# RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

- **Citation:** [2011] 4 S.C.R. 585
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-02-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1236 of 2006
- **Bench:** V.S Sirpurkar, T.S. Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramesh-v-state-of-rajasthan-27631
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860- ss. 120-B, 457, 302, 379, 404, 201,
A
B
414 and s. 34 - Double murder - RL and his wife were
engaged in the business of money lending by pledging gold
C
and silver ornaments - Robbery committed at the house-cumshop of RL - RL and his wife found dead in the pool of blood
- Four accused arrested - Trial court convicted A 1 to A 3 u/
ss. 120·8, 457, 302, 379, 404 and 201 -A 1 awarded death
sentence whereas A2 and A3 sentenced to life imprisonment
D
- Accused convicted on other counts also - A 4 convicted u/
ss. 201, 404 and 414 - High Court upheld the order passed
by the trial court- On appeal by A 1 to A 3, held: A 3 found
in possession of huge haul of gold weighing one kilo and cash
immediately after theft - Ornaments recovered from A 2 and
E
A 1 - There was en effort to melt the ornaments - Recovery
of clothes and shoes of accused stained with human blood -
Recovery of blood stained murder weapon at the instance of
A 3 - Weapon was stained with human blood of blood group
A which was the blood group of deceased - Clothes of F
deceased found stained with his own blood of blood group A
-
No explanation -offered by accused of this highly
incriminating circumstance - Theft of the articles, ornaments
more particularly, the melting apparatus machine and
Katordan and tiffin on which the name of the deceased was
G
engraved fully established - Identification of the property also
established - Investigation not tainted - Though police was
not able to recover ornaments in one go, but merely because
recoveries were made from the same place which was already
585
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A visited by the police, would not dispel the evidence of
discovery and recovery - A4 was receiver of stolen property
and had helped in melting of some of the gold items with the
machines removed from the house of deceased - Conviction
of A 1 to A3 upheld, however, no evidence as to who was the
B actual author of the injuries on the deceased though all the
three were participants of the crime - Thus, death sentence
awarded to A 3 modified to life imprisonment and life
imprisonment imposed on A 1 and A2 upheld - Sentence/
c
Sentencing.
Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Award of -
Commission of double murder - Award of death sentence to
A 3 by courts below - On appeal held: Though it was a double
murder, but it could not be said to be brutal, grotesque and
0 diabolical - Crime could not be said to be of enormous
proportion - A 3 was not in a dominating position - It was a
murder of gains - Case was purely based on circumstantial
evidence - No definite evidence about the acts on the part
of each of the accused - Difficult to say that A 3 alone was
author of injuries on the deceased - A 3 was young and this
E was his first proved offence - It could not be said that there
was no possibility of reformation of A 3 - It was not established
that alternative punishment of life imprisonment would be
futile and would serve no purpose - Also, it could not be
established that hairs in the hands of the deceased belonged
F to A 3 - A 3 languishing in death cell for more than 6 years
- Thus, death sentence is modified to life imprisonment.
'RL' alongwith his wife 'SD' were engaged in the
business of money lending by pledging gold and silver
G ornaments and were selling steel utensils. On the fateful
day, they were found lying dead in the pool of blood.
According to the prosecution, A-1 conspired with A-2, A3 and A-4 to commit a robbery at the place of 'RL'. They
trespassed into the house of 'RL' by night and looted the
H house and decamped with the looted ornaments, cash
•
•
RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
587
and other articles. Both the deceased persons had human A
hair in their hands. A blood-stained needle and syringe
was found near the dead body of 'SD'. The clothes of the
deceased persons and some other materials were seized.
The accused persons as also accused No. 4 were
arrested. The murder weapon 'Jharbad' was recovered B
from

## Text

_Characters 0–39,976 of 90,560. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39976 for what follows._

•
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 585
RAMESH
V.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1236 of 2006)
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
[V.S SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 120-B, 457, 302, 379, 404, 201,
A
B
414 and s. 34 - Double murder - RL and his wife were
engaged in the business of money lending by pledging gold
C
and silver ornaments - Robbery committed at the house-cumshop of RL - RL and his wife found dead in the pool of blood
- Four accused arrested - Trial court convicted A 1 to A 3 u/
ss. 120·8, 457, 302, 379, 404 and 201 -A 1 awarded death
sentence whereas A2 and A3 sentenced to life imprisonment
D
- Accused convicted on other counts also - A 4 convicted u/
ss. 201, 404 and 414 - High Court upheld the order passed
by the trial court- On appeal by A 1 to A 3, held: A 3 found
in possession of huge haul of gold weighing one kilo and cash
immediately after theft - Ornaments recovered from A 2 and
E
A 1 - There was en effort to melt the ornaments - Recovery
of clothes and shoes of accused stained with human blood -
Recovery of blood stained murder weapon at the instance of
A 3 - Weapon was stained with human blood of blood group
A which was the blood group of deceased - Clothes of F
deceased found stained with his own blood of blood group A
-
No explanation -offered by accused of this highly
incriminating circumstance - Theft of the articles, ornaments
more particularly, the melting apparatus machine and
Katordan and tiffin on which the name of the deceased was
G
engraved fully established - Identification of the property also
established - Investigation not tainted - Though police was
not able to recover ornaments in one go, but merely because
recoveries were made from the same place which was already
585
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A visited by the police, would not dispel the evidence of
discovery and recovery - A4 was receiver of stolen property
and had helped in melting of some of the gold items with the
machines removed from the house of deceased - Conviction
of A 1 to A3 upheld, however, no evidence as to who was the
B actual author of the injuries on the deceased though all the
three were participants of the crime - Thus, death sentence
awarded to A 3 modified to life imprisonment and life
imprisonment imposed on A 1 and A2 upheld - Sentence/
c
Sentencing.
Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Award of -
Commission of double murder - Award of death sentence to
A 3 by courts below - On appeal held: Though it was a double
murder, but it could not be said to be brutal, grotesque and
0 diabolical - Crime could not be said to be of enormous
proportion - A 3 was not in a dominating position - It was a
murder of gains - Case was purely based on circumstantial
evidence - No definite evidence about the acts on the part
of each of the accused - Difficult to say that A 3 alone was
author of injuries on the deceased - A 3 was young and this
E was his first proved offence - It could not be said that there
was no possibility of reformation of A 3 - It was not established
that alternative punishment of life imprisonment would be
futile and would serve no purpose - Also, it could not be
established that hairs in the hands of the deceased belonged
F to A 3 - A 3 languishing in death cell for more than 6 years
- Thus, death sentence is modified to life imprisonment.
'RL' alongwith his wife 'SD' were engaged in the
business of money lending by pledging gold and silver
G ornaments and were selling steel utensils. On the fateful
day, they were found lying dead in the pool of blood.
According to the prosecution, A-1 conspired with A-2, A3 and A-4 to commit a robbery at the place of 'RL'. They
trespassed into the house of 'RL' by night and looted the
H house and decamped with the looted ornaments, cash
•
•
RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
587
and other articles. Both the deceased persons had human A
hair in their hands. A blood-stained needle and syringe
was found near the dead body of 'SD'. The clothes of the
deceased persons and some other materials were seized.
The accused persons as also accused No. 4 were
arrested. The murder weapon 'Jharbad' was recovered B
from A-3. The clothes and the shoes worn by the accused
at the time of incident as also the ornaments stolen from
the house of 'RL' were recovered. The stolen gold
ornaments were melted at the house of A-4 and converted
into a nugget (Dhalia). The instrument used for melting c
ornaments was found at the house of accused No. 4
which was allegedly stolen from the house of deceased
'RL'. The materials were sent for investigations and
reports were obtained. The trial court convicted A-1, A2
and A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 1200
B, 457, 302, 379, 404 and 201 IPC. A-3 was sentenced to
death, whereas A1
and A2 were awarded life
imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court upheld the order
of conviction and sentence of A-1, A2 and A3. A-4 was
convicted for the offence punishable u/ss. 201,404 and E
414 IPC and sentenced accordingly by the courts below.
Therefore, A1, A2 and A3 filed the instant appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The instant case depends upon F
circumstantial evidence and, as such every circumstance
would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
further the chain of circumstances should be so complete
and perfect that the only inference of the guilt of the .
accused should emanate therefrom. At the same time, G
there should be no possibility whatsoever of the defence
version being true. Both the courts below have held that
such circumstances are proved by the prosecution and
that the only inference flowing therefrom would be that
of the guilt on the part of the three accused persons. The H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A scope for interference in factual findings by this Court is
very limited. This Court would, under such
circumstances, examine whether the findings are pervert
or impossible. The instant case is not a case of a single
accused, and, therefore, the incriminating circumstances
B would have to be individually weighed vis-a-vis each
accused and it would have to be seen as to whether such
examination justifies the conviction of the accused as
ordered by the trial court and the appellate court. [Para
1 O] (605-0-E]
c
1.2. The courts came to the conclusion that A4 knew
or had reason to know that the offence had been
committed. He not only tried to screen the offence by
melting the ornaments but was found in possession of
the stolen property like the ornaments and the gold
D ingots. It was on this basis that A4 was convicted for
offences under Sections 201 and 404 as also Section 414
IPC. There was a definite connection between A-4 and the
other accused A-1. Very surprisingly, the finding
regarding the ornaments received by A4 coming from A3
•
E and fellow accused has not been challenged in any of the
appeals. If the ornaments were found to be belonging to
'RL' as they were kept in the tiffin on which the name of
'RL' was engraved and further if A4 had given no
explanation, it was obvious that the ornaments
F proceeded from A3 and his fellow accused to A4 with the
sole objective of melting the ornaments. A4 knew that it
was stolen property and had accepted the same. In such
circumstances, it was incumbent upon the other accused
being A-1, A-2 and A-3 to challenge at least the finding
G against A4 even if A4 had not challenged his conviction.
