# 10 S.C.R. 262 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU - **Citation:** [2010] 10 S.C.R. 262 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2010-08-30 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 127-130 of 2008 - **Bench:** G. S. Singhvi, Dr. B.S .. Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/10-s-c-r-262-c-muniappan-ors-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-26280 - **Pages:** 57 ## Headnote Penal Code, 1860: c ss. 302, 3021114, 307 and 3071114 - Three of the members of a group of agitators setting ablaze a University bus full of girl-students - Three girls burnt alive to death and several others received burn injuries - HELD: Cowts below rightly convicted and sentenced the three accused to death 0 - Their activities were not only barbaric but inhuman to the highest degree - The manner of the commission of the offence is extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel - : It is sho_cking to the collective conscience of society - Sentence/Sentencing - Sentence of death - Aggravating and E mitigating circumstances - Explained. SS. 1471148, 341 /PC and SS. 3 and 4 of TN (POL) Act, 1982 rlw s. 149 - /PC Offences committed by a group of agitators - Conviction and sentence by trial court - Sentence directed to run consecutively - High Court directing F sentences to run concurrently - HELD: The maximum sentence to be served by the accused as per High Court judgment being 2 years and accused having served 14 months of sentence, in the circumstances of the case, sentence reduced to the period already undergone - Tamil G Nadu (Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Laggers, Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders Activities, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Videopirate) Act, 1982. · Evidence: H 262 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 263 Discrepancies in evidence - HELD: An undue A importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Hostile witness - Evidence of - HELD: cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. B Extra-judicial confessional statement - Exhibiting of - C Explained. Investigation: Irregularities in investigation - HELD: In the instant case, irregularities-committed in the investigation by the earlier I. Os. have too little _relevance on the merits of the case an9 the material of earlier investigations has rightly been not relied upon by the ·subsequent Investigating Officer. Obligation on trial court in case of defective investigation - HELD: Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial - Where there has been negligence or omissions etc. on the part of the investigating agency, which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such /apses and examine whether the lapses had affected the prosecution case: D E F Test identification parade - HELD: Is a part of investigation and provides for an assurance that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction and it enables G the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really one who was seen by them at the time of commission of offence - Holding the test identification H 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 10 S.C.R. A parade is not substantive piece of evidence, yet it may be used for the purpose of corroboration that a person brought before the court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime - However, the test identification parade, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy 8 evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be sustained - It is a rule of prudence which is required to . be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 9 - Test identification parade. C Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s.195 - Cognizance by court, of offence punishable uls 188 /PC - HELD: The provisions of s.195 are mandatory - Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all o other consequential orders - Law does not permit taking cognizance of any offence punishable uls 188 /PC unless there is a complaint in writing by the competent public servant - In the absence of such a comp ## Text _Characters 0–39,997 of 109,137. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._ A B [2010) 10 S.C.R. 262 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal Nos. 127-130 of 2008) AUGUST 30, 2010 [G. S. SINGHVI AND DR. B.S .. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c ss. 302, 3021114, 307 and 3071114 - Three of the members of a group of agitators setting ablaze a University bus full of girl-students - Three girls burnt alive to death and several others received burn injuries - HELD: Cowts below rightly convicted and sentenced the three accused to death 0 - Their activities were not only barbaric but inhuman to the highest degree - The manner of the commission of the offence is extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel - : It is sho_cking to the collective conscience of society - Sentence/Sentencing - Sentence of death - Aggravating and E mitigating circumstances - Explained. SS. 1471148, 341 /PC and SS. 3 and 4 of TN (POL) Act, 1982 rlw s. 149 - /PC Offences committed by a group of agitators - Conviction and sentence by trial court - Sentence directed to run consecutively - High Court directing F sentences to run concurrently - HELD: The maximum sentence to be served by the accused as per High Court judgment being 2 years and accused having served 14 months of sentence, in the circumstances of the case, sentence reduced to the period already undergone - Tamil G Nadu (Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Laggers, Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders Activities, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Videopirate) Act, 