MAYAKAUR BALDEVSINGH SARDAR AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 752

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

MAYAKAUR BALDEVSINGH SARDAR AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.pdf

Judgment text

~ MAYAKAUR BALDEVSINGH SARDAR AND ANR. ' v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA OCTOBER 8, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND H. S. BEDI, JJ. ] ~- Penal Code, 1860-s. 302134-Prosecutionfor murder and attempt to murder-Members ofparentalfamily causing death ofthe members ofmatrimonialfamily ofthe injuredeye-l-Yitness-Motivefor the assault being eye-witness marrying a person.

from lower caste- Severe injuries sustained by the eye-witness-As per medical evidence she was under tremendous shock-Disclosure ofthe names ofthe accused after eight days ofthe incident-Arrest ofthe accused much before the disclosure-One ofthe accused not belonging to the parental family of the witness-Trial Court acquitting two accused and r-convicting six accused u/ss 302/J20B and 307IJ20B-Death sentence tofour and life imprisonment to two accused-In appeal difference of opinion between the judges ofDivision Bench ofHigh Court-After reference ofthe matter to thirdjudge, conviction unders 302134 and sentencefor life imprisonment-Appeal ofaccused as well as State- Held: One ofthe accused who did not belong to the accusedfamily acquitted, as in thefacts ofthe case his participation is doubtful-Rest ofthe accused liable to be convicted-Evidence ofthe eye-witness is 'r ,. ,.

trustworthy-Delay in disclosure ofthe names ofthe accused by her isjustified in view ofher relationship with the accusedand her mental condition-Common intention on the part ofthe accused is proved- In view ofthe facts ofthe case the case falls in the category ofrarest ofrare cases-However, in the peculiar circumstances ofthe case, life sentence is not reversed-Sentencing. J.... The accused persons in the present appeal were prosecuted for murder offour persons (deceased) and for attempt to murder PW- 1. Prosecution case was that PW-1 was the daughter ofaccused Nos. 1and8. She entered into secret marriage with one ofthe deceased. When she disclosed the same to her parents, it was not accepted as the deceased was from a lower caste and financially weak. PW-1 left her parental house and settled in her husband and in-laws house. PW-1 was repeatedly threatened by her parents and relatives. Accused No. 1 (mother) and accused No.

2 (maternal aunt) demanded PW-1, the ornaments which she was wearing when she left the house. On the day ofthe incident, PW-1 was informed that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come to visit her. They were invited to her room on first floor. There PW-1 handed over all the ornaments. She was told that her maternal uncle (accused No. 3) had also come to see her. In the meantime when husband ofPW. 1 (deceased) went to balcony for some work, he saw some persons with weapons hanging around suspiciously. Apprehending danger, he asked his brother (deceased) to call his friends. When his brother went out, soon thereafter returned with a patch ofblood. PW. 1 saw accused Nos. 3,4,5,6, 7 and 8 climbing the stairs armed with weapons. When from balcony, she shouted for help, somebody pushed her down and she fell on the ground floor. Sh. e went crawling to a neighbour, who informed the police. On the site, police found that husband, fatherin-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law ofPW 1 were killed.

FIR was registered. Trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 7 and 8. Rest ofthe accused were convicted u/ss. 302, 307 r/w s. 120B IPC. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to life imprisonment and accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were sentenced to death. In High court accused filed appeals and trial Judge made death reference. There was difference ofopinion between the two judges ofthe Division Bench, regarding death sentence and conviction of accused No. 5. Matter was referred to third judge, who ordered ~- acquittal ofthe accused u/s 302/120B, 307/120B and 307/34 IPC and directing their conviction u/s 302/34. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. Hence the two appeals, one by the accused against conviction, another by the State, praying for death sentence.

Accused persons contended that PW-1 the solitary eye-witness cannot be said to have seen the incident as she did not disclose the names ofthe accused till the 8th day from the date ofthe incident; that arrest ofaccused long before revelation ofthe same by PW 1 was suspicious; that in the facts of the case, common intention on the part ofthe accused did not exist; and that involvement ofaccused No. 5 was doubtful; that involvement of accused No. 3 was also suspect. ;. _- State contended that the accused were liable to be convicted; and that death penalty ought to be reimposed on the four accused. Partly allowing the appeals ofthe accused and dismissing that ofthe State, the Court HELD: 1. 1. PWl held no rancour or ill-will against her family and the manner in which murders had been engineered must have come as the rudest of shocks to her.

