JAG DISH versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 18-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 727 
JAG DISH 
A 
---+ 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 
B 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 302 - Multiple murders - Accused-husband found in c 
his house with a blood stained knife besides the dead bodies 
of his wife and minor children - Conviction under s.302 on 
the basis of circumstantial evidence and death sentence 
awarded - Justification of- Held: Justified - Medical evidence 
supported the prosecution case in its entirety- Circumstances 
D 
-.., 
forming a chain even stronger than an eye-witness account. 
s. 84 - Benefit under, entitlement - Held: The benefit of , 
s. 84 is available to a person who at the time when the act was 
done was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that 
E 
what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law - On facts, 
benefit not available as plea with regard to appellant's mental 
condition was not taken before the courts below . 
• 
'( 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
Death sentence - Commutation of death sentence to life 
F 
_,.. 
imprisonment - Delay in execution of death sentence - Effect 
of - Observations made - On facts, murders took place in 
2005 - Conviction order passed in April 2006 and judgment 
confirmed by High Court in June 2006 "'- Matter first came up G 
in Supreme Court in September 2006 and adjourned 
repeatedly on the request of counsel of accused - Leave 
granted in March 2007, limited to the question of sentence 
only - The matter being finally disposed of in September, 
727 
H 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 2009, there is no delay whatsoever - Constitution of India, 
.Ir--
1950 - Articles 72, 161 - Administration of justice. 
Prosecution case was that on the day of incident, 
pw .. 1, brother of appellant was informed by PW-4.that he 
B had heard lot of noise from the appellant's house. PW-1 
rushed to the house of appellant and when he peeped 
through the window, he saw appellant sitting in the room 
with a blood stained knife in his hand and his cloths were 
drenched in blood. The dead bodi~s of his wife, four · 
c daughters and son were lying besides him. PW-1 asked 
appellant as to what he had done. In response, appellant 
threatened him with dire consequences. PW-1 locked the 
room from outside to prevent escape of appellant. He 
rushed to police station and returned with police party. 
.. 
D 
Appellant was arrested on the spot and on interrogation 
>-
a blood-stained -pyjama and knife hldden in a cloth were 
seized. The trial court convicted him under s.302 IPC on 
the basis of circumstantial evidence and awarded him 
death sentence. On reference, High Court held that matter 
fell within the category of rarest of rare cases. 
E 
In appeal to this court, it was contended for the 
appellant that there was no eyewitness to the incident; 
• 
that mere circumstance that the murders happened in the , 
)' 
family was. insufficient to prove case beyond reasonable 
F doubt; that appellant was suffering from mental 
disturbance and incapable of understanding the nature 
of his actions and entitled to benefit of Section 84 IPC; 
and that the murders took place in 2005 and death 
sentence was hanging over appellant's head for more . 
G than three years which. itself was punishment and so 
death sentence ought to be commuted to life sentence. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
JAGDISH v. STATE OF M.P. 
729 
,---1 
HELD: 1. The case against the appellant was proved A 
by the evidence of his brother and neighbours, who had 
all seen the dead bodies with the appellant sitting beside 
them armed with a knife and he had in fact threatened 
that anyone else interfering would meet the same fate. It 
is also significant that PW-1 locked the door from outside a 
and it was in that condition that the appellant was arrested 
and his bloodstained clothes and knife were recovered. 
It is true that in case of circumstantial evidence, motive 
has extreme significance but to say that in the absence 
of motive, the conviction based on circumstantial c 
evidence cannot, in principle, be made is not correct. The 
appellant and the deceased family members were the 
only occupants of the room and it was therefore 
'" 
incumbent on the appellant to have tendered some 
. 
explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt. 
__._ 
D 
The story that a thief was present in the room introduced 
by PW-1 at the stage of the trial was doubtless an attempt 
to help

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