H
The finding given against A4 regarding the stolen
property having been given to him by accused A3 ought
to have been challenged. There was no challenge on this
major circumstance with the result that it is now the
•
RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
589
factual situation that the ornaments stolen from 'RL'
A
house and the other connecting materials like tiffin were
passed on to A 4. [Para 11] [607-C·H; 608-A-B]
1.3. The submission that there was no theft or that
the prosecution had not proved that any theft was
committed at 'RL's house was not made even before the
8
trial court or the appellate court. However, the submission
fails on the simple ground that the ornaments found with
A4 were kept in a tiffin bearing the name of 'RL'; that A4
could not give any explanation of the huge amount of C
ornaments melted and other things found in his
possession; that there was also a Katordan which was
found by the Investigating Officer with A1 though there
is some controversy as to from which accused the said
Katordan bearing the name of 'RL' was found; that the
Katordan did belong to 'RL' and tht:re is no explanation
D
whatsoever as to liow the Katordan came out of the
house of 'RL'; and that the huge amount of gold which
was found with A3 being 1347 gms. (some ornaments
being intact and some turned into gold ingots for which
there was virtually no explanation, as also the ornaments
E
found with A1 and A2 without any reasonable
explanation). It does not stand to reason that the police
must have collected all these ornaments from the house
of 'RL' after the murder and planted the ornaments
without any purpose. [Para 13] [608-D-H; 609-A]
F
1.4. Considering the case of A-3 whose complicity
has been held to be proved, the submission that there
were some minor contradiction with regard to the date,
time and place of the discoveries and recoveries are of G
no consequence. It is sufficiently proved by the
prosecution that when A-3 was arrested, he was having ·
a black bag containing huge amount of gold ornaments
and cash. This is all the more true as there is absolutely
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A no explanation by A-3 for the possession of the huge
haul of'gold. Therefore, the so-called contradictions in the
evidence of PW-10, PW-19 and PW-33 are not impressive.
The High Court and the trial court were correct in holding
that a huge haul of gold was found weighing 1347 gms.,
B which is more than a Kilo of gold. [Para 14) [609-A-H; 610A-D]
1.5. It is clear from the evidence that prosecution had
proved its case against A-3 that he was involved in the
C robbery which was clear from the human blood detected
on his clothes and shoes and the murder weapon which
was recovered at his instance. The murder weapon was
found stained with human blood and its blood group was
shown to be 'A'. The clothes of 'RL' were stained with his
own blood which was of group 'A'. This is a very weighty
D circumstance against A-3 and there is absolutely no
explanation offered by A-3 of this highly incriminating
circumstance. The courts below accepted the recoveries
and the discoveries. In addition, A-3 was found to be in
possession of huge amount of gold in form of ornaments
E and ingots and cash, for which he had no explanation.
The said articles were seized from his person. It is not
understood as to why the gold would be in the form of
ingots from the recovery of the gold melting apparatus
from A 4. It was clear that there was effort to melt the
F gold. The necessity of melting the gold and the fact that
the accused persons like A 4 made efforts to melt the gold
and further A3 being found in possession of gold ingots
which could not have been in that form lends support to
the theory that A3 was in possession of the stolen
G property. There is no explanation by A3 even for the huge
cash. He did not accept the cash belonging to him. He is
not shown to be a wealthy person so as to be in
possession of 1347 gms. of gold and a huge cash of
about Rs. 30,000/-. All this would clinch the case against
H A3. [Para 15) [611-E-H; 612-A-B]
•
RAMESH v. STA:E OF RAJASTHAN
591
1.6. The High Court was absolutely correct in A
believing the recoveries and discoveries also, particularly,
as against the accused A3. There may be some
irregularities here and there or some casual investigation
by the police, however, the investigation was not tainted.
There was absolutely no reason for the police to falsely
B
implicate A-3 and the other two accused persons.