In the Circumstances of the case Sessions Judge as also the High Court have categorically found that she was both unwilling and unable to give her statement and it was only after she had recovered from her trauma and had also been provided with security by the police, that she had finally mustered courage and then spoken out. [Para 7] [763-C, F] 1. 2. There is no suspicious circumstance in the arrest of the accused long before the date when PWl had revealed the names of the accused for the reason that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who have admitted their presence and had also been seen by several witnesses, had been arrested before the disclosure of the names, itself and it was possible on their interrogation that the other accused bad been arrested subsequently. From the record it is also found that no question had been put to the Investigating Officer in this regard, as it is possible that ifhe had been questioned, he would have given a cogent explanation. [Para 8] [763-G, H; 764-A] 1. 3.

It cannot be said that if the names of the assailants were not revealed by a witness to the police at the earliest in point oftime amounted to unnatural conduct and no credence could be attached MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGH SARDARv. STATE 755 }- to the testimony of such a witness. In the present case PWl is stamped witness with grievous injuries caused in the same incident and as the assailants were her parental family and the victims, her husband, in laws and brother-in-law, her reluctance and inability to immediately come forth and to give a statement implicating them is not surprising. Her mental condition at that time was truly disturbed. The fact that she had named the accused for the first time after eight days ofthe incident therefore is not surprising and is, on the contrary, in line with the prosecution story. [Para 9] [764-B, D, E] Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi), [1975] 3 SCC 562 andAlil Mollah andAnr. v. State ofWB. (1996] 5 SCC 369, distinguished. 1. 4.

It cannot be said that the common intention on the part of the accused did not exist in the facts of the case as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 having left the place prior to the actual attack, points that they had come merely to persuade PWl . It has been admitted by both Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that they had been present in the house for the purpose ofrecovcring the ornaments and clothes from PWl but they had left soon after having received them. In view of the evidence ofPWsl and 4, it is apparent that the attack on the family had been pre-planned and duly executed with the clear common intention of all the accused to set things right in their perverted way of thinking, but only after the jewellery had been recovered. Itis also clear that a murderous attack had been made on PWl as well which was a culmination ofthe entire process ofthreat and intimidation that she had suffered atthe hands of her family.

There are no extenuating circumstances in favour of Accused Nos. 1and2. [Para 10] [764-F, G; 765-D, E] 1. 5. It cannot be said that the involvement ofAccused No. 3 was also suspect as his identity card which was said to be a corroborative ,. ). circumstance had apparently been planted by the investigators. In his statement under Section 313 ofthe Cr. P. C. he had asserted that the identity card in question was an old one and that a new card had been subsequently issued to him. The courts below have rightly held that his case that the old identity card had been surrendered at the time when the new one had been issued was not acceptable as the -( defence witnesses had nowhere stated that the old card had been taken back on the issuance ofa new one although, the normal custom in the office was that this exercise had been carried out. The courts have thus observed that there was no conclusive evidence placed by the defence that the old card had indeed been returned to the employers.

Moreover, in the light of the statement of PWl, his participation is also established beyond doubt. [Para 13) [766-C, D, E, F] 1. 6. There is some doubt as to participation ofAccused No. 5. Evidence of PW 1 with regard to his relationship with her family appears to be somewhat uncertain. She also admitted that his photograph had been shown to her before TI Parade. She had been called to identify him in the parade thereafter though she had not known his name at that point of time. Even the Panchnama with respect to the proceedings of the identification parade is not on record and the Executive Magistrate who conducted the parade has not been produced as a witness. Therefore, he is liable to be acquitted. [Paras 12 and 21) [766-A, B; 771-G] 2. 1. The efficacy or otherwise ofthe death penalty is a matter of much debate in legal circles - with two diametrically opposite views on the subject.

However, as the penal code visualizes the imposition ofthis penalty, the circumstances under which it should be imposed are also a matter ofdiscussion, the broad principle being its award in the rarest of rare cases. Undoubtedly also while categorizing a case the facts would predominate but the predilection ofa Judge, is a human factor (and a factor whose importance cannot be minimized) but as Judges applying the law one must also be alive to the needs ofsociety and the damage which can result ifa ghastly crime is not dealt with in an effective and proper manner. While Judges tend to be extremely harsh in dealing with murders committed on account ofreligious factors they tend to become more conservative and almost apologetic in the case of murders arising out ofcaste on the premise (as in this very case) that society should be given time so that the necessary change comes about in the ; MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDAR v. STATE 757 normal course.

