AJITSINGH HARNAMSINGH GUJRAL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 13-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1000 
AJITSINGH HARNAMSINGH GUJRAL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1969 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Accused burnt 
C his wife and three children to death by pouring petrol on them 
and setting them on fire - Convicted uls. 302 and sentenced 
to penalty of death by courts below - On appeal, held: 
Prosecution established the entire chain of circumstances 
which connects the accused to the crime - Accused had pre-
D planned the diabolical and gruesome murder in a dastardly 
manner - He did not act on any spur of the moment - He 
cannot be reformed and rehabilitated - Thus, the penalty of 
death sentence is upheld. 
Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - 'Rarest of rare 
E case' - Held: Death sentence should only be given in the 
rarest of rare cases - On facts, the accused burnt living 
persons to death which is a horrible act causing exGruciating 
pain to the victim, and this could not have been unknown to 
the accused - Accused did not act on any spur of the moment 
F provocation - There was a quarrel between accused and his 
wife at midnight, but the accused having brought a large 
quantity of petrol into his residential apartment shows that he 
had pre-planned the diabolical and gruesome murder in a 
dastardly manner - Such person who instead of protecting his 
G family kills them in such a cruel and barbaric manner cannot 
be reformed or rehabilitated - Balance sheet is heavily 
against him - Thus, all the requisites for death penalty are 
satisfied - Instant case belongs to the category of rarest of 
H 
1000 
AJITSINGH HARNAMSINGH GUJRAL v. STATE OF 1001 
MAHARASHTRA 
rare cases - Death sentence awarded to the accused is 
A 
upheld. 
Death sentence - Broad guidelines to award death 
sentence - Stated. 
Legislation - Abolition of death penalty - Held: It is not 
B 
for the judiciary to repeal or amend the law, as that is in the 
domain of the legislature - It is only the legislature which can 
abolish the death penalty and not the courts - As long as the 
death penalty exists in the statute book it has to be imposed 
in some cases, otherwise it would tantamount to repeal of the C 
death penalty by the judiciary. 
According to the prosecution, appellant was married 
and having one son aged about 20 years and two 
daughters aged 22 years and 13 years respectively. On 
D 
the fateful day, the appellant killed his wife 'KK' and three 
children by pouring petrol on their persons and setting 
thein on fire. The said incident took place 25-27 years 
after the marriage of the appellant and 'KK'. The trial court 
convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and 
E 
imposed penalty of death upon the appellant. The High 
Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the death 
f;lentence. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The prosecution has been able to establish 
the entire chain of circumstances which connect the 
accused to the crime. [Para 49] [1030-H] 
F 
2.1. In the instant case, reliance is entirely on 
circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses 
G 
of the crime. It is true that motive is important in cases of 
circumstantial evidence, but that does not mean that in 
all cases of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution has 
been unable to satisfactorily prove a motive its case must 
fail. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the 
H 
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A case since men may lie but circumstances do not. In 
cases of circumstantial evidence the prosecution must 
establish the entire chain of circumstances which 
connects the accused to the crime. [Paras 14, 20) (1018-
E-F; 1022-D] 
B 
Wakkar and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2011 (3) SCC 
306: JT 2011(2) SC 502; Krishnan vs. State represented by 
Inspector of police 2008(15)SCC 430 Sharad Birdhichand 
Sarcia vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622: 1985 (1) 
C SCR 88; Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan vs. State of 
Bihar 2011(5) SCC 317 - referred to. 
2.2. There is no reason to disbelieve PW3-brother-in-
law of the appellant or PW5-mother-in-law of the appellant 
From their testimony it is evident that the appellant was 
D a dictatorial personality, who wanted to dominate over his 
family and was also hot tempered. He would even beat 
his wife (deceased) with a leather belt. [Para 17) (1021-E] 
2.3. As regards the Sl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.