# RAMNARESH & ORS v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

- **Citation:** [2012] 3 S.C.R. 630
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-02-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 166-167 of 2010
- **Bench:** A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramnaresh-ors-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-28318
- **Pages:** 56

## Headnote

PENAL CODE, 1860: ss.302, 376(2)(g}, 499 - Rape and
murder - Four accused - A/legation against the accused that
C they raped victim-deceased and thereafter strangulated her
to death - Testimony of servant aged 16 years (PW6) who was
present at the time of incident and was threatened by the
accused not to tell anyone about· the incident - Conviction u/
ss. 302, · 376(2)(g), 499 based on testimony of PW6 and award
D of death sentence -
On appeal, held: There was no
contradiction in the testimony of PW6 - His statement was fully
corroborated by medical evidence - Both the external and
internal injuries that the deceased suffered as a consequence
of rape and the strangulation clearly indicated that the crime
E could not have been committed by a single person - Once
that possibility is ruled out, testimony of PW6, despite he
being the sole eye-witness, need not be doubted -
In
statement made u/s.313, CrPC accused denied their presence
on the spot, at the time of occurrence - Thus, it was for them
F to prove that they were not present at the place of occurrence
and were entitled to plea of alibi - They miserably failed to
establish this fact - Delay in lodging FIR duly explained -
The cumulative effect of the oral/documentary and expert
evidence was that the prosecution was able to prove its case
beyond any reasonable. doubt - The accused were guilty of
G committing the offence ulss. 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 - As
regard sentencing, the possibility of their being reformed not
ruled 'out - Considering the age of the accused, possibility of
· the death of the deceased occurring accidently and the
H
630
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 631
possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they cannot A
be termed as 'social menace' - All these accused committed
a heinous and inhuman.e crime for satisfaction of their lust,
but it cannot be held with certainty that the case fell in the
'rarest of rare' cases - Accordingly, the sentence of death
commuted to that for life imprisonment (21 years).
B
SENTENCE/SENTENCING: Sentencing policy -
Guiding principles - Death sentence and principles governing
its conversion to life sentence - Held: The law requires Courts
to record special r~asons for awarding death sentence - Court C
has to consider matters like nature of the offence, how and
under what circumstances it was committed, the extent of
brutality with which the offence was committed, the motive for
the offence, any provocative or aggravating circumstances at
the time of commission of the crime, the possibility of the
convict being reformed or rehabilitated, adequacy of the D
sentence of life imprisonment and other attendant
circumstances - These factors cannot be similar or identical
in any two given cases - Thus, it is imperative for the Court
to examine each case on its own facts, in light of the
enunciated principles - It is only upon application of these E
principles to the facts of a given case that the Court can arrive
at a final conclusion whether the case is one of the 'rarest of
rare' cases and imposition of death penalty alone shall serve
the ends of justice - Both aspects have to be given their
respective weightage - The Court has to strike a balance F
between the two and see towards which side the scale/balance
of justice tilts - The principle of proportion between the crime
and the punishment is the principle of Just deserts' that serves
as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable
- In other words, the 'doctrine of proportionality' has a valuable G
application to the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal
jurisprudence - Thus, the court will not only have to examine
what is just but also as to what the accused deserves keeping
in view the impact on the society at large - Every punishment
imposed is bound to have its effect not only on the accused H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
A
alone, but also on the society as a whole - Thus, the Courts
should consider retributive and deterrent a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,945 of 103,978. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39945 for what follows._

A
B
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 630
RAMNARESH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 166-167 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)
PENAL CODE, 1860: ss.302, 376(2)(g}, 499 - Rape and
murder - Four accused - A/legation against the accused that
C they raped victim-deceased and thereafter strangulated her
to death - Testimony of servant aged 16 years (PW6) who was
present at the time of incident and was threatened by the
accused not to tell anyone about· the incident - Conviction u/
ss. 302, · 376(2)(g), 499 based on testimony of PW6 and award
D of death sentence -
On appeal, held: There was no
contradiction in the testimony of PW6 - His statement was fully
corroborated by medical evidence - Both the external and
internal injuries that the deceased suffered as a consequence
of rape and the strangulation clearly indicated that the crime
E could not have been committed by a single person - Once
that possibility is ruled out, testimony of PW6, despite he
being the sole eye-witness, need not be doubted -
In
statement made u/s.313, CrPC accused denied their presence
on the spot, at the time of occurrence - Thus, it was for them
F to prove that they were not present at the place of occurrence
and were entitled to plea of alibi - They miserably failed to
establish this fact - Delay in lodging FIR duly explained -
The cumulative effect of the oral/documentary and expert
evidence was that the prosecution was able to prove its case
beyond any reasonable. doubt - The accused were guilty of
G committing the offence ulss. 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 - As
regard sentencing, the possibility of their being reformed not
ruled 'out - Considering the age of the accused, possibility of
· the death of the deceased occurring accidently and the
H
630
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 631
possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they cannot A
be termed as 'social menace' - All these accused committed
a heinous and inhuman.e crime for satisfaction of their lust,
but it cannot be held with certainty that the case fell in the
'rarest of rare' cases - Accordingly, the sentence of death
commuted to that for life imprisonment (21 years).