Has this hands off approach led to the creation of the casteless utopia or even, a perceptible movement in that direction? The answer is an emphatic no as would be clear from mushrooming caste based organizations controlled and manipulated by self appointed Commissars who have arrogated to themselves the right to be the sole arbiters and defenders of their castes with the license to kill and maim to enforce their diktats and bring in line those who dare to deviate. Resultantly the idyllic situation that is perceived is as distant as ever. In this background is it appropriate to throw up hands in despair waiting ad infinitum or optimistically a millennium or two for the day when good sense would prevail by a normal evolutionary process or to help out by a push and a prod through the criminal justice system? There can be only one answer to this question. [Para 16] [767-B, C, D, E, F, G] 2. 2.

Strictly speaking the present case would fall within the parameters visualized in Bachan Singh 's and Machhi Singh 's cases. The diabolical nature of the crime and the murder of helpless - -y individuals committed with traditional weapons with extreme cruelty and pre-meditation is exacerbated by the fact that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come upstairs and recovered the jewellery and clothes from just before the actual murders. [Para 20] [771-D, E] Bachan Singh v. State ofPunjab, 180 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh vs. State ofPunjab, [1983] 3 SCC 470, relied on. .. " 2. 3. However, in the peculiar circumstances ofthe present case the Court is not inclined to reverse the life sentences awarded by the High Court and to re-impose the death penalty on the accused. [Para21] [771-E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1364-1366 of 2004. From the Common Judgment and Final Orders dated 26. 2. 2003, 25. 4. 20. 03 and 25. 7.

2003 ofthe High Court ofJudicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2002. \ WITH --'.. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1378-1380 and 1419-1421/2004. Vijay S: Kotwal, S. V. Kotwal, Sachindra B. Shetye, S. M. Jadhav, Rahul Joshi, Brijkishore Sah, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Sush. il Karanjkar and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the appearing parties. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. These appeals by special leave arise A. · out ofthe following facts. 2. Rajvinder Kaur (PWI) was the youngest daughter ofMaya Kaur and Baldev Singh Sardar. In addition to Rajvinder Kaur the couple had another daughter Sulakshana, and two sons Ranprit Singh and Amrit Singh and the entire family was residing in a small township near Panvel City on the outskirts ofMumbai.

While studying in school Rajvinder Kaur fell in love with Ravinder Singh and the relationship culminated in a secret marriage between the two, as Rajvinder's family did not approve ofthe 't-relationship on the premise that Ravinder Singh belonged to an inferior caste and was also financially weak. It appears that after Sulakshana's marriage, Baldev Singh and Maya Kaur decided that it was appropriate that Rajvinder Kaur too should be married off. A suitable boy was accordingly selected by them for her but before a final decision could be taken Rajvinder Kaur told the proposed bridegroom ofher love affair with Ravinder Singh. He nevertheless still agreed to the marriage. Faced with this difficult situation, Rajvinder Kaur informed her parents that she r. was already married with Ravinder Singh. This information caused consternation in her family and faced with hostility she left home and shifted in with her husband and his family.

She was, however, repeatedly threatened by her relatives including her parents that she would have to suffer the consequences ofher misconduct. Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur, Rajvinder's maternal aunt, also demanded the return ofthe ornaments that l-.. :she had been wearing when she had left her parents home, but she told them that they could collect these articles from the police station ( in the presence ofthe police) as she had already lodged a complaint. On 3. 0th May 1999 at about 8. 30 p. m. Rajvinder Kaur was informed that her mother and maternal aunt had come to visit her. She accordingly invited y J MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGH SARDARv. STATE 759 them upstairs to the first floor and on their demand handed over the ornaments to her mother. Maya Kaur and NirmalKaur also told Rajvinder Kaur that her maternal uncle (Mama) Bhagwan Singh (accused No. 3) had also come to visit her and was waiting downstairs. Lakhmindar Kaur, Rajvinder's mother-in-law told Maya Kaur to call her brother upstairs.

