High CourtDivision BenchAppeal dismissed; death sentence upheld.

Sarveshwar Prasad Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1971
Neutral Citation:1978 SCR 561

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. K. Goswami
  • Jaswant Singh
Judgment Date
1977-09-26
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is accordingly dismissed; death sentence upheld.
Final Disposition
Appeal dismissed; death sentence upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sarveshwar Prasad Sharma

Respondents

  • State of Madhya Pradesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Mohan Behari Lal (amicus curiae)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • L. N. Shroff

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns the murders of nine members of Ram Swaroop’s family by a close friend and medical practitioner, for monetary gain. The appellant was convicted on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death. The Sessions and the Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded special reasons for the death penalty, in line with the 1973 CrPC provision that mandates a statement of special reasons when death is imposed, so that higher courts can examine them. The Supreme Court granted special leave limited to the sentence and heard arguments from an amicus curiae and the State. The appellant urged mercy on grounds of financial distress and dependence on his wife and children; the State argued there were no extenuating circumstances to justify a lesser penalty. The Court emphasized that while the case involves a horrifying crime, the law requires that the court's reasons for death be stated and subject to review; guidelines in other cases are not exhaustive and cannot be blindly applied. The trial court described the acts as ghastly and motivated by greed; the High Court reinforced this view, noting the deliberate extermination of a nine-member family, including two infants. The Court held that the special reasons recorded were adequate to justify death and dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1974

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Special reasons for death sentence must be recorded under s. 354(3) CrPC.
  • Guidelines for death penalty are not exhaustive; the totality of facts governs the sentence.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant submitted that extenuating circumstances, including financial distress and dependence of his family, warrant lesser penalty and clemency; he urged mercy and consideration of hardships.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argued there were no extenuating circumstances and that the brutal killings for monetary gain warranted the death penalty; the courts below rightly recorded special reasons and death should stand.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sarveshwar Prasad Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