B
SENTENCE/SENTENCING: Sentencing policy -
Guiding principles - Death sentence and principles governing
its conversion to life sentence - Held: The law requires Courts
to record special r~asons for awarding death sentence - Court C
has to consider matters like nature of the offence, how and
under what circumstances it was committed, the extent of
brutality with which the offence was committed, the motive for
the offence, any provocative or aggravating circumstances at
the time of commission of the crime, the possibility of the
convict being reformed or rehabilitated, adequacy of the D
sentence of life imprisonment and other attendant
circumstances - These factors cannot be similar or identical
in any two given cases - Thus, it is imperative for the Court
to examine each case on its own facts, in light of the
enunciated principles - It is only upon application of these E
principles to the facts of a given case that the Court can arrive
at a final conclusion whether the case is one of the 'rarest of
rare' cases and imposition of death penalty alone shall serve
the ends of justice - Both aspects have to be given their
respective weightage - The Court has to strike a balance F
between the two and see towards which side the scale/balance
of justice tilts - The principle of proportion between the crime
and the punishment is the principle of Just deserts' that serves
as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable
- In other words, the 'doctrine of proportionality' has a valuable G
application to the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal
jurisprudence - Thus, the court will not only have to examine
what is just but also as to what the accused deserves keeping
in view the impact on the society at large - Every punishment
imposed is bound to have its effect not only on the accused H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
A
alone, but also on the society as a whole - Thus, the Courts
should consider retributive and deterrent aspect of
punishment while imposing the extreme punishment of death.
B
WITNESSES: Sole witness - TestimonY of - Evidentiary
value of - Discussed.
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the
victim-deceased was sleeping in her house. PW-6, the
servant aged 16 years was watching television in .the
verandah. All the accused came to her house. One of the
C accused was the brother of PW-1 (the husband of the
deceased). PW-1 was not in the house. Two accused sat
with PW6 and the other two accused went inside the
room where the deceased was sleeping and committed
rape on her, After committing rape, they came out and sat
o · with PW6 and the other two accused went inside and
committed rape on her. The accused asked PW6 to go
away to which he objected. Upon his objection, he was
threatened of elimination. Thereafter PW6 went to the
room of the deceased and saw that she was breathing
E heavily and was not able to speak and blood was oozing
out from her mouth. PW6 came out and he was again
threatened by all the accused. Thereafter all the accused
asked PW6 to go to the mother of the deceased (PW12)
and tell her that the deceased was not waking up. PW6
F went to PW12 and narrated the incident as directed by
the accused. PW12 went to the house of the deceased
where she found the deceased lying dead. She called the
neighbours and thereafter, information was given to PW1,
husband of the deceased. PW1 stated in his statement
under·Section 161, Cr.P.C. that PW6 had not told him as
G to how the deceased had died. In his statement, he had
also stated that he had not married the deceased and she
was staying with him as his mistress and the deceased
was married to one 'B'. He also stated that he suspected
'B' of committing the said crime. The other witnesses, i.e.
H PW2, PWS and PW10, had seen the accused-brother of
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 633
PW1 and the other accused assembling outside the A
house of the deceased became hostile during their
examination before the court. The trial court convicted the
four accused (the appellants), for offences under
Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 read with Section 34, IPC
and passed death sentence. The High Court upheld the B
conviction and the sentence. The instant appeal was filed
challenging the order of the High Court.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. PW6 who was the main witness of the C
prosecution, was about 16 years old at the time of
recording of his statement in the Court. He fully supported
the case of the prosecution and was subjected to a
lengthy cross-examination. PW12 was the mother of the
deceased and she corroborated the statement of PW6. o
PW1, PW6 and PW12 substantially supported the case of
the prosecution and there was no substantial conflict or
contradiction in their statements. The report of the FSL
was inconclusive but not negative so as to provide the
accused with any material benefit. [Paras 7, 9, 10, 11) E
[653-F; 654-C-E; 655-B-C]
Joseph v. State of Kera/a (2003) 1 SCC 465: 2002 (4)
Suppl. SCR 439; State of Haryana v. lnder Singh & Ors.
