence of proof of

motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances

connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case. The question,

therefore, is whether Satish Kumar

alone committed the offence of murder of his wife? In this regard Sri Lalit pressed into service the

evidence of DW 4, the uncle of the respondent who stated that respondent 1, his brother and father were in the shop at the

relevant time and that the respondent also stated so in his statement under section 313 C.P.C. This evidence clearly establishes that the respondent was not at home when the occurrence had taken place.

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

This evidence has to be considered in the light of the attending

circumstances and the conduct of Satish Kumar. It is established from the evidence that the deceased

and the first respondent alone were living in the upstair room. The occurrence took place in the broad

day time in their bed room. The

deceased at that time was having three months old child. What had

happened to the child at the time when the ghastly occurrence had taken place is anybody's guess.

Normally three months child would be

in the lap of the mother unless somebody takes into his/her lap for play. It is not the case. It would

be probable that after the murder, the child must have been taken out and the dead body was burnt after pouring kerosene and litting fire.

Therefore, the one who committed the offence must have removed the child later from the room. Admittedly the day of occurrence is a Sunday and that too in the afternoon. Therefore, the shops must have been

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

closed. DW 2, Post Office Superintendent, examined by the

defence, categorically admitted that the handwriting of all the four telegrams was of the same person.

Satish Kumar admitted that he issued two telegrams including the one to PW 15 and the two were issued by

his father.

ig Therefore, four telegrams were issued by respondent 1 alone. When the wife was

practically charred to death an innocent and compassionate husband would be in a state of shock and

would not move from the bedside of

the deceased wife and others would attend to inform the relations. It is also his case that he phoned to

the police station and informed of the occurrence. Evidence is other way about. An attempt was made to have the matter compromised, but

failed. Thereafter they were found to be absconding. The evidence of DW 4 (maternal uncle) that respondent 1 was in the shop thus gets falsified and his is a perjured evidence. This false plea

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

is a relevant circumstance which militates against his innocence. The

death took place in the bedroom of the spouse and the attempt to destroy the evidence of murder by

burning the dead body; the unnatural conduct of Satish Kumar, immediately after the occurrence; the false

pleas of suicide and absence from

house are telling material relevant circumstances which would complete

the chain of circumstantial evidence leading to only one conclusion that Satish Kumar alone committed the

ghastly offence of murder of his

wife, Shashi Bala."

19. The next question is, who is the

author of death of the deceased Swati? As

already observed, the deceased Swati was last

seen in the company of the appellant at 10.30

to 11.00 p.m. on the said night. It has come

on record that both of them entered the

bedroom, which is separate and exclusive for

the use of said couple. During said night,

only appellant and Swati were in the said

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

bedroom. During morning hours, after 6.00

a.m., Vithal noticed that appellant was not

present in the bedroom and he absconded. The

prosecution has discharged the burden proving

the presence of the appellant on the said

night in the bedroom, even otherwise during

night time it is presumed that the house

members are bound to be there in the house

unless any plausible explanation is offered

for absence. The appellant did not offer any

explanation or taken a defence that he was

not present in the house during the said

night.

20. The Supreme Court in the case of

State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh4 while

explaining the scheme of provisions of

Sections 101 to 106 of the Evidence Act,

1872, and its scope in para 22 to 24 held

thus:

22. The law, therefore, is quite 4 2014 (12) SCC 211

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is

on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the

accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by the

accused and if he does not do so,

then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those

facts.

23. Applying this principle to the facts of the case, since Dhapu

Kunwar died an unnatural death in

the room occupied by her and Thakur Singh, the cause of the unnatural death was known to Thakur Singh.

There is no evidence that anybody else had entered their room or could have entered their room. Thakur

Singh did not set up any case that he was not in their room or not in the vicinity of their room while the incident occurred nor did he set up any case that some other person entered the room and caused the

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

unnatural death of his wife. The facts relevant to the cause of Dhapu

Kunwar's death being known only to Thakur Singh, yet he chose not to disclose them or to explain them.

The principle laid down in Section 106 of the Evidence Act is clearly applicable to the facts of the case

and there is, therefore, a very

strong presumption that Dhapu Kunwar was murdered by Thakur Singh.

24. It is not that Thakur Singh was obliged to prove his innocence or prove that he had not committed any

offence. All that was required of

Thakur Singh was to explain the unusual situation, namely, of the unnatural death of his wife in their

room, but he made no attempt to do this.

21. In the present case, the prosecution

has discharged its burden of firmly

establishing that the deceased Swati was last

seen in the company of the appellant. The

appellant did not offer any explanation how

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

the death of Swati has occurred. The said

facts were within the special knowledge of

the appellant. There are also no

circumstances on record that anybody else had

enmity with the deceased who could have

committed murder of Swati. The appellant did

not set up any case that he was not in their

room while incident occurred nor did he set

up any case that some other person entered

the room and caused the unnatural death of

his wife.

