HOLIRAM BORDOLOI versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 08-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HOLIRAM BORDOLOI 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
APRIL 8, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 436, 326 and 302 rlw Section 
149-Causing death of 2 persons including a six year old child-By setting 
C a house on fire wherein there were 6 people and closingthe doorfrom _outside-
Causing death of one person by cutting him into pieces-Offences done in 
broad day light-Eyewitnesses including injured witnesses supporting 
prosecution case-Conviction and imposition of death sentence by Courts" 
below-On appeal, held: Conilictfon andsentencejustified as there are number 
of aggravating circumstances apparent against the accused and no mitigating 
D circumstance is found in his favour-Sentencing. 
Appellant-accused alongwith seventeen other accused came near the 
house of 'N' armed with various weapons. 'N' alongwith his wife-PW-1, 
three minor children and younger brother PW-2 went inside his bamboo 
hut. Accused started pelting stones on the hut. They tied the door from 
E outside and set the hut on fire. PWs 1 and 2 and two of the children 
somehow came out of the hut, but 'N' and his six year old child were 
trapped in the fire. When the six year old child came out, the appellant 
alongwith another accused again threw the child in the fire. 'N' and the 
child were completely burnt and they died on the spot. Thereafter the 
appellant went to house of 'NG' dragged him to the house of appellant 
F and cut him into pieces. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, the wife, brother and children 
of the deceased 'N' respectively and PW-5, wife of deceased 'NG' were 
the witnesses to the incident. The witnesses had also sustained injuries. 
Three accused including the appellant had absconded. The fourt~en 
accused had been tried and convicted, Appellant was tried separately. All 
G the witnesses supported the prosecution case. Trial Court convicted the 
appellant u/ss. 147, 148, 436, 326 and 302 r/w. Section 149 IPC and 
awarded capital punishment. High Court upheld the conviction and 
punishment. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismis~ing the appeal, the Court 
H 
4~ 
HOLIRAM BORDOLOI ". STA TE OF ASSAM 
407 
HELO : I. The evidence adduced by the prosecution proves beyond A 
reasonable doubt the actual involvement of the appellant in this incident. 
There is no reason to disagree with the findings entered in by the Sessions 
Court as well as the High Court. The conviction of the appellant is upheld. 
1410-G) 
2.1. In the present case the aggravating circumstances against the B 
accused are: (a) this is a case of cold-blooded murder; (b) the accused was 
leading the gang; (c) The victims did not provoke or contribute to the 
incident; (d) two victims were burnt to death by locking the house from 
outside; (e) one of the victims was a young boy, aged about 6 years, who, 
somehow, managed to come out of the burning house, but he was C 
mercilessly thrown back to the fire by the appellant; (t) the dragging of 
second deceased by the appellant to his house .and then cutting him into 
pieces in broad daylight in the presence of bystanders; (g) the entire 
incident took place in the broad daylight and the crime was committed in 
the most barbaric manner to deter others from challenging the supremacy 
of the appellant in the village; (h) the entire incident was pre-planned by D 
the accused-appellant. 1415-B-Dl 
2.2. Neither the perusal of the evidence on record nor the statement 
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. provided for any mitigating circumstance in 
favour of the appellant. It is nowhere claimed that the deceased had 
provoked the accused persons or there was any strong motive for the 
commission of the heinous act. [415-D-E) 
E 
2.3. There is nothing to show that there was repentance by the 
accused at any point of time or an explanation for the occurrence. Even 
when questioned under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he F 
had nothing to say on the point of sentence. The fact that the appellant 
remained silent would show that he has no repentance for the ghastly act 
he committed. There was no spark of any kindness or compassion and his 
mind was brutal and the entire incident would have certainly shocked the 
collective conscience of the community. No mitigating circumstance is 
found to refrain from imposing the death penalty. on the appellant. 
G 
1415-G-H; 416-A-B) 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 119801 2 SCC 684, followed. 
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi, (20021 4 SCC 76; Ram Pal v .. 

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