(2002) 9 sec 537 - referred to.
F
2. One very important aspect of the instant case was
that the accused were not declared accused
instantaneously. PW6 was kept in the Police Station for
two days apparently for the purposes of verifying and
investigating what he informed the police. The needle of G
suspicion pointed towards PW6 and 'B' for the reason
that 'B' was earlier married to the deceased and PW6 with
reference to the circumstances in existence at the spot
and he being the only person available. The possibility
of PW6 having committed the crime is ruled out in view H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S,C.R.
A of the evidence collected during the investigation. It was
nobody's case that there was even an iota of evidence
pointing towards '8' for commission of such an offence.
[Paras 12, 13] [655-C-B, H; 656-A]
8
3. It is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses
which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of
the accused. The testimony of a sole witness must be
confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion and should
not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to
be corroborated by other evidence produced by the
C prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and
involvement of the accused in committing such a crime.
In the instant case, PW6, at the time of occurrence and
even at the time of recording of the statement, was a
young boy of 16 years. He had been serving in the house
D of PW1, for a number of years prior to the date of incident.
It was his regular feature to have his meals as well as
sleep in the verandah of the house of PW1. There existed
no motive for him to commit the crime. He was kept under
continuous threat to his life right from the time the
E accused entered the house of the deceased till the
accused were taken in· police custody after re.cording
evidence of various persons, more importantly, PW1,
PW12, PW6 and PW7. His statement clearly narrated how
the offence was committed by the accused and there was
F nothing abnormal and inconsistent in his testimony.
Furthermore, his statement was fully corroborated by
medical evidence of PW7 and the testimony of PW12. The
confirmation of blood on the piece of saree used for
gagging the mouth of the deceased and the confirmation
G of presence of semen and human spermatozoa on the
vaginal slides of the deceased and the findings during
autopsy duly proved by PW7 and the corroboration of
other witnesses including that of the Investigating Officer
would leave no room for any doubt that the appellants
H had committed house trespass in the house of the
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 635
deceased and committed the offence with which they A
were charged. A very significant piece of evidence in the
instant case was the medical evidence and the injuries
inflicted upon the body of the deceased. Both, the
external and internal injuries that the deceased suffered
as a consequence of rape and the strangulation clearly B
indicated that the crime could not have been committed
by a single person. Once that. possibility is ruled out, it
· would attach greater reliability to the testimony of PW6.
Thus, the statement of PW6, despite he being the sole
eye-witness, need not be doubted. [Paras 14, 15, 16] [656- c
G; 657-8-H; 658-A-B]
State of Gujarat v. Patel Mohan Mu/ji AIR 1994 SC 250
- distinguished.
4. There were four or five prosecution witnesses who D
had been declared hostile during the course of hearing
of the trial. These witnesses were not the witnesses to the
scene of crime. They were witnesses only to support the
fact that the accused persons were seen together near
the house of the deceased after all others had gone to E
their respective houses, after watching television at the
house of the deceased. This fact is not the determinative
factor and does not demolish the case of the prosecution
in its entirety or otherwise. The presence of the accusedbrother of PW1 at the house of the deceased immediately F
after the occurrence and trying to keep a watch on PW6
clearly showed that the most likely and truthful witness
in the case of the prosecution was PW6. PW6 had
withstood the long cross-examination despite his young
age, the threat extended to him by the accused and being G
the sole eye-witness of such a heinous crime. It goes to
the credit of this witness that despite the fact that other
·five witnesses had turned hostile being the person of the
village, he nevertheless stood to his testimony. [Para 17]
[658-F-H; 659-A-C]
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
A
5. The occurrence took place at about 11 p.m. at
night in a village area where normally by this time, people
go to their respective houses and stay inside thereafter.