\ A B ## c D E 560 SARVESHW AR PRASAD SHARMA _v._ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH _September_ 26, 1977 (P. K. GOSWAMI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] _Sentence-Sentence_ _of_ _death, special reasons_ _as_ _req11ired_ _under_ _s._ 354(3) _of_ _the Crbninal Procedure Code_ _(Act_ _II_ _of_ 1974), 1973 _recorded by tile Sessions_ _and_ _the High_ _Cottrt-lnterference_ _by_ _the_ _Suprenie_ _Court under Art._ 136 _only in_ _special cases._ The appellant, a qualified medical practitioner, was convicted for nine gruesome, murders of his friend, the latter's wife, aged parents, two sons and three daughters of the age of16, 13, 8, 5 and 3 respectively, entirely on circun1stantial evidence and was sentenced to death. The entire family was exterminated due to greed for cash. ornaments and other valuables. The Sessions and the Htgh Court gave convincing and- special reasons for passing the death sentence. Dismissing the specia·l leave which is limited to the question of sentence, the Court, F HELD : La\V directs the course of the court. After enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), the judgment in a murder case "shall state the special reasons" for a sentence of death, only in special cases with recording of reasons so that these may be examined by superior courts. None of the guidelines indicated by this court in several decisions in this problem aorea of life and death as a result of judicial verdict can be cut and Ory nor exhaustive. Each case will depend upon the totality of the facts and circumstances and other matters revealed. In the instant case the horrid enormity of the crime with a deliberate motive of wrongful gain cannot be minimised when considering the appropria-te sentence. The special reasons mandat~ under the law are duly recorded by both the High Court and the Trial Court and those are adequate to justify the sentence of death in these cruel and diabolical murd.ers [561 E-F, 562 Fl CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1971. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 13-4-77 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 37177 and Death Reference No. 1177. _Mohan Behari Lal (amicus mriae)_ for the Appellant. _l._ _N._ _Shroff_ for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G GOSWAMI, J. We have granted special leave in this case limited to the question of sentence and heard the learned counsel, appearing as, _amicus curiae_ and also for the State. 1 H These are gruesome murders wiping out a11 entire ·family of nine persons including two infants. The accused (31), Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.), a qualified medical practitioner, was a close friend of one of the deceased, Ram Swaroop ( 40), who was an Upper Division Clerk in the Madhya Pradesh Girls N. C. Battalion at Gwalior. The s. P. SHARMA _v._ MADHYA PRADESH _(Goswami,_ _J.)_ 561 accused lived only about a furlong away from the deceased. Deceased Ram Swaroop used to practise Homoeopathy as his hobby. Them was thus a certain degree of common interest between the accus ed and deceased Ram Swaroop. Karn Swaroop had his parents, aged 60 years, his wile (35 l. tilcir two sons and three daughters of the age of 16, 13, 8, 5 and 3 respectively. As stated earlier, the entire family was exterminated. Cash, ornaments and other valuables were also removed at the same time. A **B** Murder was committed on the night of 4th July, 1976 and the dead bodies were locked up inside the room and the house was locked from outside. On 6th July foul smell was emitted from the closed house and the police was informed. The house was broken open by the C police and the nine dead bodies were recovered. There is no direct evidence as to who actually committed the crimb **or even** **\Vhether** **there was more** **than** **one person taking** **part** **in** **tJ11s** dastardly crime. The accused stood convicted entirely on circun1sta ntial evidence and his conviction is, now beyond question. We have heard learned counsel of both sides on the question ot sentence. The recent benign direction of the penal law is towards lire sentence, as a rule, and death as an exception awarding of which must be accompanied by recorded reasons. This Court has in several decisions indicated guidelines in this problem area of life and death as a result of judicial verdict but none of these guidelines can be cut and dry nor exhaustive. Each case will depend upon the totality of the facts, circumstances and other matters revealed Law directs the course of the court. Afte" enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), the judgment. in a murder case "shall state the special reasons" for a sentence of death. That is to say, there will be sentence of death only in special cases with recording of reasons so that these may be examined by superior courts. The trial court dealing with the question of sentence observed as follows: "Even beasts do not show unfaithfulness but this case is a shin!ng. example of the heinous unfaithfulness. Firstly to commit nme murders and that toe, of small children commit ted by inflicting more than one injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature and therefore gravity of the offence has surpassed its last limit due to which it would be proper to say that the acts of accused are not only beastlv but ghastly injoined with extreme greediness. There being l2-930SCI/77 **D** E F G **H** SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] l s.c.R. 562 A total lack of extenuating circumstances the accused deserves to be punished with extreme penalty without hesitation". The High Court dealing with the same question made the follow# ing observation : B ## c **D** E F "The accused was a trusted friend of the deceased Ram Swaroop. But, for achievement of his vicious object to relieve him of his cash and valuables he not only kilfed Ram Swaroop but also exterminated his whole family including his aged parents, his wife and five children two of whom were infants aged five years and three years respectively. He committed these blood-chilling murders of the nine innocent persons for monetary gain and to destroy the evidence of the crime he had committed. It is difficult to find words strong enough to condemn these gruesome anri dastardly murders. Ironically the accused chose not to spare even the two infant daughters of Ram Swaroop who dearly used to address him as 'Dr. Chacha' and were in~apable of giving evidence even if they had been left alive. The tragedy has few parallels. The accused was neither demented nor mentally sick. There are absolutely no extenuating circumstances for passing a lesser sentence. On the other hand, the case, in our opinion, is eminen!ly fit for imposing the extreme penalty of law". It is submitted that the accused was financially in straits with wife and two smull children and this should be taken into consideration to merit clemency for the lesser sentence. These grounds had also been urged earlier before the trial court, but the horrid enormity of the crime with a deliberate motive of wrongful gain cannot be minimised when considering the appropriate sentence. We agree with the courts below that there are no extenuating circumstances to justify the lesser penalty. The special reasons mandated under the law are duly recorded by both the High Court and the trial court and we are not in a position to say that those are inadequate to justify the sentence of death in these cruel and diabolical murders. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.R. _Appeal dismissed._