In the meantime, it appears Ravinder Singh went out on to the balcony to get his shirt and saw some persons armed with weapons in their hands hanging around suspiciously and apprehending mischief, he asked his brother Harvindar Singh to immediately call some ofhis friends. Harvindar Singh rushed downstairs in an attempt to do so but soon returned with patch ofblood on his shirt on the abdomen and fell in the prayer room. Rajvinder Kaur then saw accused No. 4 Jagpal Singh, husband ofNirmal Kaur, accused No. 5 Kawaljit Singh, cousin ofMaya Kaur and Ninnal Kaur accused No. 6 Bakhtavar Singh, maternal uncle of Maya Kaur, accused No. 7 Kuldip Singh, a close relative ofMaya Kaur, Baldev Singh and Bhagwan Singh climbing the stair case with weapons in their hands. Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur however left the place and went out ofthe - ··~· gate.

Rajvinder, sensing danger shouted for help but somebody entered the balcony and pushed her therefrom and she fell on the ground floor sustaining severe injuries. She also heard some voices speaking in Punjabi suggesting that she be killed and somebody replying that she was already dead. Rajvinder Kaur, grievously hurt, went crawling to the house ofone Narula, a neighbour, and informed him ofthe assault on her family on which he called the police. The Police reached the site after a short time and found that Ravinder Singh, husband ofRajvinder Kaur, her brotherin-law Harvindar Singh, and her-in-laws Dilip Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur p had all been killed. A formal FIR was thereupon registered at about 3. 30 a. m. on 1st June 1999 at the Police Station, five kilometers distant, at the instance of PW7 Sub-Inspector Vikram Bhimrao Patil. On the completion ofthe investigation, the accused were charged as under:- S. No. Accused Name Charged Under Act & Clause 1. Mayakaur Sardar l. P.

C Sections 302,307,120(B),34; Arms Act- Sections 25(1)&(3),27(3) ') "'-· Nirmalkaur Sardar - DO - 3. Bhagwansingh Randhava - DO - 4. Jagpalsingh Toor - DO - 5. Kunwarjitsingh Pullar@ Rana Randhava - DO - 6. Bakhtawarsingh Randhava - DO - 7. Kuldeepsingh Randhava l. P. C Sections 302,307,120(B),34 8. Baldevsingh Sardar l. P. C Sections 302,307'120(B),34; Arms Act- Sections 25(1)&(3),27(3) 3. After an elaborate discussion the trial court sentenced Bhagwan Singh, Jagpal Singh, Kanwarjit Singh, Bakhtawar Singh, Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 120 B of the IPC and sentenced the first four to death and the other two to life imprisonment under Sections 302/120B and to lesser term of imprisonment for the other offences. Kuldip Singh and Baldev Singh were however acquitted. 4. As four ofthe accused had been awarded the death penalty, the trial Judge made a reference to the High Court under Section 366 ofthe Cr. P. C.

The accused also filed appeals challenging their convictions and the matters were heard by a Division Bench ofS. S. Parkar and J. N. Patil, JJ. Parkar, J. was ofthe opinion that a death sentence in the circumstances was not justified and that the involvement ofKawaljit Singh too had not been proved. He accordingly opined that the death sentence should not be confirmed and that Kawaljit Singh was liable to an acquittal. Patil,J. ~j ) was, however, ofthe opinion that the death sentence 'imposed by the trial court and the conviction ofKawaljit Singh were justified on the facts and the evidence. On account ofa. difference of opinion on these matters amongst two Hon'ble Judges, the matter was referred to a third Judge Palshikar,J. under Section 392 ofthe Cr. P. C. On a re-appreciation ofthe evidence Palshikar,J.

ordered the acquittal ofthe accused under Sections 302/120B and 307/120B and 307/34 of the IPC and directed that Mayakaur Sardar, Nirmal Kaur Sardar,Bhagwan Singh Randhava, Jagpal Singh Toor, Kanwarjit Singh Pullar@ Rana Randhava and Bakhtawar Singh Randhava undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The murder reference was accordingly declined. 5. The matter was thereafter placed before the Division Bench of Parkar and Patil, JJ. and appropriate orders were passed. It is in these circumstances that two sets ofappeals have been filed before us, one by the accused appellants challenging their conviction and sentence and the other by the State of Maharashtra praying for the award of the death sentence to the accused. 6. Mr.