1982. · Evidence: H 262 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 263 Discrepancies in evidence - HELD: An undue A importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Hostile witness - Evidence of - HELD: cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. B Extra-judicial confessional statement - Exhibiting of - C Explained. Investigation: Irregularities in investigation - HELD: In the instant case, irregularities-committed in the investigation by the earlier I. Os. have too little _relevance on the merits of the case an9 the material of earlier investigations has rightly been not relied upon by the ·subsequent Investigating Officer. Obligation on trial court in case of defective investigation - HELD: Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial - Where there has been negligence or omissions etc. on the part of the investigating agency, which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such /apses and examine whether the lapses had affected the prosecution case: D E F Test identification parade - HELD: Is a part of investigation and provides for an assurance that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction and it enables G the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really one who was seen by them at the time of commission of offence - Holding the test identification H 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 10 S.C.R. A parade is not substantive piece of evidence, yet it may be used for the purpose of corroboration that a person brought before the court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime - However, the test identification parade, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy 8 evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be sustained - It is a rule of prudence which is required to . be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 9 - Test identification parade. C Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s.195 - Cognizance by court, of offence punishable uls 188 /PC - HELD: The provisions of s.195 are mandatory - Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all o other consequential orders - Law does not permit taking cognizance of any offence punishable uls 188 /PC unless there is a complaint in writing by the competent public servant - In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction - However, nonE compliance of s. 195 would have no bearing on the prosecution case so far charges for other offences are concerned - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 188. Criminal Trial: F Clubbing of two Criminal cases into one trial - HELD: In the instant case, second incident was a fall out of the first occurrence - Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, it would not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed - Practice G and Procedure. H Criminal Law: Crime and society - Crimes occurring in presence of public and police - Social sensitivity - Duty of police and C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 265 protectors of law - A University bus full of girl students set A ablaze by some of the agitators - Three young girls charred to death while several others sustained bum injuries - HELD:. Even if the common man fails to respond to the call of his conscience, the police should not have remained inactive - The administration did not bother to find out why the police B did not intervene and assist in the rescue, much less reprimand them for failing in their duty. During the "Rasta Roko Agitation" staged against conviction of a political leader, a mob of 100-150 of her C suppc:irters, while .the prohibition order u/s 60 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 was in force, damaged a town bus and set ablaze a University bus with 47 girl-students, with the result that 3 students burnt alive and 28 others received burn injuries and several others sustained serious injuries. Two FIRs were lodged as regards the occurrence D involving both the buses. In all, 30 accused were convicted u/ss .188, 341 IPC, ·and ss. 3 and 4 of the TNP (POL) Act read 'withs. 149 IPC. They were also convicted u/s 147 IPC except A-24, who was convicted u/s 148 IPC. Besides, A-2 to A-4 were also found guilty of setting the E University bus ablaze and burning three girl-students to death and causing burn injuries and other serious injuries to 28 others for which A-2 and A-3 were convicted u/s 302 IPC each for three counts and A-4 u/s 302 read withs. 114 IPC for three counts; A-2 and A-3 were further F convicted u/s 307 IPC each for 46 counts and A-4 u/s 307 read with s.114 IPC for 46 counts; A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to death. The sentences imposed on the other accused persons were directed to run consecutively which extended to 7 years odd. The High Court G confirmed the death sentences of A-2 to A-4, but modified the sentences of the other accused to run concurrently. In the appeals filed by the convicts, it was contended for them that in the absence of any complaint by the H 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R. A competent officer whose prohibition order was stated to have been violated, the charge u/s 188 IPC could not have been framed; that the Criminal cases registered in respect of two separate FIRs could not have been clubbed into one single trial; that there were B contradictions in the statements of alleged eyewitnesses; and, as such, the case did not warrant any trial. Disposing of the appeals, the Court C HELD: 1.1 From the record, involvement of A-2 to A4 in the incident of setting fire to the University bus has been substantiated. From the evidence of PW-99, PW-4, PW-5, PW-1 and PW-2, PW-8, PW-11, PW-12, PW-14, it has been established that A-2 to A-4 