Nothing has been brought in the cross-examination of
the police officers and, more particularly, the crossexamination of PW-35, Investigating Officer. [Para 16)
[612-D-F]
c
1.7. The statement that A 1 was not participant in the
crime cannot be accepted. Human blood was found on
A1's shirt. His shoes were also found to be stained with
human blood. It is only his pant which seems to be
innocuous in the sense that no blood was found on the
D
same. However, there is no explanation by A1 as to how
his T-shirt and shoes were found to be stained with
human blood. [Para 17] (612-G-H; 613-A]
1.8. The evidence of identification parade especially
E
of PW-22-tehsildar and both the courts having accepted
the evidence about the identification of ornaments which
were recovered from A3, has been gone through. There
is no reason to dis-believe that evidence. Therefore, it is
established that A3 was undoubtedly in possession of
F
the ornaments which ornaments can be connected with
'RL'. [Para 18] (613-F-G]
1.9. PW 30-R was the nephew of deceased 'RL'. He
surfaced immediately after it was known that 'RL' and his
wife 'SD' were murdered. He claimed that he had seen his G
maternal uncle using the chain and two rings and his aunt
using four bangles and four rings and ear rings in· her
ears. He performed the last rites of 'RL' and 'SD'. He
correctly identified the chain of maternal uncle and also
the bangles of his maternal aunt. The four gold bangles
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A which were identified by 'R' were seized from A-2 while
the chain which was identified by him was seized from
A-1. PW-22 specifically stated that these ornaments were
correctly identified. There is hardly any crossexamination which is worthy and can be relied upon and
s accepted. The cross-examination only consists of some
futile suggestions. This witness had no interest against
the accused or in favour of the prosecution. He was
doing his duty. His evidence connects A-1 and A-2 with
the crime. Therefore, the identification is accepted. The
C finding of the High Court that the recoveries from A-1 and
A-2 of the ornaments including the identified bangles and
the chain were fully proved, is accepted. There is hardly
any explanation by A-1 and A-2. (Para 18] (613-G-H; 619A-H; 615-A-D]
D
1.10. As regards, the submission that the police have
seized the gold chain on 19.2.2003 even when they had
visited the same place on 09.02.2003 for recovering the
cloths on 13.02.2003 for recovering the other ornaments
including the Katordan, it is quite possible that the police
E were not able to recover all the ornaments in one go. The
High Court gave good reasons to set aside the finding of
the trial court to the effect that this recovery was not
proved. There is clear cut evidence on record that the
ornaments which were recovered on 13.02.2003 were kept
F in a Katordan. The full name of deceased 'RL' was
engraved on the Katordan. The recovery of Katordan
would clinch the issue insofar as the identification of the
ornaments is concerned. A1 had no explanation
whatsoever for these ornaments or for the Katordan. A1
G was also in possession of the stolen property almost
immediately after the theft and was directly connected
with the crime. Therefore, the prosecution has been able
to prove the guilt of A1 who was not only a participant in
the crime but was also found in possession of the gold
H ornaments including the gold chain which was clearly
•
•
RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
593
identified py witness PW-30. Therefore, the finding of the
A
High Court is upheld in that behalf and the High Court
was right in dismissing the appeal of A1. Considering the
oral evidence of PW-6 as also PW-35 further considering
Exhibit P-35, the Katordan on which name of deceased
'RL' was engraved was undoubtedly seized from A1.
B
[Para 19] [615-E-H; 616-A-D]
1.11. As per Exhibit P-126, A 2's T-shirt as well as
pant as also his shoes were stained with human blood
and further his pant and shirt were found to be stained
with blood group A which was the blood group of 'RL'.
C
This circumstance alone is sufficient to clinch the issue
against A 2. Also, gold ornaments were recovered from
A2 which was supported by the evidence of PW-13.
However, the trial court rejected this recovery. The High
Court set aside that finding and held that the recovery
D
was fully proved. It cannot be forgotten that A2 gave no
explanation about the huge amount of silver ornaments
found with him. It cannot be said as to how the silver
ingots weighing 205 gms. could be found unless the
silver ornaments were turned into the shape of ingots.
E
Four gold bangles were found by way of this discovery
which was proved by PW-11, and in the identification
proceedings bangles were correctly identified by PW-30.
PW~30 and PW-22 held the identification parade. This in
fact clinches the issue. The discovery made by the
F
accused and the recovery of the ornaments in pursuance
of that are completely credible, seen in the light of other
evidence of his blood stained T-shirt and shoes. The
counsel could not explain the finding of the blood as also
the clinching evidence of the recovery of ornaments in
G
pursuance of the discovery statement made by the
accused. Therefore, even A2 would be held liable and
would be held guilty for the offence alleged against him.
[Para 20] [616-F-H; 617-A-G]
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011) 4 S.C.R.
A
1.12. The theft of the articles, more particularly, the
melting apparatus machine and the ornaments was fully
established. The identification of the property was also
established. It is not only the gold which connects the
accused with the crime but also the articles like Katordan
B and tiffin on which the name of the deceased was
engraved. The evidence clearly showed that the
Katordan was seized with the ornaments in it. Further,
some of the ornaments like gold bangles and the chain
were actually identified and the identification evidence is
C accepted. [Para 22) [619-8-F]
Chandmal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1976 (1) SCC
621; Mohd. Aman and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan etc. etc.,
1997 (10) SCC 44; Mahabir Sao alias Mahadeo Sao v. The
State of Bihar 1972 (1) SCC 505; Inspector of Police, Tamil
D Nadu v. Bala Prasanna 2008 (11) SCC 645; State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180; Yeshv.ailt and
Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra. etc. etc. 1972 (3) SCC 639;
Raghunath v. State of Haryana and Anr. etc. etc. 2003 (1) SCC
398; Hardyal Prem v. State of Rajasthan 1991 Supp. (1)
E SCC 148; Manish Dixit and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan etc.
etc. 2001 (1) SCC 596; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan
2002 (1) sec 702 - distinguished.