Vijay Kotwal, the learned senior counsel for the accusedappellants has first and foremost argued that the incident had happened in the evening of30th May 1999 but Rajvinder Kaur(PWl), the solitary eye witness, had not disclosed the names ofthe accused to the police till the 8th of June 1999 which clearly revealed that she had not seen the incident and that she had been forced to become an eye witness to the murders. It has also been pleaded that in the case of a single witness it was essential that the testimony should be without blemish and as she had made significant improvements and changes in her statements from those made to the police from time to time, no reliance could be placed on her testimony and as such could not by itselfform the basis ofa conviction. It has been emphasized that there was no evidence to show as to the reasons that had prompted the police to arrest the accused well before 8th of June, 1999 in the absence of any evidence against them.

It has also been pleaded that the recovery ofthe identity card ofaccused No. 3 (Bhagwan Singh ) from near the dead body and the recovery ofthe various articles at the instance ofthe accused on their statements under Section 27 ofthe Evidence Act clearly revealed that the investigation made by the police was an unfair and biased one and finally that there was no evidence as to the involvement of Kawaljit Singh. The Government Advocate has however pointed out that the two ladies Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur had admitted their presence at the place ofincident and PW4 Yogeshkrishan Lohar who was a neighbour ofthe deceased family too had deposed that on the night ofthe incident he had heard the sound of an auto rickshaw and on looking out had seen two women and two or three Sardars getting down therefrom which clearly showed that all the accused had come together.

It has also been highlighted that Rajvinder Kaur had been completely traumatized by the incident, the assailants being her parents family and the victims being her in-laws, her husband and brother-in-law and in this view of the matter, it was not surprising that she had not been able to give out the names ofthe accused till the 8th of June 1999, and that in this situation some discrepancies in her depositions were to be expected. It has been submitted that there was no inflexible rule of law that the non-disclosure of the names of the accused at the very initial stage must afortiori result in an acquittal of the accused. It has also been argued that the recovery of the various articles clearly incriminated the accused-appellants and no interference was called for on findings offact arrived at by two courts. It has finally been pleaded that the death penalty ought to be re-imposed on the four accused as per the judgment ofthe Sessions Judge. 7.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully. Several facts are admitted by both sides. The relationship inter-se the parties stands admitted. It is also in evidence that Rajvinder Kaur had secretly married Ravinder Singh and it was only when an attempt had been made to marry her offto some other person that she had been forced to reveal her marriage and that this information had caused great alarm in her family and invited their wrath and that several threats had also been held out to her prior to the murders following which she had made a complaint to the police. It has also come in Rajvinder's deposition that she had initially been hesitant to disclose the names ofthe assailants as she was mortally scared by what had happened to her husband's family and an attempt made on her life as well. It is in this background that her statement needs to be evaluated. The evidence of Dr.

Alexander Martin Alphonse (PW13), a Psychiatrist attached to the .! [H. S. BEDl,J. ] } MGM Hospital, Bombay also shows that Rajvinder had been examined by Doctor Yamini at about 1. 00 a. m. on 31st May 1999 and that he had examined her after she had been referred to him by the Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Rajesh Kakvani and that she was in a state oftremendous shock and out of a normal state of mind, sad and tearfu1 and uncommunicative and that she had refused to take any food and comph4ined oflack ofsleep on account ofimmense griefand suffering as a result oftraumatic stress disorder. He further deposed that she had been > in that condition for four or five days and had finally been discharged from hospital on the 29th June 1999.

It is in these circumstances that the Sessions Judge as also the High Court have categorically found that she was both unwilling and unable to give her statement and it was only after she had recovered from her trauma and had also been provided with security by the police, that she had finally mustered courage and then spoken out. It is also evident from the record that Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur had made repeated efforts to get back the ornaments that Rajvinder ~ ~+ Kaur had taken with her after she had shifted in with her husband and that she had, without hesitation, handed over the ornaments to them.

It has also come in her statement that some efforts had been made (though with extreme reluctance on the part ofher parents family) to normalize the relationship by having another marriage between her and Ravinder Singh in a Gurudwara but it appears that her parents, particularly her father, remained unrelenting with what they believed to be a marriage with a person who was financially weak and belonged to an inferior caste. .. '"( Rajvinder thus held no rancour or ill-will against her family and the manner in which murders had been engineered must have come as the rudest of shocks to her. 8. A serious argument has been raised as to the events which had led to the arrest ofthe accused long before the 8th ofJune 1999 and on the basis on which the arrests had been made. We find no suspicious -..

