Murder of Six: Allahabad HC confirms Death Penalty based on Circumstantial Evidence

The Allahabad High Court has recently upheld the death penalty awarded to a person convicted for the murder of his brother’s entire family of six over property dispute. The prosecution had built its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence as there were no eye witnesses to the incident..The judgment was pronounced by Justices Sudhir Agarwal and Om Prakash in a reference under Section 366 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, assailing the trial court order which had awarded death penalty to the Accused-Appellant for the murder of six..The incident which took place on the intervening night of May 8-9, 2012, pertained to the killing of six family members by the Accused-Appellant. The following day, the Accused-Appellant was arrested and the blood-stained clothes worn by him were also recovered. The Prosecution not only recovered the weapon used for murder, i.e. an axe but also proved the motive behind the murder. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution also pointed towards death caused by cutting the neck of all deceased persons by the weapon..Stating that the best evidence which could be available in the facts and circumstances of the case were proved by the prosecution, the Court observed,.“Circumstances established by prosecution are firm, cogent and believable. Chain of events are completed and linked with each other. There is no chance of false implication of accused-appellant. All circumstances including motive and previous conduct of accused-appellant as well as recovery of weapon “axe” said to have been made on his pointing out cumulatively point towards the guilt of accused-appellant.”.Thus, on the basis of evidence available on record, the Court stated that “one and only one hypothesis” could be drawn – that the Accused-Appellant along with his companions committed the offence..The Court also rejected the objection raised by the Amicus Curiae on non-compliance with Section 313 of CrPC..Relying on numerous case laws in the issue, the Court concluded that although the trial court is under a legal obligation to put incriminating circumstances before the accused to solicit his response, any omission to put any material circumstance to the accused does not ipso facto vitiate trial. The accused must show prejudice and miscarriage of justice to vitiate the prosecution’s case, it further stated..Since, the mandatory provisions of Section 313 CrPC were “followed literally” in the case, the Court observed that the objection could not be accepted..Further observing that “no prosecution case is free from shortcomings”, the Court stated that certain omissions/laches on part of the Investigating Officer and Arresting Officer, which do not go to the root of the case, do not affect the prosecution case..“As regards laches occurred on part of the Investigating Officer is concerned, the Arresting Officer has not specified in the arrest memo whether after taking possession of clothes worn by accused-appellant Gambhir Singh, he was offered other clothes or not. Investigating Officer also did not procure independent witnesses at the time of recovery.. It may be mentioned that since no prosecution case is free from shortcomings, therefore, recovery on the ground that it is not supported by any independent evidence cannot be disbelieved.”.While confirming the death penalty imposed on the Accused-Appellant, the Court balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors in the case. While the ‘extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner’ of the crime, exceptional depravity, cold-blooded nature of murder without provocation etc. were the aggravating factors considered by the Court, age of the convict, chance of reformation, his village background etc. were the mitigating circumstances..Concluding that the present case qualified to be in the category of “rarest of rare” case, the Court stated that the Accused-Appellant committed the crime “in a really shocking manner showing depravity of mind” and thus “the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances by all canons of logic and punishment of life imprisonment would neither serve the ends of justice nor will be an appropriate punishment.”.“We are also clearly of the view that accused-appellant is a menace to the society and there is no chance of his rehabilitation or reformation and no leniency in imposing punishment is called for”, it further observed..It thus decreed,.“.. we are of the view that Trial Court has rightly held guilty to accused-appellant for committing offence under Sections 302/34, 404 IPC. Finding of Trial Court about the guilt of accused-appellant for aforesaid offences is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence which needs no interference by this Court.”.State was represented by Additional Government Advocate Syed Ali Murtaza and Advocate Hitesh Pachori..Advocates Brijesh Sahai and Dharmendra Singh were the Amicus Curiae..Read the judgement below.