F
G
H
State of M.P. v. Nisar 2007 (5) SCC 658 - referred to.
1.13. There is no question of the principles regarding
Section 27, Evidence Act. However, on facts it is found
that the discoveries of all the three accused persons to
be reliable in the peculiar facts of the instant case. [Para
23) [621-G-H]
Pu/ukari Kottaiah v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67;
Mohd. lnayatullah v. State of Maharashtra 1976 (1) SCC 828;
Pohalya Motya Va/vi v. State of Maharashtra 1980 (1) SCC
530; Mohd;Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1983
•
•
RAMESH v. ·STATE OF RAJASTHAN
595
(1) SCC 143; Ram Pal Pithwa Rah id as v. State of A
Maharashtra 1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 73 - referred to.
1.14. There is no reason to differ on the principle of
honesty and fair investigation. However, there is no
reason to hold that the investigation was in any way
8
unfair. Merely because the recoveries were made from
the same place which was already visited by the police,
that would itself not dispel the evidence of discovery and
recovery, on the basis of the peculiar evidence led in the
instant case. It is true that the investigation officer should
C
have thoroughly searched the premises of A-1 and A-2
on 09.02.2003 itself. However, if the accused agreed to
discover different things on different dates and those
things were actually found in pursuance of the
information given by the accused, the discoveries cannot
be faulted for only that reason. Thus, the conviction and
D
sentence of A-1 and A-2 is upheld. [Paras 24 and 25) [622F-H; 623-A-B]
2.1. The conviction of A-3 is confirmed. As regards
his sentence, both the courts below have unanimously
E
awarded death sentence to A-3 treating this to be a rarest
of the rare case. The trial court held that it was A-3 who
inflicted injuries on both the deceased 'RL' and 'SD'. It is
only on that ground that A-3 alone was condemned to
death. The reasoning given by the trial court is not
F
satisfactory. Before awarding the death sentence, the trial
court was expected to give elaborate reasons. [Paras 25
and 26) [623-8-E]
Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (6) SCC 296;
Suhil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand AIR 2004 SC 394 -
G
referred to.
2.2. In the instant case, none of the four
circumstances relevant in awarding the death sentence
are available. It is true that the murder of 'RL' and 'SD' was
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A cruel. However, it cannot be said to be brutal, grotesque
and diabolical nor could it be said that the murder was
committed in a revolting manner so as to arise intense
and extreme indignation. This was not a case where A-3
was in a dominating position or in a position of trust nor
B could it be said to be a murder for personal reasons. This
is also not a case of bride burning or dowry death which
is committed in order to remarry for extracting dowry
once again. Though this is a double murder, it cannot be
said to be a crime of enormous proportion. A-3 could not
c be said to be a person in a dominating position as this is
not a murder of an innocent child or a helpless woman
or old or infirm person. This was undoubtedly a murder
for gains. The High Court held that A 3 was having
criminal record. However, no previous conviction has
0 been proved against A-3 by the prosecution. It is apparent
that the original intention was theft and on account of the
deceased having been awakened, the accused persons
took the extreme step of eliminating both the inmates of
the house for the fear of being detected. It cannot be said
E that it was A-3 alone who committed the murder only
because he was the one who discovered the murder
weapon Jharbad. It is not clear from the evidence as to
who was the actual author of the injuries on 'RL' and 'SD'
though all the three were participants of the crime. There
is no definite evidence about the acts on the part of each
F of the accused. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that
A 3 alone was the author of injuries on 'RL' as well as
'SD'. Money was the motive. The accused person did not
come from a wealthy background. On the other hand, they
could not justify the possession of ornaments found with
G them; and they were unlikely to own the ornaments on
account of their financial position. [Paras 27, 28 and 30]
[624-F-H; 625-A-D; 626-D-E]
Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra 2010
H (1) sec 775; Mui/a v. State of U.P. 2010 (3) sec 508;
•
RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
597
Santosh Kumar Shantibhushan Beriyar v. State of A
Maharashtra 2009 (6) SCC 498 - referred to.
2.3. The instant case is purely on the circumstantial
evidence. It should not be understood that in all cases
of circumstantial evidence, the death sentence cannot be
given. The case _being dependent upon circumstantial
8
evidence is one of the relevant considerations. It is one
of the circumstances in formulating the sentencing
policy. [Para 31] [627-A-D]
Santosh Kumar Shantibhushan Beriyar v. State of C
Maharashtra 2009 (6) SCC 498; Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar
A/hat v. State of Maharashtra 2008 (15) SC 269 - relied on.