L circumstance in the arrests for the reason that Maya Kaur and Nirmal I -- ofa life sentence and it was in this circumstance that the matter had been referred to a third Hon'ble Judge who too hinted that the death sentence was not called for as it would not serve society at large as the murders had been committed on account ofsocial pressures and in vindication of the family honour, though the family honour could not be said to be justification for the murders. 16. We have something to say on this aspect. The efficacy or otherwise ofthe death penalty is a matter ofmuch debate in legal circles -with two diametrically opposite views on the subject. However, as the penal code visualizes the imposition ofthis penalty, the circumstances under which it should be imposed are also a matter ofdiscussion, the broad principle being its award in the rarest of rare cases.

Undoubtedly also while categorizing a case the facts would predominate but the predilection ofa Judge, is a human factor (and a factor whose importance cannot be minimized) but as Judges applying the law we must also be alive to the needs ofsociety and the damage which can result ifa ghastly crime is not • ~ dealt with in an effective and proper manner. We also notice that while Judges tend to be extremely harsh in dealing with murders committed on account ofreligious factors they tend to become more conservative and almost apologetic in the case ofmurders arising out ofcaste on the premise (as in this very case) that society should be given time so that the necessary change comes about in the normal course. Has this hands off approach led to the creation ofthe casteless utopia or even a-perceptible movement in that direction?

The answer is an emphatic no as would be clear from "' ~ mushrooming caste based organizations controlled and manipulated by self appointed Commissars who have arrogated to themselves the right to be the sole arbiters and defenders of their castes with the license to kill and maim to enforce their diktats and bring in line those who dare to deviate. Resultantly the idyllic situation that we perceive is as distant as ever. In this background is it appropriate that we throw up our hands in despair - .. _ waiting ad infinitum or optimistically a millennium or two for the day when good sense would prevail by a normal evolutionary process or is it our duty to help out by a push and a prod through the criminal justice system? We feel that there can be only one answer to this question. 17. The present case is a classic example of what we mean. Both parties are Sikhs, a religion which had its genesis in a revolt against casteism ,. (.

with the belief that there was only one caste - humanity - imbued with one spirit, humanism and thus promoted the brotherhood ofmen with the ethos that no one was good or bad as all had emanated from the same ''Noor" (light). And the ironic realism; the accused are Jat Sikh. ;; -a proud and aggressive community which has produced some oflndia's most valorous soldiers and helped fill India's granaries - unwilling to accept the victims as equals - they being Matharu Ramgariah Sikhs, artisans by profession - and in their garbled perception inferior in every way and --4. unsuitable for their daughter. It has come in Rajvinder's statement that she had been the favourite child ofher parents but the events show that notwithstanding this deep filial attachment they were ofthe opinion that she was better dead than alive. 18. The two cases which have really crystalliz. ed the situation in which the death penalty ought to be awarded are Bachan Singh (supra) and Machhi Singh V.

State of Punjab, [1983] 3 sec 470. In Bachan Singh's case the Court observed that the extreme penalty could be t-~. inflicted only in cases ofgravest and extreme culpability. The Court also held that the mitigating circumstances in favour ofa criminal so as to avoid death penalty had also to be taken into accou. tJt and the balance-sheet of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances was to be prepared as a prelude to the award ofthe sentence. The broad principles laid down in Bachan Singh 's case were adopted in Machhi Singh 's case with the following prefatory observations: "The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in 'death sentence-in-no-case' doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of 'reverence for life' principle.

When a member ofthe community violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that every member ofthe community is able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because ofthe protective arm ofthe community and on account ofthe rule oflaw enforced by it. The very existence ofthe rule oflaw and the fear MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGH SARDARv. STATE 769 of being brought to book operates as a deterrent of those who have no scruples in killing others if its suits their ends. Every member ofthe community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by 'killing' a member ofthe community which protects the murderer himselffrom being killed, or when the community feels that for the sake ofself-preservation the killer has to be killed ,the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty.

But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so 'in rarest ofrare cases' when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders ofthe judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise ofretaining death penalty. The community may entertain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the platform ofthe motive for, or the manner ofcommission ofthe crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature ofthe crime". 19. The Court further observed that if a murder was committed in circumstances which aroused societal wrath or when the crime was enormous in proportion such as in a case of multiple murders ofall or almost all the members of a family or a large number ofpersons of particular caste, community or locality or pre-meditated, pre-planned and diabolically executed and the helpless state ofthe victims were aggravating circumstances.