came on motorcycle, AD 1 and A-3 sprinkled petrol inside the bus and set the bus ablaze. PW-99 has spoken about A-2 to A-4. He is an advocate and belongs to the locality. He has deposed that A-2 had set fire to the. Route No.7-B town bus. He has also corroborated the evidence of PW-97 that while the E bus was in flames, some persons tried to douse the fire but they were prevented by A-23. A-2 remained present in the earlier occurrence as well as the subsequent occurrence. It is significant to note that A-4 had kept the engine of the motor cycle running only to escape from F the scene of occurrence along with A-2 and A-3 after the occurrence. The said fact would also indicate the mind of the accused to commit the offence and to flee from the scene of occurrence to avoid the clutches of law. But for PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 and some other students who became G alert immediately after the bus was set on fire, the consequence could have been disastrous and more deaths could have occurred. [para 47, 51-56] 1.2 So far as the issue of damage to the buses and H - C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 267 '" ' \ the main incident of setting the University bus on fire is A concerned, both the courts have proceeded on the finding, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, that there was no common object between A-2, A-3 and A-4 on the one hand, and the other accused, on the other, regarding murder of the students and burning of the bus. Therefore, all of them had been convicted under different sections. However, the High Court directed the sentence to run concurrently so far as A-1, A-5 to A-14, A-16 to A8 21, A-23 to A-26 and A-28 to A-31 are concerned. There has been sufficient material to show their participation in C the "Rasto Roko Andolan" and indulging in the incident of damaging the local route bus. Both the courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact in this regard and there is no reason to interfere with the same. [para 46] [302-C-E] D 1.3 As regards the doubts raised about the arrest of A-4, and his confessional statement, there 'has been no cross-examination independently on his behalf on this issue. Even in cross-examination on behalf of other accused nothing has been elicited qua irregularity or E improbability of the arrest of A-4. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the arrest of A- 4 as shown by the 1.0. [para 45] [301-E-H; 302-A-B] 1.4 A large number of injured students were examined in the court. They supported the prosecution case but did F not identify any person either in the test identification parade or in the court. Their seating position in the bus had been such that they could not see as who had sprinkled the petrol in the bus. Besides, the photographer (PW-51) photographed and videographed the spot of the G agitation. He also photographed the burning bus. He watched the video prepared by him in the court and identified the same. [para 62) [308-F-G] H 268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A 2.1 If there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, ' exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a 8 conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the C prosecution witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. The omissions and improvements in the evidence of the PWs pointed out in the instant casse are found to be very trivial in nature. D [para 70-71] [311-F-G; 312-A-B] · Sohrab & Anr. v. The State of M.P., .1973 ( 1 ) SCR 472 =AIR 1972 SC 2020; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48; Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai v. State of E Gujarat, 1983 ( 3 ) SCR 280 = AIR 1983 SC 753; State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash 2007 (7) SCR 1000 = AIR 2007 SC 2257; Prithu @ Prithi Chand & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2009 (2 ) SCR 765 = (2009) 11 SCC 588; State of UP. v. Santosh Kumar & Ors., 2009 (14 ) SCR 106 = F (2009) 9 SCC 626; and State v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 151 - relied on. 2.2 The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or G the defence. In the instant case, some of the material witnesses i.e. PW-86; and PW-51 turned hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration by the courts below strictly in accordance with law. [para 70] [311-DE] H C. MUNIAPPAt•ra-ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 269 Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1976 ( 2 ) SCR A 921 = AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, 1977 ( 1 ) SCR 439 =AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, 1980 ( 1 ) SCR 95 = AIR 1979 SC 1848; and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 ( 3 ) SCR 1 =AIR 1991 SC 1853; State of B U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra & Anr., 1996 ( 4) Suppl. SCR 631 =AIR 1996 SC 2766; Batu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 135 = (2002) 7 SCC 543; Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. v. State of c UP., 2006 (1 ) SCR 519 =AIR 2006 SC 951; Sarvesh Naraia Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors., 2007 (11 ) SCR 300 =AIR 2008 SC 320; and Subbu Singh v. State, 2009 (7 ) SCR 383 = (2009) 6 sec 462 - relied on 2.3 As regards exhibiting and reading of an extraD judicial confessional statement, only the admissible part of it c·an be exhibited. The statement as a whole, if exhibited and relied upon by the prosecution, leads to the possibility of the court getting prejudiced against the accused. In the instant case, the confessional statement E of A-4 had been exhibited in the court in its full text. It was neither required nor warranted nor was permissible. However, in view of the fact that there had been other sufficient material on record to show his involvement in the crime, the full exhibition of the statement had not F prejudiced the case against him. [para 67-68] [310-C-E] Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 2006 (10 ) Suppl. SCR 662 = (2007) 12 SCC 230; State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde & Ors., 2000 ( 3 ) G SCR 880 =AIR 2000 SC 1691; and Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2865 - relied on. Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 - referred to H 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R. A 3.1 The investigation is no~ the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. The defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Where there has B been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the evidence is reliable or c not and to what extent the lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. It is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the 1.0. and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. [para 43-44] [301-A-B; 300-F-H] D Chandra Kanth Lakshmi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 220; Kamel Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 629 = (1995) 5 SCC 518; Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1998 ( 2) SCR 1097 = AIR 1998 SC 1850; Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1999 ( 1 ) SCR E 55 = AIR 1999 SC 644; State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, 1999 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCR 359 =AIR 2000 SC 185; Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh 2003 .( 1 ) SCR 754 = AIR 2003 SC 1164; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (11 ) SCR 1011 = AIR 2002 SC 1051; and Ram Bali v. State F ·of UP., 2004 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 195 =AIR 2004 SC 2329 - relied on. 3.2 In the instant case, the occurrence was so ugly and awful that the I.Os. had conducted the investigation G under great anxiety, tension and in a charged atmosphere. Therefore, some irregularities were bound to occur. The State authorities ultimately transferred the investigation to the CBCID. Therefore, the irregularities committed in the investigation by the earlier I.Os. have too little relevance on the merits of the case and the material H C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 271 of earlier investigation has rightly been not relied upon A by the subsequent Investigating Officer. [para 43-44) [301A-B; 300-A-E] 3.3 The test identification parade is a part of the investigation and is very useful in a case where the B accused are not known before hand to th~ witnesses. It provides for an assurance that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction and it enables the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused ·whom they suspect is really one who was seen by them at the time of commission of offence. The accused should not C be shown to any of the witnesses after arrest; and before holding the test identification parade, he is required to be kept "baparda". [para 36) [297 -H; 298-A-C] 3.4 Holding the test identification parade is not D substantive piece of evidence, yet it may be used for the purpose of corroboration that a person brought before the court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime. However, the test identification parade, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as E trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be sustained. It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant. [para 32) [296-C-D] F State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 286 = AIR 1999 SC 3916 - relied on. Mui/a & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 201 O (2 ) SCR 633 = (2010) 3 SCC 508; Matru@ Girish Chandra v. G The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1971 ( 3 ) SCR 914 =AIR 1971 SC 1050; and Santokh Singh v. lzhar Hussain & Anr., 197 4 ( 1 ) SCR 78 =AIR 1973 SC 2190; Lal Singh & Ors v. State of UP., AIR 2004 SC 299; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1994 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 483 = AIR 1994 SC 2420; H 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 10 S.C.R. A Ma/khan Singh v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 443 = AIR 2003 SC 2669; Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (7 ) SCR 182 = (2009) 6 SCC 667; and Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 2009 (13 ) SCR 774 = (2009) 9 SCC 719; Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh s & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 ( 2 ) SCR 1209 = AIR 1998 SC 1922; Lalli@ Jagdeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 12 SCC 666; Dastagir Sab & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2004 (1 ) SCR 952 = (2004) 3 SCC 106; Maya Kaur Ba/devsingh Sardar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 c (10) SCR 752 = (2007) 12 SCC 654; and Aslam@ Deewan v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (13 ) SCR 1010 = (2008) 9 SCC 227; Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 677 = (2006) 12 SCC 512; D. Gopalakrishnan v. Sadanand Naik & Ors., 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 520 =AIR 0 2004 SC 4965; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 ( 2 ) SCR 375 =, (1994) 3 SCC 569; Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 1999 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 113 =AIR 1999 SC 2562 - referred to. 3.5 In the instant case, it is evident that all the . E accused for whom test identification parades were conducted were identified by some of the witnesses in the jail. They were also identified by some of the eye witnesses/injured witnesses in the court. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that identification of A-2 to F A-4 by the witnesses, if examined in conjunction with the evidence of the Judicial Magistrate, PW-89 and his reports, particularly, Exh. P.137 and P.142, leaves no room for doubt regarding the involvement of A-2 to A-4 in the crime. There is no cogent reason to take a contrary G view. Not supporting of the prosecution case by PW.86 would not tilt the balance of the case in favour of the appellants. [para 39 and 42) (298-F-G; 299-F-GJ 4.1 The provisions of s.195 Cr.PC are mandatory. H C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 273 Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and A all other consequential orders. The law does not permit taking cognizance of any offence punishable uls 188 IPC unless there is a complaint by the competent public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The court cannot B assume cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio be~ng without jurisdiction. In the instant case, no such complaint had ever been filed. Therefore, it was not permissible for the trial Court c to frame a charge uls 188 IPC. [para 25 and 27] [293-C-D; F-G] M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 160 =AIR 2000 SC 168; Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. 1998 ( 1 ) SCR 492 = (1998) 2 SCC D 493; and Dau/at Ram v. State of Punjab 1962 Suppl. SCR 812 =AIR 1962 SC 1206 - relied on. Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar1971 Suppl. SCR 777 =AIR 1971 SC 1708; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat 1971 Suppl. SCR 834 =AIR 1971 SC 1935; Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh, 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 70 = (1996) 3 SCC 533; State of Punjab v. Raj Singh & Anr. 1998 (1) SCR 223 = (1998) 2 SCC 391; K. Vengadachalam E v. K. C. Palanisamy & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 352; and Iqbal F Singh NJarwah & ~nr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. 2005 (2) SCR 708 =AIR 2005 SC 2119; Basir-ul-Haq & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, 1953 SCR 836 = AIR 1953 SC 293; and Durgacharan Naik & Ors v. State of Orissa, 1966 SCR 636 = AIR 1966 SC 1775 - referred to. G ·4.2 However, it cannot be said that absence of a complaint ·u1s 195 Cr.PC falsifies the genesis of the prosecution case and is fatal to the entire case. In the instant case, there is ample evidence on record to show that there was a prohibitory order, which had been issued H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A by the competent officer one day before; it had been given due publicity and had been brought to the notice of the public at large; it has been violated as there is no denial even by the accused persons that there was no 'Rasta Roko Andolan'. The agitation which initially started B peacefully, turned ugly and violent when the public transport vehicles were subjected to attack and damage. In such an eventuality, in case the charges u/s 188 IPC are quashed, it would by no means have any bearing on _ the case of the prosecution, so far as the charges for c other offences are concerned. [para 27] [293-G-H; 294-AC] 5. As regards clubbing of two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000 together, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two D incidents occurred and taking into consideration the evidence of drivers and conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first incident and the evidence PW-87, the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first one. The damage caused to the public E transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge sheet could not be filed. [para F 28] [294-D-F] T. T. Antony v. State of Kera/a & Ors. 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 942 = (2001) 6 sec 181 - relied on. 6.1 So far as sentencing is concerned, criminal law G requires strict adherence to the rule of proportionality in providing punishment according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct keeping in mind the effect of not awarding just punishment on the society. [para 75] H State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar, 2008 (12) SCR 929 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 275 = AIR 2009 SC 391; and Sahdev v. Jaibar@ Jai Dev & Ors., A 2009 (3 ) SCR 722 =(2009) 11 SCC 798; Bantu v. State of U. P., 2008 (11) SCR 184 = (2008) 11 SCC 113, Sevaka Perumal v. State ofT.N. 1991 ( 2) SCR 711 =AIR 1991 SC 1463 - relied on. 6.2 Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty 8 an exception. The "rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co- existence of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-themo'!'ent provocation and he indulged himself in a C deliberately planned crime and meticulously executed it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. Therefore, the court must satisfy itself that death penalty would be the only . punishment which can be meted out to a convict. It has D · to be considered whether any other punishment would be completely inadequate and what would be the mitigating and aggra¥1:1ting circumstances in the case. Murder is always foul. However, the degree of brutality, depravity, diabolic nature and the circumstances under E which murders take place differ in each case. [para 7576] (315-E-H; 316-A] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1983 ( 3 ) SCR 413 =AIR 1983 SC 957; Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT F of Delhi, 2002 ( 2 ·) SCR 767 =AIR 2002 SC 1661; Atbir v. Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi, JT 2010 (8) SC 372; Mahesh v. State of M.P., 1987 ( 2) SCR 710 =AIR 1987 SC 1346 ..... relied on. 6.3 tn the instant case, the girl-students of the University, while on tour had been the victims of a heinous crime. A demonstration by the appellants which had started peacefully, took an ugly turn when the G H 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A appellants started damaging public transport vehicles. Damaging the pu.blic transport 'vehicles ~id. not satisfy th_ell'.1 and they became the law unto themselves. ~ome of the appel.lants had evil design.~ to ca,use damage to a greater extent so that people may learn a "lesson". In 8 order to succeed in their mission, A-2, A-3 and A-4 went to the extent of sprinkling petrol in a bus full of girl students and setting i_t on fire with the s~udents still inside the bus. They were fully aware th~t the gir's n;iigh,t not be able to escape, when they set the bus on fire. As it C happened, some of the girls did not escape the burning bus. No provocation of any kind ~ad been· offered by any . of the girls or by any person whatsoever. A-2, A~3 and A4 c;fid not pay any heed to the pleas 111ade by P.W1 and PW2, the teachers, to spare the girls. They cciu~ed the 0 d~ath of three innocent y()ung girls and ~\Jrn inj\Jries to another twenty. There can ~e absolutely no justification for the commission of such a brutal offence. This shows the highest clegree of depr~vity and bru~lity on the part of A-2, A-3 and A-4. [para 77] [316~C-H; ~17-A~BJ E 6.4 The aggravating circumstances in the case of A· 2, A-3 and A-4 are that this offence ha~ been committed after previou$ planning an~ with extreme brutality. These murders involved exceptional depravity on the part of A2, A-3 and A-4. These were the murders of helpless, F innocent, unarmed, young girl students in a totally unprovoked situation. No mitigating circumstances could be pointed out to impose a lesser sentence on them. Their activities were not only barbaric but inhuman to the highest degree. Thus, the manner of the commission of G the offence in the present case is extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel. It is shocking to the · collective conscience of society. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the punishment of death sentence awarded to A-2, A-3 and A-4 by the courts below and the H same is confirmed. [para 77] [317-C~FJ C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 277 6.5 So far as the other appellants are concerned, the A maximum sentence to be served by them as per the judgment of the High Court is two years. MQst of these appellants have already served more than 14 months of their sentence and they are on bail. The incident occurred on 2.2.2000, so more than ten and a half years have B already elapsed since the incident. These appellants have already suffered a l()t. Their sentences are reduced to the period undergone. [para 77] [317-G] 7. The crime occurred right in the middle of a busy city. Innocent girls trapped in a burning bus were C shouting for help and only the male students from their University came to their rescue and succeeded in saving some of them. There were large number of people includjng the shopke~pers, media persons and .on-duty police personnel, present at the place of the "Rasta Roko D Andolan", which was very close to the place of the o.ccurrence of the crime, and none ()f thei11 considered it proper to help .in the rescue of the victims. J;ven if .the common man .fails to respond t() the call of his conscience, the police should not have remained E inactive. But the police stood there and witnessed such a heinous crime being committed and allowed the burning of the bus and roasting of the innocent children. The administration did not bother to find out why the police did not intervene and assist in the rescue of the F girl students, much.less reprimand them for failing in their duty. If the common citizens and public officials present at the scene of the crime had done their duty, the death of three innocent young girls could have been prevented. [para 78] [318-A-D] G Case Law Reference: 1971 Suppl. SCR 777 1971 Suppl. SCR 834 referred to referred to para 20 para 20 H 278 / SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 10 S.C.R. A 1996 (3) SCR 70 referred to para 20 1998 (1) SCR 223 referred to para 20 2005 (7) sec 352 referred to para 20 8 2005 (2) SCR 708 referred to para 20 1953 SCR 836 referred to para 21 1966 SCR 636 referred to para 21 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 160 relied on para 22 c 1998 (1) SCR .492 relied on para 23 1962 Suppl. SCR 812 relied on para 24 2001 (3) SCR 942 relied on para 28 D AIR 2004 SC 299 referred to para 29 AIR 1994 SC 2420 referred to para 30 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 443 referred ·to para 30 E 2009 (7) SCR 182 referred to para 30 2009 (13) SCR 774 referred to para 30 2004 (1) SCR 952 referred to para 30 F (2003) 12 sec 666 referred to para 30 1998 (2) SCR 1209 referred to para 30 2007 (10) SCR 752 referred to para 30 2008 (13) SCR 1010 refe.rred to para 30 G 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR677 referred to para 31 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR520 referred to para 31 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR286 relied on para 32 H C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 279 2010 (2) SCR 633 1971 (3) SCR 914 1974 (1) SCR 78 1994 (2) SCR 375 referred to referred to referred to referred to 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 483 referred to 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 113 referred to AIR 1974 SC 220 relied on 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 629 relied on 1998 (2) SCR 1097 relied on 1999 (1) SCR 55 relied on 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 359 relied on 2003 (1) SCR 754 relied on 2002 (1) SCR1011 relied on 2004 (1) Suppl. S