2.4. Considering the principles emanating from
Bachan Singh's case, it cannot be said that there was no
0
possibility of reformation of the accused persons. It is true
that the accused were driven by their avarice for wealth
but given a chance there is every possibility of their being
reformed. In the instant case, it is not established that
alternative punishment of life imprisonment would be
E
futile and would serve no purpose. In Santosh Kumar's
case it was held that the life imprisonment can be said
to be completely futile only when the sentencing aim of
reformation can be said to be unachievable. "Therefore,
being satisfied the second explanation of rarest of rare
doctrine the court would have to provide clear evidence
F
as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformative
and rehabilitation scheme. In the instant case, there has
been no such exercise taken either by the trial court or
appellate court nor any discussion is found about the life
imprisonment being rendered futile and serving no G
purpose. [Paras 31, 32 and 33] [627-C-H; 628-A-C]
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 (2) SCC 684;
Santosh Kumar Shantibhushan Beriyar v. State of
Maharashtra 2009 (6) SCC 498 - relied on.
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A
2.5. A 3 is a young person. It must also be taken into
consideration that this was the first proved offence of A
3. No other conviction has been proved against him by
the prosecution. There is no reason as to why he cannot
be reformed and rehabilitated. Further, this is not seen to
B be an offence by the organized criminals so as to affect
the society as a whole. Also if the deceased 'RL' and 'SD'
had not been awakened, the ghastly incident might not
have occurred. [Paras 34, 35 and 36] [628-D-F-H; 629-A]
2.6. It has come in evidence that the deceased 'RL'
C and 'SD' had hair in their hands. The prosecution wanted
to point out that it must be during the scuffle that the two
dying persons might have pulled the hair of the assailants
and this is how hair came in the hands of the deceased
persons. It is significant to note that on scientific
D examination, it could not be established that hair in the
hands of the deceased belonged to A 3. Though there are
other clinching circumstances also to hold that A 3 and
the two accused were undoubtedly the assailants. This
circumstance would be considered in not confirming the
E death sentence. A 3 who was convicted and awarded the
death sentence by the Sessions Judge in 2004 is
languishing in death cell for more than six years. This
also would be one of the mitigating circumstances. Thus,
the death sentence awarded to A 3 would not be justified
F and instead is modified to life imprisonment. However,
conviction for the other offences as also sentences
awarded are upheld. [Paras 37, 38 and 39] [629-C-G]
Santosh Kumar Shantibhushan Beriyar v. State of
G Maharashtra 2009 (6) SCC 498 - relied on.
H
2001 (5) sec 658
1976 (1) sec 621
Case Law Reference:
Distinguished. Para 21
Distinguished. Para 22
•
•
. RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
599
1997 (1 O) sec 44
Distinguished. Para 22
A
1972 (1) sec 505
Distinguished. Para 22
2008 (11) sec 645
Distinguished. Para 22
2003 (8) sec 180
Distinguished. Para 23
B
1912 (3) sec 639
Distinguished. Para 23
2003 (1) sec 398
Distinguished. Para 23
1991 Supp. (1) sec 148 Distinguished. Para 23
2001 (1) sec 596
Distinguished. Para 23
c
2002 (1) sec 102
Distinguished. Para 23
AIR 1947 PC 67
Referred to
Para 23
1976 (1) sec 828
Referred to
Para 23
D
1980 (1) sec 530
Referred to
Para 23
1983 (1) sec 143
Referred tC1
Para 23
1994 Suppl. (2) sec 73
Referred to
Para 23
E
2001 (6) sec 296
Referred to.
Para 26
AIR 2004 SC 394
Referred to.
Para 26
2010 (1) sec 775
Referred to.
Para 29 and
36
F
201 o (3) sec 508
Referred to.
· Para 29
2009 (6) sec 498
Relied on.
Paras 31, 32,
36, 37
G
2008 (15) SC 269
Relied on.
Para 31
1980 (2) sec 684 ·
Relied on.
Para 31
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1236 of 2006.
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.1.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal
Appeal No. 625 of 2004.
WITH
B
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1235 & 1237 of 2006.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Gopal, Trishna, Anis
Ahmed Khan, Shoaib, Ahmad Khan, M.L. Lahoty, Rana
Mukherjee, Sadharth Gautam, Ankita Mishra (for Goodwill
c lndeevar), Manish Singhvi, D.K. Devesh, Sahil S. Chauhan,
Milind Kumar, lmtiaz Ahmed, Naghma lmtiaz for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of
Criminal Appeal No. 1236 of 2006 filed by Ramesh@ Gaguda
(original accused No. 3), Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 2006
filed by Bharat Kumar @ Bhatia (original accused No. 2) and
Criminal Appeal No. 1237 of 2006 filed by Gordhan Lal (original
E accused No. 1). We shall refer to the appellants as per their
position before the Trial Court. While Ramesh @ Guguda (A3) is sentenced to death by Trial and appellate Courts, the other
two accused being Bharat Kumar @ Bhatia (A-2) and Gordhan
Lal (A-1) are facing the life imprisonment alongwith fines on
F different counts. That is how the matters have come up before
us.
