Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ayodhyabai Bhagwan Musale on 30 October, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Cri.Appeal 504/2002
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S. Bamni,
Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani .. Appellant
Versus
Ayodhyabai w/o Bhagwan Musale,
Aged 18 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Borkini, Taluka Sailu,
District Parbhani .. Respondent
Mr S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for appellant
Mrs A.S. Rasal, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
A.M. DHAVALE, JJ
DATE : 30th October 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Dhavale, J.)
1. Heard learned A.P.P. Mr Salgare for the State and learned
Advocate Mrs Rasal for respondent.
2. As held in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC
898, the death sentence is an exception and life sentence is a rule.
Death sentence is to be awarded only when life imprisonment appears
to be altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the rlevant
circumstances of the crime and only provided the option to impose
sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised
having regard to the nature and circumstance of the crime and all the
relevant circumstances. It is to be awarded in the rarest of the rare
cases. The aggravating and mitigating circumstances have to be
drawn up and just balance has to be struck between the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances.
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2017 01:50:14 :::
Cri.Appeal 504/2002
2
3. In Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1983
SC 957, the factors to be considered while determining the test of
rarest of the rare case are laid down as follows :
(1) The manner of Commission of Murder :
Whether it is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting,
or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation
of the community.
(2) Motive for commission of murder :
Showing total depravity and meanness like murders for money
or cold blooded murders.
(3) Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime
(4) Magnitude of crime :
When the crime is enormous in proportion and there are
multiple murders
(5) Personality of victim of murder
4. In Ramnaresh and Ors. Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, AIR
2012 SC 1357, aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be
considered are laid down. On applying the above guidelines, we find
following aggravating and mitigating circumstances :
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2017 01:50:14 :::
Cri.Appeal 504/2002
3
Aggravating Circumstances :
(i) There were two murders and one attempt by poison;
(ii) The victims were innocent and they had not given any
provocation to the respondent.
Mitigating Circumstances :
(I) The respondent-accused was aged 18 years of immature mind,
newly married and scared of sex relations with her husband;
(II) There is no previous criminal record of the respondent;
(III) The respondent must have taken the decision under emotional
disturbance. She intended to commit murder of her husband, but two
family members of the husband who consumed the food died due to
poisoning. She did not intend to kill them.
(IV) The offence took place about 16 years back.
5. Considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we
find that the present set of facts do not make out 'rarest of the rare
case' so as to award death penalty. Therefore, it is unnecessary to
hear the respondent on the point of sentence. Hence, we pass the
following order:
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2017 01:50:14 :::
Cri.Appeal 504/2002
4
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(II) The respondent is convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code for committing murder of Balu and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and is to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for ten days.
(ii) The respondent-accused is further convicted under Section 302
of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Laxmibai and is
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days.
(iii) The respondent - accused is convicted under Section 307 of
Indian Penal Code for committing murder of her husband and is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. All the
sentences shall run concurrently.
(iv) Muddemal shall be destroyed after the period of appeal is over.
(v) The trial Court shall take steps to arrest the respondent and
send her to undergo the imprisonment, as stated hereinabove.
( A.M. DHAVALE, J.) ( T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
vvr
