Bhansingh, Appellant V. State Of Madhya Pradesh,
Respondent.
DATE : 21-08-1989
1990-(096)-CRLJ -1861 -MP
JUDGE(S) :
Faizanuddin
Y B Suryavanshi
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT
Y. B. SURYVANSHI, J. :- This Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 89 and
Criminal Reference No. 5 of 1989 arise our of judgment and findings,
dated 23-6-1989, of the Court of Shri D. P. Verma, A.S.J., Mandla,
in S.T. No. 132/88. The appellant Bhansingh Gond has been convicted
for the murder of Rajobai, aged 3 years, under S. 302, I.P.C.
and sentenced to death and the proceedings and the case under
S. 366, Cr.P.C. have been submitted for confirmation of sentence
under S. 368 Cr.P.C. This judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 629/89
will also govern the disposal of three Criminal Appeals viz. No.
628/89 (Criminal Ref. No. 4/89), No. 630/89 (Cri. Ref. No. 6/89)
and Criminal Appeal No. 631/89 (Cri Ref. No. 7/89) arising out
of judgments delivered on the same date i.e. 23-6-89 (respectively,
arising out of Sessions Trials No. 131/88, 133/88 and 134/88),
further convicting the appellant-Bhansingh under S. 302, I.P.C.
for the murders of Gallobai, Sakhiyabai and Vishnu respectively,
in which also the appellant has been sentenced to death, and the
corresponding Criminal References relate to proceedings for confirmation
of the sentence of death under S. 368, Cr.P.C. All those four
murders took place on the same date at village Gutli and in close
proximity of time and places, in succession, sometime between
2.30 and 3.30 hours in the afternoon on 27-2-88.
(2) (a) According to the prosecution, the accused/appellant Bhansing,
a tribal hailing from Gond community, lived in a tribal hamlet,
called, Gutli with his wife P.W. Chhitabai. They had seven issues,
but all females. The accused laboured under a superstition that
if he killed a daughter they would be blessed with a son.
(b) It is further alleged, that on 27-2-88, at about 2.30 p.m.
while accused's wife Chittabai was feeding milk to the youngest
daughter, Rajobai, aged hardly 3 years, the accused snatched the
baby inspite of some resistance by his wife. He caught hold of
the feet of the girl and threw her forcibly on the ground, causing
thereby, Rajobai's death (subject matter of S.T. 132/88 = Cr.
A. No. 629/89).
(c) It is alleged, that thereafter, accused became rash and assaulted
those who came across on his way. One Mst. Gallobai (deceased)
was returning home with a bundle-load of empty utensils and some
straw on her head. The accused caught hold of braids of her hair
and struck her with stone and killed her (subject matter of S.T.
131/83 = Cr. A. No. 628/89).
(d) The accused on his way came across Sakhiyabai (deceased) who
was similarly stoned to death (S.T. No. 133/88 = Cr. A. 630/89).
(e) Allegedly, the accused proceeded further and killed a small
buffalo belonging to Vishnu Gond and thereafter, Vishnu Gond (deceased)
too was stoned causing dangerous injuries; and ultimately on the
next day he breathed his last in the hospital (S.T. No. 134/88
= Cr. A. 631/89).
(3) It is further alleged, that one Dumari (there are three persons
of that name) broke the news of those events to P.W. Samharsingh-Kotwar
of the village who went to the place of incident and found three
dead bodies with one injured viz. Vishnu. Meanwhile, it is alleged,
that the accused had run away towards the jungle. P.W. Dumarsingh
s/o Jone Singh, with Phulsingh and others, went in search of accused
and ultimately they apprehended him. Accused was tied with a rope,
brought in the village, and locked inside a room. P.W. Samharsingh
Kotwar with some others went to the police station Shahpura, situated
about 6 k.m. from village GUTLI where he lodged the F.I.R. (Ex.
