LexDILIP PREMNARAYAN TIWARI AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 322 A DILIP PREMNARAYAN TIWARI AND ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1026 of 2008) B DECEMBER 10, 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302- Murder- Inter-caste marriage c by sister of A-1 -After seven months, A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 entered the house of her sister's husband and assaulted him, his father and other members of family - Three died and other seriously injured - Conviction under s.302 and death sentence awarded - On appeal, held: No infirmity in the order of conviction - Injured witness was sister of deceased - She D was most natural witness and had opportunity to watch the dast3rdly attack - Her evidence was wholly credible and fully \ supported by medical evidence - Conviction is confirmed - Regarding sentence, A-1 was young person and not having any c_riminal antecedent - Murders were outcome of social E issue like intercaste ma"iage - In death sentence matter, background of the criminal, his psychology, his social conditions and mindset for committing offence are also relevant - Murder was brutal, but weighing circumstances, particularly, about the mindset of A-1, death sentence is not .. F justified - A-3 also is a person without any criminal antecedents and he joined the company of A-1 only out of his commitment as he was resident of the same house - A- 2 had comparatively lesser role - In that view, he also did not deserve death sentence - They are liable to be awarded life G imprisor;iment - However, in the peculiar circumstances of case, A-1 and A-3 shall not be released unless they complete 25 years of actual imprisonment - In case of A-2, however, since he had not assaulted the helpless ladies, he deserves life imprisonment in the ordinary sense - He shall have to H 322 DILIP PREMNARAYAN TIWARI AND ANR. v. STATE 323 OF MAHARASHTRA undergo the 20 years of actual punishment - Sentence/ A Sentencing. Prosecution case was that 'S' sister of A-1 married / deceased 'P'. The family of A-1 extremely opposed the marriage as the boy did not belong to their caste. The B deceased 'A' and 'Bj' used to act as messengers between the couple before their marriage and were also threatened by A-1 and his mother A-5. The marriage took place on 29.10.2003. 'S' continued her education, after marriage and started residing with her c husband 'P'. A-5, mother of 'S' advised her to leave 'P'. Sister of 'S' also persuaded her to leave 'P'. But she refused. 'S' became pregnant. On account of threats, 'S' was sent by deceased 'P' to his relative's house, PW-2. . D t On the fateful day, P's father, his cousin 'Bj', his sister PW-4 and mother PW-8 were present in the house. At 1.15 A.M., A-1, A-2 and A-3 entered their house. A-1 and A-3 attacked P's father with knife on chest and stomach. 'P' tried to save his father. A-1 and A-3 assaulted him with E knife and stabbed him in stomach and chest. A-1 asked A-2 and one unknown person to take 'P' out of the house and kill him. PW-4 tried to save her brother 'P'. 'Bj' caught hold of A-3 and asked him not to assault her. A-3 inflicted • blows with knife over hand, chest and cheeks of 'Bj'. A- 1 and A-3 also assaulted PW-4 and PW-8. A-2 inflicted F injuries on the neck of 'A'. Thereafter accused person left the place. PW-4 who was severely injured gathered courage and contacted her uncle PW-1 on phone and informed about assault. PW-1 reached the spot of G occurrence along with PW-2. Injured were taken to hospital. 'P' on way to hospital disclosed to PW-2 that A- 1 to A-3 and one more person assaulted him and others. PW-4 was unconscious. 'P' died on way. When police reached the spot, they found dead bodies of P's father, H 324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A 'Bj' and 'A'. PW-1 lodged FIR against A-1 to A-5. Trial court acquitted A-4 and A-5 but convicted A-1 to A-3 and awarded death sentence. High Court confirmed death sentence. Hence these appeals. 8 Dismissing the appeals and modifying the sentences, the Court HELD: 1. The names of A-2 and A-3 were not found in FIR. Though the omission of names of A-2 and A-3 is significant, much importance cannot be given to this C omission. The FIR was given by a person who had seen the body of his young son 'Bj' having been brutally murdered. He also saw the dead body of his brother-in- law and also came to know that the other three members of the family were also
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.