G
2. Human avarice has no limits nor does it know of any
emotions. The present case is the sordid saga of the crime
which emanated purely from human avarice.
3. Phalodi is a quiet Taluk place in the State of Rajasthan.
Ramlal Lunawat alongwith his wife Shanti Devi was doing
business of money lending by pledging gold and silver
ornaments and was selling steel utensils. On 5.2.2003, Anil
H (PW-1) telephoned to Police Station Phalodi that the door of
•
RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
601
[V.S SIRPURKAR, J.]
the house-cum-shop of Ramlal was lying suspiciously open and
A
nobody from the house was responding to the calls. Kishan
Singh (PW-35) who was the Station House Officer of the Police
Station Phalodi, reached the house alongwith some other
police personnel. They found that Ramlal and his wife Shanti
Devi were lying dead in the pool of blood. The FIR by Anil (PWB
1) was recorded and the investigation was commenced for
offences under Sections 302 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter called "the IPC" for short). The necessary spot
panchnamas were executed and the Material Objects found on
the scene were seized. It was found that both the deceased c
persons had human hair in their hands. There was a bloodstained needle and syringe found near the dead body of Shanti
Devi. Some other materials were collected from the spot to find
out the finger prints. The clothes of the deceased persons were
also seized. On suspicion, the accused persons were arrested.
D
One other accused Rajesh (original accused No. 4) was also
arrested. He stands acquitted by the Courts below. The
accused persons gave information under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act and the clothes that they were wearing at
the time of incident and their shoes were recovered. The
E
ornaments stolen from the house of Ramlal were also
recovered. Their hair were also taken for comparing with the
sample of hairs founded at the scene of occurrence. The
instrument used for melting ornaments was found at the house
of Rajesh (A-4), which was allegedly stolen from the house of
F
deceased Ramlal. The materials were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL), Jaipur/Jodhpur and the reports were
obtained. On the completion of investigation, the chargesheet
was filed against four persons.
4. Case of the prosecution is that Gordhan Lal (A-1) had
G
some dealings with Ramlal (deceased) which was evident from
the diary found from the pocket of Ramlal. The prosecution
alleged that Gordhan Lal (A-1), therefore, decided to commit
a robbery at the place of Ramlal, who was a rich person, and
conspired with the other accused persons, namely, Bharat
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A Kumar @ Bhatia (A-2), Ramesh @ Guguda (A-3) and Rajesh
(A-4). They trespassed into the house o(Ramlal by night and
looted the house and decamped with the looted ornaments of
silver and gold, cash and other articles. It is alleged by the
prosecution that certain stolen gold ornaments were melted at
B the house of Rajesh (A-4) and converted into a nugget (Dhalia).
Ramesh (A-3) and Bharat Kumar (A-2) had past criminal
background. They were involved in number of criminal cases
for offences such as attempt to murder, house trespass, looting
etc. The murder weapon 'Jharbad' was recovered from
c Ramesh (A-3). The chargesheet was filed for offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 404, 414, 457,
460/34 of the IPC as also for the offence punishable under
Section 4/25 of the Arms Act against Ramesh (A-3). The
evidence was led and as many as 35 witnesses came to be
0 examined in support of the charge. Prosecution relied on 132
documents and also produced 105 articles (M.Os.).
5. The defence was that of denial and false implication. In
addition to that, accused Ramesh claimed that at the time of
incident, he was taking part in a Jagran in Pali. Four defence
E witnesses came to be examined by Ramesh (A-3) while
Gordhan Lal (A-1) produced one witness. The accused
persons also filed a few documents. The defence did not
prevail in case of the present appellants as also Rajesh (A-4).
Against Ramesh (A-3), the case was treated to be the rarest
F of rare case. Ramesh (A-3) was ordered to be hanged. He was
also convicted for other offences punishable under
Sections120-B, 457, 302, 379, 404, 201 of the IPC. On the first
two counts, he was awarded 5 years' rigorous imprisonment
and on the others, 1 year's rigorous imprisonment consecutively
G with fine of Rs.500/- on each count. He was also convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 5/25 of the Arms Act and
was sentenced with 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.500/-. Gordhan Lal (A-1) and Bharat Kumar@ Bhatia (A2) were convicted with the aid of Section 34, IPC but were
H spared by ordering them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
•
RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
603
[V.S SIRPURKAR, J.]