P-2) on the same date, at 6 p.m., which was recorded by PW shri
Ravishankar Sadse H.C., at P.S. Shahpur. Suffice to state that
other formalities regarding Inquests followed which do not call
for detailed discussion. P.W. Shri B. K. Shrivastava, SI/IO arrested
the accused on 28-2-88 at 12.10 noon. The further allegations
are, that accused gave information to PW Shrivastava in presence
of Panchas, led them to the place of incident and stones having
blood stains were seized. Since such seizures are not of any consequence,
under S. 27, Evidence Act and it is unnecessary to refer them
further.
(4) The dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. Autopsies
were performed by P.W. Dr. Anand, Assistant surgeon with following
results :
(i) Rajobai d/o accused Bhansingh :
"........ swelling forehead, cynosis over lips, rigor mortis
present, there was swelling over face and depression over scalp,
with haemotoma just below skin over skin deep, ..... front-parietal,
sagithal, parieto occipital sutures were separate. There was a
triangular depressed fracture (shown in diagrame) ... head injury
and depressed multiple communited fracture .... Intra cerebral
haemotoma .... (cause of death) Head injury-Intra cerebral haemorrhage
(shock) (Ex. P-8 in S.T. No. 132/88 = Cr. A. 629/89).
(ii) Gallobai aged 45 years, w/o Baratu Patel :-
"Rigor mortis was present more over upper limbs than lower
limbs. P.W. lividity on back, Rt. eye and Rt. cheek swollen. Bleeding
from Rt. ear. C.L.W. 1" x 0.5 c.m. over forehead, Rt. sided
2" ...... Diffused intracranial haemotoma in middle of post
region of cerebral cortex" ..... Hear Injury-Intra cerebral
haemorrhage" ...... Sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death". (P.W. 9 Dr. Anand - P.M. Report Ex. P/9
in S.T. No. 131/88 = Cr. A. 628/89).
(iii) Sakhiyabai aged 35 years w/o Lar Singh Gond :
"Injuries (1) C.L.W., L shaped 2" x 1" x 0.5 c.m.
over Rt. parietal area with clotted blood; (2) C.L.W. curved 2"
x 2" x 0.5 c.m. over Rt. parietal (3) C.L.W., 1" x 0.5
c.m. deep over parietal and frontal area Rt. (4) C.L.W., 1"
x 05 c.m. x 0.5 deep over Rt. occipital area on removing skin,
diffused haematoma with depressed, semilunar fracture over Rt.
parietal bone extending till frontal, temporal and occipital areas
9" x 5", .... depressed communited with multiple fragments
of bone .... 7 pieces big, others small," ..... "Intra
uterine baby in uterus of size 8" x 8" (P.M. Report
Ex. P/8, PW 11 Dr. Anand, = S.T. 133/88 = Cr. A. 630/89).
(iv) Vishnu Gond, age 65 years :
"..... Depression over occipital area, linear in nature,
4" x 0.5 c.ms. horizontally .... cut over helix of left ear
1 c.m., clear, though and through, with blood clot, antemortem
in nature ..... C.L.W. 1" x 0.5 c.m. over left side of forehead
of scalp 1 1/2" above left side of eye clotted blood over
both nostrils and left ear on removing skin, there was a huge
haematoma between deep fose and muscles i.e. temporal area ....
There was a huge haematoma over occipital area in cerebral cortex".
Cause of death - due to Intra cerebral haemorrhage." (P.W.
11 - Dr. Anand, Ex. P-9 in S.T. No. 134/88 = Cr. A. 631/89).
(5) Though initially the investigation commenced on basis of the
FIR (Ex. P-2) lodged by Samhar Singh, Kotwar, four separate crimes
were registered, though the investigation had been simultaneous.
Four charge-sheets for four murders were submitted. The appellant
abjured the guilt and stated that he does not know anything about
the incidents. The plea of insanity under Section 84 was also
taken during trial suggesting, that the accused had suffered from
imbalanced mind, previous to the incident, and was also in the
same mental condition while the acts were committed. However,
no evidence was adduced. The learned trial Court found, that four
persons abovenamed have died; that, their deaths were homicidal;
that the appellant committed the murders. The defence plea, it
was held, cannot be accepted because the appellant was capable
of knowing what he did. Accordingly, the appellant has been convicted
for all the four murders, and references have been made for confirmation
of death sentence.