After committing the rape on the deceased and her
subsequent death which itself took a considerable time,
B the accused persons remained in the house for some
time. Thereafter, they made it sure that PW6 goes to the
house ·of PW12 and tells her incorrectly and without
disclosing the true facts that the deceased was not
waking up despite efforts, which he did and this fact was
c fully established by the statement of PW12. In the
meanwhile, the news had spread and one 'A' rung up
PW1 who came to the spot of occurrence. After seeing
his wife in that horrible condition and doubting that 'B'
might have committed the crime since by that time PW6
0
had not told him the correct story, he went to the Police
Station and lodged the FIR. Police registered the FIR
under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. Thus, there was
plausible explanation available on record of the case file
which explained the delay in lodging the FIR. [Para 18]
E [659-D-G]
6. Exhibit P/12 was the post mortem report which
depicted various external and internal injuries on the
body of the deceased. The cause of death of the
deceased was asphyxia due to throttling. As per the post
F
mortem report, petechial hemorrhage of lungs was
present, the right side of heart was filled with blood while
the left chamber was empty and bloody froth was oozing
from nostrils and mouth of the deceased. The expert
evidence. clearly demonstrated, particularly in view of the
G injuries caused to the deceased during the heinous
crime, that it could not have been done by a single
person and, therefore, involvement of two or more
persons was most probable and in line with the story of
the prosecution. The cumulative effect of the oral/
H documentary and expert evidence was that the
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 637
prosecution was able to prove its case beyond any
A
reasonable doubt. [Para 19) [661-A-E]
7 .1. It was a case where not only the entire
incriminating material evidence was put to the accused
while they were being examined under Section 313
8
Cr.P.C. but also that the accused examined two
witnesses DW1, and DW2, wife of accused-brother of
PW1. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they
had taken the stand that they were not present at the
place of occurrence but, in fact, they were present in their C
respective houses and as such they were falsely
implicated. The two witnesses were examined in support
of this fact. DW1 stated that he lived near the house of
the deceased and he_ did not hear any noise or cries on
the fateful night. The cross examination of these two
witness~s clearly created a doubt in regard to the D
authenticity of their statements. Firstly, as per the version
of the prosecution and as is even clear from the medical
evidence, the mouth of deceased had been gagged.
Therefore, the question of hearing any noise or
screaming would not arise and, secondly, DW2 is the wife
E
of the accused and is bound to speak in his favour as
an interested witness. Furthermore, both these witnesses
had not informed the Police during the course of
investigation and even when the accused were arrested
that they had been present at their respective houses and
F
not at the place of occurrence. In fact, this has not even
been the suggestion of the defence while crossexamining the prosecution witnesses. [Para 20] [661-FH; 662-B-D]
7.2. In terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has
the freedom to maintain silence during the investigation
as well as before the Court. The accused may choose to
maintain silence or complete denial even when his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is being recorded,
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
A of course, the Court would be entitled to draw an
inference, including adverse inference, as may be
permissible to it in accordance with law. Right to fair trial,
presumption of innocence unless proven guilty and proof
by the prosecution of its case beyond any reasonable
B doubt are the fundamentals of our criminal jurisprudence.
When speaking of prejudice to an accused, it has to be
shown that the accused has suffered some disability or
detriment in relation to any of these protections
substantially. Such prejudice should also demonstrate
c that it has occasioned failure of justice to the accused.
One of the other cardinal principles of criminal justice
administration is that the courts should make a close
examination to ascertain whether there was really a
failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage, as
0 this expression is perhaps too pliable. [para 21] [662-EH; 663-A]
Rafiq Ahmed@ Rafi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 8
sec 300 - relied on.
E
7.3. It is a settled principle of law that the obligation
to put material evidence to the.accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C. is upon the Court. One of the main objects of
recording of a statement under this provision of the
Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain
F the circumstances appearing against him as well as to
put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But
once he does not avail this opportunity, then
consequences in law must follow. Where the accused
takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made
G under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in so far as it supports the
case of the prosecution, can be used against him for
rendering conviction. Even under the latter, he faces the
consequences in law. In the instant case, the accused
have denied their presence on the spot, at the time of
occurrence. Thus, it was for them to prove that they were
H not present at the place of occurrence and were entitled
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 639
to plea of alibi. They miserably failed to establish this fact. A
On the contrary, the behaviour explained by the defence
witnesses appeared to be somewhat unnatural in the
social set up in which the accused, the deceased and
even some of the prosecution witnesses were living. They
knew each other very well and the normal course of life B
in a village is that they are quite concerned with and
actively participate in each other's affairs, particularly sad
occasions. The accused brother of PW1, was present at
the place of occurrence and was holding one of the minor
children of PW1. This supported th.e statement of PW6 c
that he was constantly under threat and watch from either
of the accused. The version put forward by the accused
in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
unbelievable and unacceptable. There was no cogent
evidence on record to support their plea. The prosecution 0
was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused were guilty of committing the offence under
Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 IPC. [Paras 22-24] [663B-G; 664-A]
8.1. The death sentence and principles governing its E
conversion to life imprisonment
Despite the transformation of approach and radical
changes in principles of sentencing across the world, it
has not been possible to put to rest the conflicting views
F
on sentencing policy. The sentencing policy being a
significant and
inseparable facet of criminal
jurisprudence, has been inviting the attention of the
Courts for providing certainty and greater clarity to it.
