A MAHESH S/o. RAM NARAIN ETC.
_·V._
#### STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
MARCH 27, 1987
B
[V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
)-
'
_Indian Penal Code,_ _1860:_ _s._ _302-Murder of five persons-Root_
_cause-Marriage of a lady of High_ _Caste_ _to_ _Harijan_ _boy-High Court_
_holding act_ _of accused extremely brutal, gruesome and shocking_ _to_ ~ [• ]
_judicial conscience-Death sentence given-Confirmed by Supreme_
##### c [Court. ] ·~
##
_Criminal Trial._
_Sentence--Imposition_ _of extreme penalty-Necessity for_ _in_ _cases_ _J._._
D _[of ][gravest killings and ghastly murders. ]_
The prosecution alleged that the appellants-father and son, bad
committed the murder of five innocent persons. The root cause of the
crime was said to be that one of the daughters of the deceased bad taken
a Harijan as her husband, and for that the appellants were treating
them as lower caste. The evidence showed that the appellants bad
E
assaulted and axed the wife, husband and bis mother without any pro-vocation from them. A neighbour, who asked as to why the appellants _+-_
were murdering those people, was also axed to death. A young girl aged
about 14 years, who was standing near the scene of occurrence, was also
# not spared. The blood thirst of the appellants was so intense that they
F [then knocked and tried to break open the door of the room where P. ][W. ]
Nos. 1 and 2 were hiding to save themselves, and they len the place only ~·
when the door could not be broken.
##### \:"
The appellants were convicted under s. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced
to death. The High Court observed that the case was one of the gravest
G [killings and ghastly murders, that the act of the appellants ] [was ]
extremely brutal, revolting, gruesome and shocking to the judicial conscience, and that the nature of crime being so cruel and barbaric it was
necessary to impose the maximum punishment under the law as a
e
measure of social necessity to work as a deterrent to other potential
######,..:.
offenders.
H
Dismissing the Appeals of the appellants, the Court,
710
#### _-(_
\
### .\
#
' ~
I
_')._
·~
MAHESH _v._ M.P. STATE [KHALID _).)_ 711
HELD: There is no alternative but to confirm the death sentence. A
The evidence has been considered minutely by the courts below. It will
he a mockery of justice to permit these appellants to escape the extreme
penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To
- give the lesser punishment for them would be to render the justicing
system of this country smpect. The common man will then lose faith in
courts, for in such cases he understands and appreciates the language of B
- deterrence more than the reformative jargon. To say so, is not to ignore
the need for a reformative approach in the sentencing process. [713A-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 285 & 286 of 1986.
##### c
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 /10.2.86 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1403 to 1404 of 1985.
U.R. Lalit, G.K. Sharma and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.
T.C. Sharma for the Respondent. D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHALID, J. The appellants Ram Narayan and bis son Mahesh
have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death.
They are the residents of Village Hinota. They are alleged to have E
committed five murders on 21-6-1984 at about 6.30 P.M. The deceased
are Puran Baraua, his wife, Narbad Bai, his mother, Mula Bai, his
daughter Kumar Nanhi Bai and his neighbour Guiab. The learned
counsel for the appellants tried to take us through the evidence to
persuade us to re-appreciate it. The evidence has been considered
minutely by the Courts below. Then he put forward a feeble right of [F ]
private defence which has no substance. Then he made a fervent
appeal before us regarding the sentence imposed.
It is useful to advert to one fact which has come out the evidence
in the case. The root cause of the gruesome murder appears to be the
marriage of a lady belonging to a higher caste with a Hari jan boy. The G
High Court deals with it in paragraph 19 as follows:
"19. It may be pointed out that it is clear from the
evidence that the incident occurrence when the appellant
Mahesh had broken the earthen pot of the deceased
H
Narbad Bai at the well on the ground that the appellants
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
treated Pooran and his inmates of the lower caste because
Jankibai, one of the daughters of Pooran had taken a Harijan as her husband."
A
The High Court felt compelled to express its concern about the
B evil of untouchability in paragraph 18, at page 46, as follows:
##### c
D
"It is unfortunate that evil of untouchability was still prevalent in some parts of our country evell after 38 years of
independence and 30 years of coming into force of the untouchability Act, 1955, which evident by the facts of the
instant case. Indeed it is a matter of great concern that very
**often there occur grave occurrences including group**
murders resulting into untimely death of innocent persons
by those who still believe in touchability as their way of life.
The present case is one of those gravest killings, and
ghastly murders of five persons by the appellants who
deserve condemnation by awarding severest punishment
provided under the law."
The evidence shows that Mahesh axed Narbadbai withotit any
provocation, from any member of his family. Thereafter, Pooran was
assaulted and axed by Mahesh. When the assault of these two persons,
E by the father and son, was on, the mother of Pooran came from inside
and questioned as to why they were doing this. She too was killed by
giving her axe blows by the appellants. When the neighbour Guiab
asked the appellants as to why they were murdering these people, he
was also axed to death by the appellants. A young girl aged about 14
years standing near the bathing place at the corner of the house was
F also not spared. Mahesh gave her an axe blow, on receipt of which she
fell down at some distance and died. The e.vidence further shows that
the blood thirst of the accused was so intense that they knocked and
tried to break open the door of the room where Nandram, P.W. 1 and
his wife Savithri Bai, P.W. 2 were hiding to save themselves and they
left the place only when the door could not be broken.
G
It is against this background that the request of the appellants'
counsel for interference with the sentence has to be considered. The
High Court observes that the act of the appellant: "was extremely
brutal, revolting and gruesome which shocks the judicial conscience."
And again as "in such shocking nature of crime as the one before us
H which,is so cruel, barbaric and revolting, it is necessary to impose such
maximum punishment under the law as a measure of social necessity
##
MARESH _v._ M.P. STATE [KHALID,J.) 713
which work as a deterrent to other potential offenders." A
We share the concern of the High Court. We also feel that it will
be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants to escape the extreme
penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. _To_
give the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to render the B
justicing system of this country suspect. The common man will lose
faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the
language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon. When we
~- say this, we do not ignore the need for a reformative approach in the
sentencing process. But here, we have no alternative but to confirm
the death sentence. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.
##### c
_);;'_ P.S.S. Appeals dismissed.