(6) We have perused the record and also heard the learned counsel
for the appellant Shri Fakhruddin and the learned Dy. Advocate
General, Shri Dilip Naik appearing for the State. There cannot
be any dispute that the four persons above-named died and their
deaths were homicidal. The first victim was Rajobai in Sessions
Trial No. 132/88. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The material
witness in this trial is P.W. 3 Chhitabai, wife of the accused.
She has deposed that they have seven children, all daughters and
no son. She has proved the prosecution allegation that while she
was feeding her youngest daughter, Rajobai, aged 3 years, in her
house, the accused came from the PARCHHI and snatched the baby
from her arms. She tried to resist but it was in vain. She further
states, that the accused after snatching the baby, caught her
by her feet and forcibly banged her (Baby) on the ground. She
has also deposed about the three incidents. Because of fright,
she ran away and hid herself at some distance but could see what
the accused did afterwards. In fact, she ran away because when
she tried to resist, the accused hurled filthy abuses, and she
anticipated that he would attack her with the stone, hence, she
took her heels. The accused then went in the direction of Basti.
He came across Gallobai and she was hit on the head with the stone.
Thereafter, the accused hit Sakhiyabai, and lastly Vishnu. All
were hit with stone on their heads.
(7) The other material evidence in S.T. 132/88 is that of PW.
1 Bartu and PW. 2 Rama, respectively, husband and son-in-law of
the deceased Gallobai who later on found her dead. PW 4 Dumari
says that along with other person also called Dumari, he managed
to catch hold of the accused in jungle. He was tied with rope
and then lodged in a locked room.
(8) In S.T. No. 131/88 which relates to Cr. A. 628/89 (murder
of Gallobai) P.W. 1 Chhitabai was examined and her statement is
similar to what she has stated about the incident as it started
with the death of Rajobai. She has deposed about the accused hitting
Rajobai. Similarly, PW 2 Chouder deposed about the assault on
Gallobai. P.W. 4 Dumarsingh son of Jounsingh, with Phoolsingh
and others, went in search of the accused. P.W. 5 Samharsingh
Kotwar who lodged the report was examined.
(9) In Cr. Appeal No. 630/89 (S.T. 133/88) which related to deceased
Sakhiyabai, the provision, besides other witnesses, had examined
PW 1 Lalsingh. He stated that he was in his Angan, and his wife
was standing when the accused came, and with a stone which weighed
about 1 1/2 kg., beat his wife on the face. His wife died on the
spot. PW 2 Chamelibai is Bhojai of PW 1. She had also deposed
about the attack on Sakhiyabai with two minor children belonging
to Sakhiyabai, she ran away towards jungle. PW 4 Shyamsingh had
also deposed about the attack on Sakhiyabai, besides Chhitabai,
who was also examined in this S.T. (No. 133/88) as PW 5.
10 In S.T. No. 134 (Cr. A. 631/89) PW 4 Shyamsingh had deposed
that he saw the accused killing Sakhiyabai and thereafter, the
accused went towards the house of Vishnu, caught hold of him,
and hit his face with the stone. PW 5 Bundibai had also seen the
assault on Vishnu. In this sessions trial PW 6 Chhitabai is also
examined as PW 6. Besides other witnesses, PW 7 Dumarsingh son
of Jounsingh and PW 8 Samharsingh Kotwar have also been examined.
(10-A) We have chosen to briefly refer the material evidence in
all the four trials, and there is no manner of doubt that it is
the accused who had committed those murders.
(11) the crucial questions for further decision are; whether the
accused intentionally or knowingly caused those deaths ? or as
stated by the learned counsel for the accused, he suffered from
insanity as defined in S. 84, I.P.C. Section 84, I.P.C. reads
as under :-
"84. Act of a person of unsound mind.- Nothing is an offence
which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason
of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of
the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary
to law."