The horrendous manner ofthe execution ofthe murders is best expressed in the words of PW-14 Dr. Dhananjay Bapurao Shinde: "I was attached to Medical Municipal Dispensary, at Panvel, as Medical Officer since 16th January 1999. On 31. 5. 1999 four dead bodies were brought to my dispensary, they were referred to me by City Panvel Police Station. I have examined the dead bodies. 2. On examination of dead body of Dilip Singh I found eleven injuries on his person. They were incised injuries. They are mentioned by me in the column No. 17 ofthe P. M. Notes. The internal injuries found by me are mentioned in column Nps. 19 and 20 in P. M. Notes. I have mentioned in column No. 23 the injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary nature ofcourse ofcause of death. Even taking into consideration the single injury also. Each injury by itself mentioned in column No. 23 by itself was sufficient in the ordinary nature ofcourse ofcause the death. The injuries were ante-mortem.

In my opinion the cause ofdeath was cardio respiratory failure due to haemorrhagic(sic) shock because ofmultiple injuries over the body. The P. M. are written and signed by me and its contents are true and correct, it is at exhibit 111. 3. On the same day I examined the dead body ofLakhavindar Kaur andfound that she had sustained four incised injuries, which are mentioned by me in column No. 17 ofthe P. MNotes. Her _neck was found completely out(sic). Only some muscle were found attached to the skull. I have mentioned the internal injuries in column Nos. 19 and 20 ofthe notes. In my opinion the cause ofdeath was due to incised wound which has practically ·D out ofher neck completely. The injuries were ante-mortem and could have been caused by the sharp edged instrument the cause ofdeath was cardio respiratory failure due to hemorrhegic(sic) shock, due to multiple. The P. M. Notes are in my handwriting, it is signed by me and its contents are true and correct, exhibit 112. 4.

On the same day I have also examined the dead body of Ravindra Singh. There were 10 minutes (sic)(Incised) found on his body. Besides two were abrasions. Mainly these injuries were on the body. I have mentioned these injuries in column No. 17. The internal injuries mentioned by me in coltunn Nos. 19 and 20. 1found on the backside that 5th, 6th and 7th ribs fractured on the backside. I also found an incised wound on his neck and his laJynx out(sic). The injuries were ante mortem and could have been caused by sharp edged instrument and also by blunt instrument. The cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure, due to haemorrhaegic(sic) shock due to multiple injuries accused. The P. M. Notes are in my handwriting and its contents are true and correct. It is exhibit 113. 5. I have also exmined the dead body ofHarvindar Singh and found nine incised wound on his body, which I have mentioned in the column No. 17 in the P. M. Notes. !

found occipital, parietal andfrontal bones ofthe skull fractured and the brain matter had come out. I have also found fracture of6th and 7th ribs ofright side. The injuries could have been caused by sharp edged heavy weapons such as sword (sic) etc. The cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure, due to multiple injuries caused on the body. The P. M. Notes are in my hand-writing and it (sic) were signed by me and its contents are true and correct. It is at Exhibit 114. The injuries were anti-mortem (sic). Both the hands were found completely cut offrom the shoulders. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Both the hands were separated. from the body. " N. B. The above statement has been reproduced verbatim. 20. We are ofthe opinion that strictly speaking the present case would fall within the parameters visualized in Bachan Singh 's and Machhi Singh 's cases.

The diabolical nature ofthe crime and the murder ofhelpless individuals committed with traditional weapons with extreme cruelty and pre-meditation is exacerbated by the fact that Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur had come upstairs and recovered the jewellery and clothes from Rajvinder Kaur just before the actual murders. 21. Having said all this, we are ofthe opinion that in the peculiar circumstances that we now face we are not inclined to reverse the life sentences awarded by the High Court and to re-impose the death penalty on the accused. We note that the Additional Sessions Judge had rendered p his judgment on 21st December 2001 awarding the death sentence to four ofthe accused. The Division Bench ofParkar and Patil, JJ. gave its divergent judgments on February 26, 2003. The third Hon'ble Judge Palshikar,J. delivered his judgment on April 25, 2003 and the matter has been taken up by us four years thereafter.

It has also come on record -> that the accused have served more than 8 years oftheir sentences as of now. We accordingly allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 1378-1380/2004 in so far as they relate to Kawaljit Singh alias Rana Darshan Singh Puller and order his acquittal. All other appeals are however dismissed. K. K. T. Appeals allowed.