'Case Not Satisfy Requirements For Awarding Extreme Death Penalty', Rajasthan HC Commutes Capital Punishment of 4 Accused To Life Imprisonment

The court ordered that the capital punishment awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court is commuted to life imprisonment, which shall enure till the natural life of the accused appellants without any possibility of permanent parole/premature release.

Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while partly allowing the appeal, observed,

"However, the conduct of the accused, who attacked the entire family of Mr. Moman Ram with clear intention of eliminating them owing to the long-standing land dispute requires appropriate directions on the aspect of sentence of imprisonment. If the accused are permitted to roam at large without suffering the "imprisonment for life" in its literal meaning, they would in all likelihood eliminate the remaining family members as well if set at liberty. Hence, the capital punishment awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court is commuted to life imprisonment, which shall enure till the natural life of the accused appellants without any possibility of permanent parole/premature release."

Facts

The family members of Kailash and the accused consisting of Aatma Ram, Leeladhar, Omprakash, Pawan, Rakesh and Sharvan were embroiled in an ongoing land dispute. On 13.10.2013, Kailash, his father Bhanwar Lal and brother Pankaj were harvesting Gwar crop in their field. The accused appellants, Pawan, Rakesh and 2-3 unknown persons armed with lathis and axes arrived there on a tractor and launched an assault and as a result, Kailash's father and his brother expired at the spot. The assailants assaulted Kailash and poured some strong irritant liquid substance in his eyes, due to which, he completely lost his vision.

Thereafter, at Kailash's residence, assailants attacked his grandfather and sister with lathis and axes, due to which, the grandfather expired and the latter got injured. His mother locked herself inside the room; otherwise, she too would have been killed. He received injuries on his left hand, left arm and both legs and had lost vision of both eyes because of assault made by the accused persons. Later, FIR was registered under Sections 302, 307, 452, 447, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC. Two accused Pawan Kumar and Rakesh could not be apprehended and are still at large and hence, the investigation is still open to their extent.

The present reference and appeal arise out of the the judgment passed by the trial court which awarded capital punishment to the accused appellants and also imposed fine.

Observations By Court

The court confirmed the conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 147, 148, 452, 447 and 323/149 IPC, and turned down the reference for confirmation of death sentence.

It was opined by the court that ex facie, the case at hand does not satisfy the requirements for awarding the extreme death penalty,.although the trial court has undertaken a superficial exercise of trying to assess the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Further, the court observed that reformative theory has to be given precedence over capital punishment, which should be considered a last resort. The court noted that in the present case, the accused appellants have remained in custody for nearly 9 years. For affirming the death sentence, the court would be required to collect material regarding conduct of the accused while in prison to assess whether they have displayed behaviour indicating signs of reformation, added the court. The court also noted that award of extreme penalty of death without undertaking such exercise is impermissible as per Supreme Court guidelines.

After perusal of the medical evidence, the court ruled that the resultant injuries were very grave and the individual effect of some injuries and the cumulative effect of all combined was sufficient in the ordinary nature to cause death of the four victims. Thus, the court held that necessary ingredients required to bring home the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are proved beyond all manner of doubt.

It was observed by the court that the prosecution has without any doubt given unimpeachable evidence establishing active participation of more than five persons in the assault. Hence, the court turned down the argument regarding non-applicability of Section 149 IPC on account of the number of accused persons being less than five as totally frivolous.

On the argument of unfair investigation, lacunae in investigation and unreliable recoveries raised by the appellants, the court opined that prosecution has failed to lead proper evidence to prove the sanctity and safekeeping of the Mudda Maal articles. The court pursued the entries made in Malkhana register and observed that there has been serious bungling in the manner in which the Malkhana articles were handled by the concerned police officials. Thus, the FSL report loses significance and cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons, added the court.

Furthermore, the court observed that the plea of alibi by the appellants is nothing but an afterthought, which has been put forth for the first time when cross-examination was carried out from the Investigating Officer after many years of incident. The court noted that it is a well-settled proposition of law that a plea of alibi is a very weak plea and has to be proved by leading unimpeachable evidence.

However, the court opined that other than a bald suggestion to the Investigating Officer and a weak belated plea in the statement under Section 313 CrPC, the defence did not lead any evidence whatsoever to prove this apparently frivolous plea of alibi. Hence, in face of positive convincing evidence of the witnesses, the cooked up plea of alibi has no legs to stand whatsoever and is fit to be discarded, added the court.

Case Title: State, Through PP v. Atmaram & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 118