In India the law laid down in the above section is substantially
the same as the M'Cnaghtan Rules in England. In order to get the
benefit of this section, the crucial point of time is the time
of the commission of the offence. It is to be shown that the accused
suffered from unsoundness of mind at the time when the offence
was committed. It is also to be noted that there is a distinction
between "medical" as "legal insanity" and
the Courts are concerned only with legal insanity. If the facts
show that the accused knew that he had done something wrong, he
cannot be exempted under this section. In order to claim exemption
from criminal liability, the person must be incapable of knowing
(i) the nature of the physical act, (ii) or that his physical
act is illegal or that it is contrary to law, and (iii) that the
act is wrong one. "Epileptical insanity" may fall under
this section if it is established that he was suffering from it
at the time of commission of the crime.
(12) In Dahyabhai Chhajanbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1964 SC 1563 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 472), plea under S. 84, I.P.C.
was raised, Considering the impact of S. 84, read with Sections
104, 105 and 101, Evidence Act, their Lordships observed that
an accused is presumed to be an innocent, and therefore, the burden
lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt on the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Section 84 being an exception, under S. 105
of the Evidence Act, the burden of of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies
on the accused, and the Court shall presume the absence of such
circumstances. Under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, read-with the
definition of "shall presume" in S. 4, therefore, the
Court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved.
Their Lordships, in Dahyabhai's case (supra), observed as under
:
"It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden
lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution therefore in a case of homicide
shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death
with the requisite intention described in S. 299 of the Indian
Penal Code. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests
on the prosecution. But Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides,
that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing
that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing
the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or
contrary to law. This being an exception, under Section 105 of
the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances
bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused,
and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition
of "shall presume" in S. 4 thereof, the Court shall
regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after
considering the matters before it, believes that the said circumstances
existed, or their existence was so probable that a prudent man
ought under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon
the supposition that they did exist. To put it in other words,
the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances
did not exist, by placing material before the Court sufficient
to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so
probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused has
to satisfy the standard of a "prudent man". If the material
placed before the Court, such as, oral and documentary evidence,
presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies
the test of "prudent man", the accused will have discharged
his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge
the burden under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise
a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge a regards one or other
of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for
instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether
the accused had the requisite intention laid down in S. 299 of
the Indian Penal Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt,
he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution
will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused.
There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always
on the prosecution, and which never shifts, and the special burden
that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity."
It seems that in Dahyabhai's case (supra), on facts as proved,
there was a "motive" for the appellant to kill his wife
in the ghastly manner by inflicting 44 knife injuries. On the
next question about the previous history about the mental condition
of the accused, on facts, it was found that the plea of insanity
was a belated afterthought and a false case and therefore, this
plea of insanity was not accepted.
(13) We have also referred (from M.P. Gwalior Bench) State of
M.P. v. Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998 : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 43) which
also lays down the proposition, that the burden of proof lies
on the accused to show that the mental condition of the accused
was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by S.
84. That was a case in which about two years prior to the incident,
the accused was treated as a private patient in the mental hospital,
and had suffered from an epileptic type of insanity. Another expert
was also examined, besides the father of the accused. It was emphasised
that under S. 84, I.P.C. the crucial point of time at which the
unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the
act was committed. In that case there was nothing on record on
basis of which it could be said that at the moment of the act
the accused was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was
wrong or contrary to law. From the facts reported in that decision,
it appears that it was a crime committed not "in a sudden
mood of insanity" but was preceded by" careful planning
and exhibiting cool calculation in execution."
(14) In the instant case, as regards the plea of insanity, the
learned counsel Shri Fakhruddin urged, that the accused first
killed his daughter, which itself was an abnormal act. There is
no cogent material to substantiate the allegation that he laboured
under a superstition that by killing his daughter he would be
blessed with a son. Then, it is urged, that there is total absence
of motive in the four murders committed by the accused. The further
argument is that the prosecution has proved only actus reus but
not the mens rea. The witnesses were cross-examined on this aspect.