Capital punishment has been a subject matter of great G
social and judicial discussion and castacism. From
whatever point of view it is examined, one undisputable
statement of law follows that it is neither possible nor
prudent to state any universal formula which would be
applicable to all the cases of criminology where capital
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012} 3 S.C.R.
A punishment has been prescribed. It shall always depend
upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. This
Court has stated various legal principles which would be
precepts on exercise of judicial discretion in cases where
the issue is whether the capital punishment should or
B should not be awarded. The law requires the Court to
record special reasons for awarding such sentence. The
Court, therefore, has to consider matters like nature of the
offence, how and under what circumstances it was
committed, the extent of brutality with which the offence
C was committed, the motive for the offence, any
provocative or aggravating circumstances at the time of
commission of the crime, the possibility of the convict
being reformed or rehabilitated, adequacy of the
sentence of life imprisonment and other attendant
0
circumstances. These factors cannot be similar or
identical in any two given cases. Thus, it is imperative for
the Court to examine each case on its own facts, in light
of the enunciated principles. It is only upon application
of these principles to the facts of a given case that the
Court can arrive at a final conclusion whether the case
E in hand is one of the 'rarest of rare' cases and imposition
of death penalty alone shall serve the ends of justice.
Further, the Court would also keep in mind that if such a
punishment alone would serve the purpose of the
judgment, in its being sufficiently punitive and
F purposefully preventive. [Paras 25-26] [664-8-H; 665-A-B]
8.2. Merely because a crime is heinous per se may
not be a sufficient reason for the imposition of death
penalty without reference to the other factors and
G attendant circumstances. Most of the heinous crimes
under. the IPC are punishable by death penalty or life
imprisonment. That by .itself does not suggest that in all
such offences, penalty of death alone should be
awarded. In such cases awarding of life imprisonment
H would be a rule, while 'death' would be the exception .. The
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 641
term 'rarest of rare' case which is the consistent A
· determinative rule declared by this Court, itself suggests
that it has to be an exceptional case. The life of a
particular individual cannot be taken away except
according to the procedure established by law and that
is the constitutional mandate. The law contemplates B
recording of special reasons and, therefore, the
expression 'special' has tO be given a definite meaning
and connotation. 'Special reasons' in contra-distinction
to 'reasons' simplicitor conveys the legislative mandate
of putting a restriction on exercise of judicial discretion c
by placing the requirement of special.reasons. [Paras 3637] [677-B-E]
8.3. The judgments in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh
primarily dissect the principles into two different
compartments
-
one
being
the
'aggravating D
circumstances' while the other being the 'mitigating
circumstances'. The Court would consider the cumulative
effect of both these aspects and normally, it may not be
very appropriate for the Court to decide the most
significant aspect of sentencing policy with reference to E
one of the classes under any of the following heads while
completely ignoring other classes under other heads. To
balance the two is the primary duty of the Court. It will be
. appropriate for the Court to come to a final conclusion
upon balancing the exercise that would help to administer F
the criminal justice system better and provide an effective
and meaningful reasoning by the Court as contemplated
under Section 354(3) Cr.P.C.
Aggravating Circumstances :
(1) The offences relating to the commission of
heinous crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity,
kidnapping etc. by the accused with a prior record
of conviction for capital felony or offences committed
G
by the person having a substantial history of serious H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
A
assaults ancl criminal convictions. ·
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(2) The offence was committed while the offender
was engaged in the commission of another serious
offence.
(3) The offence was committed with the intention to
create a fear psychosis in the public at large and was
committed in a public place by a weapon or device
which clearly could be hazardous to the life of more
than one person.
(4) The offence of murder was committed for ransom
or like offences to recerve money or monetary
benefits.
(5) Hired killings.
