LexGUDDA @ DWARIKENDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 293 GUDDA @ DWARIKENDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1566-1567 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 [H.L. DATTU, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Three victims - A B 'S', and his wife and minor son - Accused-appellant allegedly C assaulted the deceased persons with a knife after having invited them at his house for lunch - Motive-of appellant in brutally assaulting 'S' with a knife allegedly stemmed from his abhorrence for his wife's relationship with 'S' - Conviction of appellant u/s.302 /PC - Justification - He.Id: Justified - D Evidence of the two eye-witnesses, PW-5 and PW-7, found credible and trustworthy - Defense version that the incident occurred when 'S' attempted to rape the wife of appellant and on her resistance threatened to assault her with the knife, apparently unnatural and improbable - Plea of right to private E defence and non-orchestrated nature of the offence vitiated by evidence of PW-9 - Prosecution case well supported and established by the evidence of PWs 5, 7, 9 and 18 coupled with the evidence of doctors, the post-mortem report and medical evidence - No room for any doubt as to the guilt of F the appellant. Sentence I Sentencing - Murder case - Three victims - Conviction of accused-appellant uls. 302 /PC - Death sentence awarded to appellant - Challenge to - Held: Awarding of life sentence is the rule, death is an exception - G Application of "the rarest of the rare case" principle is dependent upon and differs from case to case - Reasonable proportion has to be maintained between brutality of the crime 293 H 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A and the punishment - In the case at hand, the factum of the crime being pre-ordained and the motive of the appellant in brutally assaulting the deceased-'$' with a knife after having invited him at his house for lunch stemmed from his suspicion on his wife's fidelity and his abhorrence for her relationship B with the deceased-'S' - However, the same motive to murder the wife of 'S' and their only child does not find favor with the facts of the case - The other two murders seem to have translated due to the sudden realization of appellant and his extreme fear of being caught for the murder of 'S' and a/so, c to save himself from being shunned by the society - Further, appellant is a young man of about 35 years and not having any criminal antecedents - Future possibilities of his reform a/so not ruled out - In the contextual facts, the brutality as evinced by the appellant would not fall within the ambit of the 0 "rarest of the rare" cases so as to exercise the discretion of imposing capital punishment - Therefore, conviction of appellant uls. 302 affirmed, however, the sentence of death imposed on him commuted to imprisonment for life. Three persons, namely, 'S', his pregnant wife and 5 E year old minor son were murdered in the rented house of appellant. The prosecution case was that the appellant thoroughly detested the association of his wife, A2 with the deceased '5' and did not like him visiting his house to meet A2 in spite of his strong opposition and therefore, F hatched a conspiracy with A2 to murder the deceased persons on the pretext of inviting and hosting them for a lunch. PW-5 is the owner of the house where appellant and A2 resided as tenants. PW-7 is another tenant in the house of PW-5. PW-9 was known to the deceased G persons and at the relevant time was in the neighborhood. PW-18 had accompanied PW-9 on the fateful day. PWs- 16 and 14 are the doctors who conducted post-mortem of the deceased persons. H In the statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, GUDDA @ DWARIKENDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA 295 PRADESH the appellant stated that on the fateful day on returning A from the market, he saw 'S' attempting to commit rape on A2 and was attacking her with the knife; and on his intervention, 'S' attempted to hit him and a fight ensued whereafter he snatched the knife from 'S' and hit him in order to protect his wife's modesty and their lives. It was B further stated by the appellant that since the wife and child of 'S' intervened, they too suffered serioµs injuries leading to their death. The Trial Court rejected the defence version and finding the evidence insufficient to establish the guilt of C A2 beyond reasonable doubt held that appellant alone was guilty of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.