In S.T. 132/88, P.W. 1 Bartu - who is the husband of Gallobai
(deceased) in cross-examination, stated, that his relations with
the accused were quite cordial. In para 2 he stated that he does
not know whether the accused was insane on that day or on previous
occasions. This witness is not a Gond, and he says, in cross-examination,
that the mentally imbalanced persons are brought to Chougan Ki
Madiva though he does not know whether the accused was given such
treatment. From the statement of PW 2 Rama, however we find that
on the day of the incident the accused certainly uttered - that
if he kills his daughter, he will get a son. However, PW 2 Rama
states that while killing Gallobai, his mother-in-law, the accused
alleged her "SHODHAN" (which are evil spirits). PW 2
Chhitabai, in Paras 4 and 5 stated that on the date of the incident,
the eyes of the accused were "red", and he had not taken
meals; That about four months before these incidents she had taken
him a Panda, resident of village Gundisarai, where there is a
Madiva/Mandir and for his abnormal acts, such as eating leaves
and earth, he was given treatment. But then, that Panda has not
been examined who could have deposed all about the abnormalities
if any, in the accused's behaviour and the kind of treatment given
by him. PW 4 Dumari Singh categorically stated that he was one
of those who had gone to apprehend the accused, but he did not
notice any abnormality. On the other hand, when the accused was
caught by them, he pleaded to be released; and he had all the
normal faculties in identifying them - and talking with them by
their names. PW 7 Samhar Singh is the Kotwar of the village. Para
4 of his statement shows that when the I.O. interrogated the accused
he had taken them to the place and pointed out the stones. This
evidence cannot be considered under Section 27, Evidence Act,
but is quite relevant to consider whether the accused was of an
imbalanced mind ? No questions have been asked from this witness,
though he is a Kotwar, about other abnormal acts stated by the
accused's wife in her evidence. It is unlikely that as a Kotwar
of a small hamlet he would be unaware of such abnormal behaviour,
if any. All that he says is that after the incident, the eyes
of the accused were" red and he talked "irrelevant".
P.W. 8 Shrivastava, I.O. did not get the accused examined medically
but had stated that he did not find any abnormality.
(15) In a plea of insanity, the antecedents, attending and subsequent
conduct of the accused is relevant, but such conduct is not per
se enough to shoe the state of mind of the accused at the time
of the commission of the act. The kind of cryptic evidence already
observed above, would not satisfy a prudent man referred in Dayabhai's
case, (1964 (2) Cri LJ 472) that such a plea has been raised about
the mental state of mind of the accused at the time of the commission
of the offence. On the contrary, the learned Dy. A.G. urged, that
the accused, when his wife resisted, threatened her to keep away.
After the incidents, he consciously ran away, and when caught,
pleaded to be released. Except for the evidence of his wife, there
is no other convincing evidence to satisfy us, that the plea taken
up by the accused is acceptable. We are aware that the burden
of proving such plea is not heavy. But the Court is not even left
with a doubt on such plea of the state of mind of the accused.
Furthermore, as regards the "subsequent conduct", the
trial Court had further observed, that for a long period of seven
months as the trial protracted, the accused appeared in the Court
but no abnormality was even evident. Thus, there is no satisfactory
evidence about the previous history of his mental state i.e. antecedents
or other queer behaviour, nor is there any evidence about the
subsequent conduct showing insanity. In absence of materials to
show that he was incapable of knowing the nature of his action
that what he as doing was wrong or contrary to law. The mere circumstance
that without apparent motive he has committed atleast two murders
and in all four ghastly murders, in itself does not lead to a
reasonable inference that he suffered from insanity. In absence
of proper materials such defence, if treated a part of our judicial
system would be subversive to life and property. In Rustam Ali
v. State, AIR 1960 Allahabad 333 : (1960 Cri LJ 768), their Lordships
observed :
"In order to bring a person within the four corners of insanity
it must be shown that the cognitive faculties of the accused are,
as a result of unsoundness of mind, so completely impaired as
to render him incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that
what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. Moody or pensive
state of mind, or eccentricity of the type of quarrel between
husband and wife on certain occasions and the attitude towards
the wife in locking her up inside the house whenever he used to
go to work, although signs of some eccentricity, cannot be taken
as elements proving the requirements of Section 84, I.P.C. It
would certainly be dangerous to admit a defence of insanity upon
arguments merely derived with uncommon ferocity would alone not
sufficce for the inference that the accused had a deranged mind.