(6) The offence was committed outrageously for want
only while involving inhumane treatment and torture
to the victim.
(7) The offence was committed by a person while in
lawful custody.
(8) The murder or the offence was committed to
prevent a person lawfully carrying out his duty like
arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement of
himself or another. For instance, murder is of a
person who had acted in lawful discharge of his duty
under Section 43 Cr.P.C.
(9) When the crime is enormous in proportion like
making an attempt of murder of the entire family or
members of a particular community.
(10)
When the victim is innocent, helpless or a
person relies upon the trust of relationship and social
norms, like a child, helpless woman, a daughter or a
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 643
niece staying with a father/uncle and is inflicted with A
the crime by such a trusted person.
(11) When murder is committed for a motive which
evidences total depravity and meanness.
(12) When there is a cold blooded murder without 8
provocation.
(13) The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks
or shocks not only the judicial conscience but even
the conscience of the society.
C
Mitigating Circumstances :
(1) The manner and circumstances in and under
which the offence was committed, for example,
extreme mental or emotional disturbance or extreme D
provocation in contradistinction to all these
situations in normal course.
(2) The age of the accused is a relevant consideration
but not a determinative factor by itself.
E
(3) The chances of the accused of not indulging in
commission of the crime again and the probability of
the accused being reformed and rehabilitated.
(4) The condition of the accused shows that he was
F
mentally defective and the defect impaired his
capacity to appreciate the circumstances of his
criminal conduct.
(5) The circumstances which, in normal course of life, G
would render such a behavior possible and could
. have the effect of giving rise to mental imbalance in
that given situation like persistent harassment or, in
fact, leading to such a peak of human behavior that,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the H
644
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
accused believed that he was morally justified in
committing the offence.
(6) Where the Court upon proper appreciation of
evidence is of the view that the crime was not
committed in a pre-ordained manner and that the
death resulted in the course of commission of
another crime and that there was a possibility of it
being construed as
consequences to the
commission of the primary crime.
(7) Where it is absolutely unsafe to rely upon the
testimony of a sole eye-witness though prosecution
has brought home the guilt of the accused .
. While determining the questions relateable to
sentencing policy, the Court has to follow certain
principles and those principles are the loadstar
besides the other considerations in imposition or
otherwise of the death sentence.
Principles :
(1) The Court has to apply the test to determine, if it
was the 'rarest of rare' case for imposition of a death
sentence.
(2) If in the opinion of the Court, imposition of any
other punishment, i.e., life imprisonment would be
completely inadequate and would not meet the ends
of justice.
(3) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence
is an exception.
(4) The option to impose sentence of imprisonment
for life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard
to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all
H
relevant considerations.
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 645
(5) The method (planned or otherwise) and the A
manner (extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in
which the crime was committed and the
circumstances leading to commission of such
heinous crime.
These are the accepted indicators for the exercise of 8
judicial discretion but it is always preferred not to fetter
the judicial discretion by attempting to make the
excessive enumeration, in one way or another. In other
words, these are the considerations which may
collectively or otherwise weigh in the mind of the Court, C
while exercising its jurisdiction. It is difficult to state it as
an absolute rule. Every case has to be decided on its own
merits. The judicial pronouncements, can only state the
precepts that may govern the exercise of judicial
discretion to a limited extent. Justice may be done on the D
facts of each case. These are the factors which the Court
may consider in its endeavour to do complete justice
between the parties. The Court then would draw a
balance-sheet
of
aggravating
and
mitigating
circumstances. Both aspects have to be given their E
respective weightage. The Court has to strike a balance
between the two and see towards which side the scale/
balance of justice tilts. The principle of proportion
between the crime and the punishment is the principle of
'just deserts' that serves as the foundation of every
F
criminal sentence that is justifiable. In other words, the
'doctrine of proportionality' has a valuable application to
the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal
jurisprudence. Thus, the court will not only have to
examine what is just but also as to what the accused G
deserves keeping in view the impact on the society at
large. Every punishment imposed is bound to have its
effect not only on the accused alone, but also on the
society as a whole. Thus, the Courts should consider
retributive and deterrent aspect of punishment while H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
A
imposing the extreme punishment of death. [paras 39-43]
[677-G-H; 678-A-H; 679-A-H; 680-A-H; 681-A-H; 682-A-D]
8.4. Wherever, the offence which is committed,
manner in which it is committed, its attendant
circumstances and the motive and status of the victim,
8
undoubtedly brings the case within the ambit of 'rarest
of .rare' cases and the Court finds that the imposition of
life imprisonment would be inflicting of inadequate
punishment, the Court may award death penalty.