On the other counts, the identical punishment, as was awarded
A
to Ramesh (A-3), was awarded to them. Rajesh (A-4) was
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 404
and 414 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo 5 years'
rigorous imprisonment on the first count and 1 year's rigorous
imprisonment on the other counts with fine of Rs.500/- on each
count. Reference was made to the High Court for confirmation
B
of the death sentence of Ramesh (A-3) while the accused
persons also filed their appeals. The appeals filed by the
present three appellants and Rajesh (A-4) were dismissed by
the High Court and the sentences were also confirmed. The c
present appellants have challenged the judgment of the High
Court; however, Rajesh (A-4) has not come before us. The
reference was answered in affirmative and the High Court
confirmed the death sentence in case of Ramesh (A-3) and that
is how the matters have come up before us.
D
6. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Ramesh (A-~) submitted that, in the first place, there
was no evidence to establish theft at the house of the deceased
persons and, therefore, there was no question of any motive.
The learned counsel also urged that there was no evidence to
E
show that the articles alleged to have been recovered from the
appellant Ramesh were belonging to or otherwise in
possession of the deceased persons before their death. The
learned counsel pointed out that the arrest and recoveries
made from the appellants are doubtful since there are
F
discrepancies in respect of the date, time and place of the
arrest and recoveries made. The learned counsel also urged
that the prosecution also could not connect the accused
persons with the crime on the basis of FSL reports regarding
the blood. Even in respect of the weapon, the learned counsel
G
pointed out that the recovery of the murder weapon itself was
doubtful. Lastly, the learned counsel urged that at any rate, it
was not the rarest of rare case and as such the death sentence
was not justified. Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel
and Shri Anis Ahmed Khan, learned counsel contended on
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A behalf of Bharat Kumar @ Bhatia (A-2) that the evidence of
recovery of clothes and shoes of Bharat Kumar @ Bhatia (A2) was suspicious and discrepant. They also attacked the
alleged recovery of silver and gold ornaments at the instance
of this accused. They pointed out that the FSL report was of
B no consequence against this accused. Similar is the contention
raised by Shri M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Gordhan Lal (A-1). Shri Lahoty pointed out that there was
nothing incriminating found against this accused and that the
so-called recoveries were farcical and inconsequential. The
c learned counsel further pointed out that this accused could not
be booked on the basis of the FSL reports.
7. All the learned counsel pointed out that the quality of
investigation was extremely poor and it was a pre-determined
investigation. All the learned counsel, therefore, prayed for
D rebuttal.
8. As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State, supported the judgment while p'ointing out that though
this was a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
E prosecution had fully proved the incriminating circumstances
like the recovery of ornaments stolen from the house of Ramlal,
their identification and the fact that the accused persons were
found in possession of the stolen articles almost immediately
after the crime and, therefore, the prosecution could use the
F presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
learned counsel also pointed out that the prosecution had
proved that Rajesh, the fourth conspirator, was a receiver of
stolen property and had helped in melting of some of the gold
items with the machines removed from the house of Ramlal
G (deceased). It was also pointed out that Gordhan Lal (A-1) was
aware of sound financial condition of Ramlal as he was dealing
with Ramlal which was clear from the diary found from the
pocket of Ramlal's body. The learned counsel also pointed out
that there were some clinching circumstances in the
prosecution evidence which established that all the four
H
•
•
RAMESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
605
[V.S SIRPURKAR, J.]
accused persons were working hand-in-glove and had entered
A
into conspiracy to commit robbery at Ramlal's place. The
learned counsel, therefore, urged that the accused would be
answerable to the charge of murder as they not only had
conspired, but had also developed a common intention to
commit that crime and had actually committed the crime of
B
robbery and in that process had committed murder of two
innocent persons.
9. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State urged that this was undoubtedly the rarest
of rare case, where the accused persons had committed the
C
murder for their avarice with pre-planned mind and in cold
blood. The learned counsel, therefore, justified the death
sentence in case of Ramesh (A-3) and life imprisonment in
respect of other accused persons.
D
10. Before we proceed with the matter, it has to be borne
in mind that this case:depends upon circumstantial evidence
and, as such as, per,the settled law, every circumstance would
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and further the
chain of circumstances should be so complete and perfect that
E
the only inference of the guilt of the accused should emanate
therefrom. At the same time, there should be no possibility
whatsoever of the defence version being true. Both the Courts
below have held that such circumstances are proved by the
prosecution and that the only inference flowing therefrom would
F
be that of the guilt on the part of the three accused persons.
The scope for interference in factual findings by this Court is
very limited. This Court would, under such circumstances,
. examine whether the findings are pervert or impossible. Again,
this is not a case of a single accused, and, therefore, the
incriminating circumstances would have to be individually
G
weighed vis-a-vis each accused and it would have to be seen
as to whether such examination justifies the conviction of the
accused as ordered by the Trial Court and the appellate Court.
11.