MANOJ SURYAVANSHI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 17 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 1
1
MANOJ SURYAVANSHI
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2020)
MARCH 05, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE
AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 364 – Murder of three minor
children – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution
case was that the complainant lodged missing report of his three
minor children aged about 8 years, 6 years and 4 years respectively
– During search, PW-8 stated that he saw the minor children along
with the appellant near their school – Appellant was not found in
his house and was missing even from the village – Thereafter
appellant was contacted on his mobile and he told that he was 60
Kms away – Police traced the location of mobile and found him in
the house of PW-13 – At the instance of appellant, dead bodies
along with the school bags were recovered – Conviction by courts
below – Held: Prosecution was able to prove beyond doubt that all
the three minors went to the school in the morning and thereafter
they left for the home at about 11.30 hours – That, thereafter, at
about 12.00 hours, the appellant was seen with all the three minor
children – There was a prior enmity between the appellant and the
complainant father of the deceased minor children as the wife of
the accused had eloped with the brother of the complainant-father
and the children of the accused were without their mother –
Immediately after his arrest, the dead bodies were recovered/found
along with the school bags etc. from the place shown by the accused
himself – The phone-calls made to the accused was established and
proved by the prosecution by examining the Investigating Officer
and by producing the call details from the mobile company – These
chain of events led to the conclusion that the accused first kidnapped
the three minor children and thereafter killed all of them – No
interference with the order of conviction called for.
Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Conviction and death
sentence for murder of three minor children – For deciding on the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
issue of sentence, the aggravating circumstances and mitigating
circumstances must be located and the right balance must be adopted
– In the instant case, the mitigating factors/circumstances were that
the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or
emotional disturbance – Appellant was emotionally disturbed due
to the elopement of his wife with the uncle of the deceased and that
his children were suffering in absence of their mother; there were
no criminal antecedents; at the time of commission of the offence
the appellant was 28 years of age and his conduct in prison was
reported to be good; he belonged to a poor family and was the only
son of his parents, and his aged mother was taking care of his
daughters – On the other hand, the only aggravating circumstance
pointed out by the State was the manner in which the incident took
place and three minors were brutally killed – Except this, no other
aggravating circumstances were pointed out on behalf of the State
– Therefore, striking the balance between aggravating circumstances
and mitigating circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly, the mental condition of the appellant at the
time of the commission of the offence, the mitigating circumstances
are in favour of the accused to convert the death sentence to life
imprisonment – Thus, the death sentence converted into the life
imprisonment – It is directed that the life means till the end of the
life with the further observation and direction that there shall not
be any remission till the accused completes 25 years of imprisonment.
Evidence: Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in
evidence – Held: The minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in
the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the minor lacuna in
the investigation led by the police cannot be a reason for discarding
the entire prosecution case, if the evidence is otherwise sufficient
and inspiring to bring home the guilt of the accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.235(2) – Object and
purpose – Held: The object and purpose of s.235(2) is that the
accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation
against the sentence to be imposed on him – Sub-section (2) of
s.235 satisfies a dual purpose; it satisfies the rule of natural justice
by affording to the accused an opportunity of being heard on the
question of sentenc

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