Wherever, the case falls in any of the exceptions to the
C
'rarest of rare' cases, the Court may exercise its judicial
discretion while imposing life imprisonment in place of
death sentence. In the instant appeals, accused were
guilty of the offences under Sections 376(2)(g) and 302
read with Section 34 IPC. On the question of quantum of
D sentence, the argument raised on behalf of the appellants
was that all the accused were of young age at the time
of commission of the crime, i.e. 21 to 31 years of age. The
possibility of their being reformed cannot be ruled out.
The Court has to consider various parameters and
E
balance the mitigating circumstances against the need
for imposition of capital punishment. The factors to be
considered could be different than the mitigating
circumstances. The age of the accused, possibility of the
de.ath of the deceased occurring accidently and the
F
possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they
cannot be termed as 'social menace'. It is unfortunate but
a hard fact that all these accused have committed a
heinous and inhumane crime for satisfaction of their lust,
but it cannot be held with certainty that this case falls in
G the 'rarest of rare' cases. Accordingly, the sentence of
death is commuted to that for life imprisonment (21
years). [paras 44, 46, 49-50] [682-0-F, G-H; 683-A; 684-H;
685-A-D]
Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1983) 3 SCC
H 470: 1983 (3) SCR 413; Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana v.
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 647
State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220: 1994 (1) SCR 37;
A
Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 6 SCC 271: 1996 (6)
Suppl. SCR 783; Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
(2008) 4 SCC 434: 2008 (5) SCR 969; B.A. Umesh v.
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2011) 3 SCC 85:
2011 (2) SCR 367; State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
B
12 SCC 254: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 501; Atbir v. Government
of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1: 2010 (7) SCR 424; Ronny
@ Ronald James Alwaris Etc. v. State cf Maharashtra (1998)
3 SCC 625: 1998 (2) SCR 162; Allauddin Mian & Ors. v. State
of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5: 1989 (2) SCR 498; Bantu @ Naresh c
Giri v. State of MP. (2001) 9 SCC 615: 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR
298 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 439 referred to
Para 14
D
(2002) 9 sec 537
referred to
Para 14
AIR 1994 SC 250
Distinguished Para 17
(2011) 8 sec 300
relied on
Para 21
E
1983 (3) SCR 413
relied on
Para 28,
38,39
1994 (1) SCR 37
relied on
Para 29
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 783 relied on
Para 31
F
2008 (5) SCR 969
relied on
Para 32
2011 (2) SCR 367
relied on
Para 32
2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 501
relied on
Para 32
2010 (7) SCR 424
relied on
Para 32
G
1998 (2) SCR 162
relied on
Para 33
1989 (2) SCR 498
relied on
Para 34
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 298 relied on
Para 35
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 166-167 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.07.2009 of the High
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1117
8
of 2007 & Criminal Reference No. 3 of 2007.
Vias Upadhyay, Vikram Patralekh, B.S. Banthia for the
Appellants.
Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the
c Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The present appeals are
directed against the concurrent judgments of conviction and
D award of capital punishment. The Additional Sessions Judge,
Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, convicted the four accused (the
appellants herein), for offences under Sections 499, 376(2)(g)
and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'IPC') and sentenced them vide judgment and order
E
of sentence dated 20th November, 2007 as follows:
.
Offences
PunishmenUSentence
302/34 IPC
Award of capital sentence and ordered that
F
they be hanged till death.
376(2)(g) IPC
Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-
each. In case of default in the payment of
fine, each accused to further undergo an
additional rigorous imprisonment of one
G
month each.
449 IPC
Ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.200/- and in default to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment for one
H
month.
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 649
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
2. The Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment
A
dated 24th July, 2009 confirmed the judgment and order of
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
giving rise to the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia,
but primarily, has raised the 'following challenges to the
judgments under appeal:
(1)
That the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond any reasonable doubt.
(2)
That the sole witness, PW6, Dhaniram is not a
credible witness and, in fact, he himself falls within
B
c
the realm of suspicion as being an accused.
Number of other witnesses including, PW2, Sunita,
PW5, Bela Bai, and PW10, Kamlesh, turned hostile
0
in the court. This clearly is indicative of false
implication of the accused.
(3)
That there are variations and
serious
contradictions in the statements of the witnesses,
which have been relied upon by the courts, while
E
convicting the accused.