.... The law presumes a man of the age of discretion to be sane
unless the contrary is proved."
In view of the above discussion, we are not satisfied about the
plea of insanity raised under S. 84, I.P.C.
(16) The only question which survives for consideration is the
sentence. Some decisions have been referred. In Srirangan v. State
of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 274 : 1978 Cri LJ 186), Krishna Iyer,
J. referring to "this aspect observed". In the agonisingly
sensitive area of sentencing, especially in the choice between
life term and death penalty, a wide spectrum of circumstances
attracts judicial attention the lesser penalty of life imprisonment
will be a more appropriate punishment." In that case the
death sentence was set aside and imprisonment for life was awarded.
In the case of Namu Ram Bora v. State of Assam, AIR 1975 SC 762
: (1975 Cri LJ 646) the appellant committed the tripple murder
of his wife and two minor daughters and was sentences to death.
It was found, that there was no particular motive for the appellant
to commit the ghastly crime. He raised a plea of mental disorder
resulting from a dog bite. Their Lordships observed" that
his claim to that extent may be correct or not, but we think that
the tripple murder was committed by the appellant as a result
of mental imbalance which was not a pre-planned ghastly act of
a criminal. The facts and circumstance of the case lead to the
conclusion that in a certain stage of imbalance of mind, he committed
the crime." Taking a lenient view, the death sentence was
commutted to one of imprisonment for life. In a recent decision
by five Judges of the apex Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of
J.&K., AIR 1989 SC 1335, the question of delay was considered
which is not the point here. But in Para 11, their Lordships observed"
the circumstances in which the extreme penalty should be inflicted
cannot be enumerated in view of complex situation in society and
the possibilities in which the offence could be committed, and
in this context in ultimate analysis it is not doubted that the
legislature, therefore, was right in leaving it to the discretion
of the judicial decision as to what should be the sentence in
particular circumstances of the case. But the Legislature has
put a further rider that when the extreme penalty is inflicted
it is necessary for the Court to give special reasons thereof."
In another decision Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, (1989) 3
SCC 5 : (1989 Cri LJ 14466), the apparent "motive" for
the crime was "obscure". The killings were not for gain.
The target was the father and not the two infants who were killed.
The death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life (Also
seen Anguswamy v. State of T.N., (1989) 3 SCC 33 in which it was
held, that the act was "not pre-planned)."
(17) In the instant case, the accused has failed to raise the
plea of insanity as defined under Section 84, I.P.C. but the motive
particularly for committing two murders, i.e. of Sakhiyabai and
Vishnu is totally absent, though in case of Rajobai and Gallobai,
it can be said to be obscure or scanty. There was "no pre-meditation"
in the sense that the accused did not resort to any weapon, but
in succession, killed the victims by stones. We may though depricate
the custom-ridden practices and superstitions in the matters of
which craft, sorcery etc. but our tribal community which is a
customridden community, does believe in superstitions, witch craft
and sorcery etc. which are unfortunately a part and parcel of
their life, and in the absence of motives, the ends of justice
will be met by awarding the lesser sentence provided in the law.
And in the circumstances of this case this cannot be said to be
"the rarest of the rare cases, "to justify the death
sentence.
(18) In the result, the four appeals viz. 628/89 (S.T. No. 131/88),
629/89 (S.T. 132/88), 630/89 (S.T. No. 133/88) and 631/89 (S.T.
No. 134/88) are partly allowed. The convictions of the appellant
for the four murders under Section 302, I.P.C. are confirmed;
but as regards the references of Death, sentence is converted
into the life imprisonment. The Criminal References are rejected
accordingly. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded in all
the four cases, shall be concurrent.
Order accordingly.
*-*-*-*-*
Home
HOME 