22. In the light of the discussion in

the foregoing paragraphs, it will have to be

held that the prosecution has firmly proved

the case beyond reasonable doubt. All the

circumstances collectively and also

independently have been firmly established by

the prosecution. The chain of circumstances

is so complete which unequivocally indicated

the involvement of the appellant alone.

Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to

the evidence on record. The circumstances so

relied upon by the prosecution and

appreciated by the trial Court in the light

of the evidence brought on record unerringly

point out the guilt of the appellant.

23.

At this stage, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant submits that

since there are only two internal injuries

and one injury over right breast 1 c.m.

medial to right nipple of size 1 c.m. x 1

c.m. the appellant's case may be considered

under exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC.

24. In support of the aforesaid

contention, the learned counsel for the

appellant placed reliance on the decisions in

the cases of Kusha Laxman Waghmare Vs. State

of Maharashtra5, Kallu @ Kalyan Atmaram Patil

Vs. State of Maharashtra6, Santhanam Vs.

5 AIR 2014 SC 3839 6 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 970

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

State of T.N.7, Ramachami Vs. State Rep.by

state Prosecutor8, Ramesh Kumar @ Toni Vs.

State of Haryana9 and Sompal Singh and anr.

Vs. State of U.P.10

25. It is not possible to accept the

said submission for the simple reasons that,

the appellant caused injuries on the head of

the deceased Swati in the night of the

incident. After causing her injuries,

instead of making necessary arrangement for

her medical treatment immediately, he fled

away from his house. There is no plausible

explanation offered by the accused on record

under which circumstances Swati died. The

fact that the appellant fled away from his

house on the said night, was very unusual and

unnatural conduct of the appellant. The

circumstances brought on record by the

prosecution unequivocally indicate that not

7 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1085 8 AIR 2009 SC 712 9 AIR 2009 SC 2447 10 AIR 2014 SC (Suppl) 510

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

only that Swati is killed by the appellant,

but thereafter he fled away. Therefore,

reasonable inference can be drawn on the

basis of circumstances brought on record that

it was cold-blooded act and behaviour of the

appellant. There is presumption that the

husband is custodian of the wife. He has to

maintain his wife properly and with high

degree of dignity. When the deceased Swati

was in the exclusive custody of the appellant

during night time, the act committed by the

appellant had serious consequence and

deserves to be punished by awarding

appropriate punishments keeping in view the

social interest and consciousness of the

society. It is also necessary to mention here

that, death of Swati occurred within one year

of marriage. Marriage of the appellant was

solemnized with Swati on 11.02.2008 and

incident has taken place on 30.05.2009.

Therefore, undue sympathy to impose

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

inadequate sentence would do more harm to the

public.

26. The trial Court, after taking into

consideration the entire evidence brought on

record, has appropriately punished the

appellant by awarding life imprisonment.

Taking different or lenient view would send

wrong signal to the society and would result

into travesty of justice.

The Supreme Court in the case of Jai

Kumar Vs. State of M.P.11 while considering

various theories of punishment, observed that

justice is supreme and justice ought to be

beneficial for the society so that the

society is placed in a better off situation.

Law courts exist for the society and ought to

rise up to the occasion to do the needful in

the matter, and as such ought to act in a

manner so as to sub-serve the basic

requirement of the society. It is a 11 (1999) 5 SCC 1

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

requirement of the society and the law must

respond to its need. The greatest virtue of

law is its flexibility and its adaptability,

it must change from time to time so that it

answers the cry of the people, the need of

the hour and the order of the day.

ig (Underlines added)

27. Yet in another authoritative

pronouncement in the case of Mohd. Jamiludin

Nasir Vs. State of West Bengal12 in para 175

it is observed that, the sentence to be

awarded should achieve twin objectives: [a]

Deterrence, [b] Correction. The court should

consider social interest and consciousness of

the society for awarding appropriate

punishment. Seriousness of the crime and the

criminal history of the accused is yet

another factor. Graver the offence longer the

criminal record should result severity in the

punishment. Undue sympathy to impose

inadequate sentence would do more harm to the

12. [2014] 7 SCC 443

212.2013Cri.Appeal.odt

public. Imposition of inadequate sentence

would undermine the public confidence in the

efficacy of law and society cannot endure

such threats.

(Underlines added)

28. In the light of discussion in the

foregoing paragraphs, there is no substance

in the appeal, hence, the Criminal Appeal

stands dismissed. The accused be given set-

off vide section 428 of the Criminal

Procedure Code.

   



               [SANGITRAO S.PATIL]          [S.S.SHINDE]





                     JUDGE                     JUDGE  
              DDC