(4)
Furthermore, there is an inordinate and
unexplained delay in lodging the FIR Therefore, the
conviction of the accused is unsustainable. The
F
contention is that the linking evidence is missing
in the present case. The incriminating evidence
produced by the prosecution does not connect the
appellants with the commission of crime.
(5)
The High Court has erred in law in relying upon the
G
statement of the witnesses which are not reliable.
The courts are expected to examine statements of
such witnesses and/or sole witness cautiously. The
learned Trial Court as well as the High Court has·
failed to apply these settled principles correctly to
H
A
B
650
(6)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 3 S.C.R.
the facts of the present case.
FSL report does not clearly state or link the
appellants with the commission of the crime.
For these reasons and grounds, the appellant
claims acquittal.
4. Before we proceed to discuss the merits or otherwise
of the above contentions, it will be necessary for us to state the
case of the prosecution and the evidence on record. Rajkumari
c (the deceased) was residing at Village Gullidand, Police
Station Marwahi, with her husband lndrajeet and two infant
children. On 8th August, 2006, her husband had gone to the
house of his father at Rajnagar. Rajkumari was at her residence
with her children. On 9th August, 2006, Rajkumari had called
0
Dhaniram, their domestic servant, to sleep in their house in the
night. It was the day of Raksha Bandhan. Anita (PW3), Savita
(PW2) and Bela Bai (PW5), neighbours of Rajkumari, visited
her house to view television in the night. At about 9 o'clock, they
went back to their houses after viewing television. Ranjeet
E
Kewat, is the brother of lndrajeet and brother-in-law of
Rajkumari. He had a house near the house of lndrajeet.
Vishwanath, Amar Singh, Kamlesh and Ramnaresh, who used
to reside at the house of Ranjeet came to his house, sat there
for some time and then went away. At about 11.30 p.m., they
are stated to have again come to the house of Ranjeet and
F
consumed alcohol. Thereafter, at about 12 o'clock in the night,
when Rajkumari had gone to sleep in her room and the servant,
Dhaniram, was watching television in the verand~h, the
accused persons, Ranjeet, Vishwanath, Amar Singh and
Ramnaresh came into the house of Rajkumari and told
G Dhaniram that they would have illicit relations with Rajkumari
and if he disclosed anything to anybody, he would be eliminated.
Ramnaresh and Amar Singh sat down along with Dhaniram
while Ranjeet and Vishwanath went into the room of Rajkumari
and committed rape on her. After committing the offence, they
H
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 651
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
came out and took Dhaniram into the courtyard. Then
A
Ramnaresh and Amar Singh entered the room of Rajkumari.
They also committed rape on her and came out after some
time. Then, the accused asked Dhaniram to go away to which
he objected. Upon his objection, he was threatened of
elimination. Thereafter, Dhaniram went to the room of Rajkumari
B
and saw that she was breathing heavily, was not able to speak
and blood was oozing from her mouth and nose. Dhaniram
came out of the room and was again threatened by all the
accused. Ranjeet asked him to go to the house of his aunt
(bua), mother of Rajkumari and tell her that Rajkumari is not c
waking up. Before leaving, they extended the threat again and
told him to act as per their directions. Dhaniram went to the
house of Sugaribai, mother of Rajkumari, PW12 and narrated
the incident as he was directed by the accused. Sugaribai
asked him to stay at her house while she went to the house of 0
Rajkumari. There she noticed that Rajkumari was lying dead.
She called the neighbours and thereafter, the information was
given to lndrajeet, husband of the deceased, who came in the
morning. lndrajeet visited the Police Station Marwahi and
informed about the death of Rajkumari vide Ex.P1. The police
E
visited the spot and took the body of the deceased vide Ex.P3
and also collected other materials from the place of occurrence.
Dr. Sheela Saha and Dr. Mahesh Raj conducted the
postmortem of the dead body and submitted the postmortem
report, Ex.P12, wherein it was opined that death of Rajkumari
had taken place due to blockage of breathing on account of
F
strangulation and the act of commission of rape on her was also
established. The police registered a case under Section 376/
302 IPC vide Ex.P16 and started its investigation. Statements
of as many as 14 witnesses were recorded by the police.
Various items like blood stained underwear and piece of G
yellow-coloured saree on which blood spots were visible at
various places were also seized from the place of occurrence
and were exhibited as Ex.P10. Slide of semen of the accused
from the hospital was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P13.
Thereafter, the accused were arrested.