LexRAJA RAM YADAV AND OTHERS versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAIA RAM YADAV AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR APRIL 11, 1996 B [G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, Jl] lndiall Penal Code, l86~Sections 302, 3021149, 148, 436/149-Murder of six pei:rnns of vile commullity in pre-planned alld gmesome manllei-Child witlless-<:011victio11 of accused based Oil sole testimony of the child wit- C nes;-Sustainabl~Award of death selltenc~Whether justifieil-Held, No-Death sentence conunuted to life ilnprisonnient. 74 persons were prosecuted in connection with the incident in which 26 persons including 6 women and 9 children were murdered and few houses in the village were reduced to ashes. The 8 appellants were con- D victed for the offence of murdering the six persons of one community and awarded death sentence. They were also convicted u/s 148, 436/149 IPC but no separate sentence was awarded. The conviction of the appellants had been based on the basis of eye witness account of a boy 11ged about 9 years who had witnessed the murder of the six members of l\is family from the E place of hiding. In appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of A4, AS and AS u/s 302 IPC, Al u/s 302/34 IPC, but the conviction of A3, A6 & A7 u/s 302 IPC was converted to conviction u/s 302/34 !PC. The death sentence awarded against each of the eight convicted accused was upheld. In the Special Leave Petitions, notice was issued limited only to the F question of sentence. The appellants submitted that the child witness shortly after the incident mentioned the names of only 4 appellants as the persons who bad murdered the six persons but deposed before the Court that all the 8 appellants were responsible for murdering the six persons and also indi- G cated the role played by each of them but in view of his omission to mention the names of the four of the appellants as the assailants, and considering the delay in reconsidering his statement, those four accused deserved to be dealt with leniently in the matter of awarding capital sentence; that none of the appellants was a hired assassin or professional murderer but they H were ordinary family members with no past criminal history and that the 174 R.R. YADAV v. STATE 175 crime was committed in order to avenge a carnage involving the kith and A kin of the appellants; that some of the appellants were quite young, they were not hardened criminals and there was a fair chance of their being reformed. The respondent State submitted that the child witness had given a clear and straight forward account of the murders or all the six persons in detail; that the acts or the murders and arson were pre-planned and the same had been committed to take revenge and the appellants picked up persons of one community only and butchered them in a gruesome manner and wiped out the entire family of PW 3, therefore, the incident of murder was one of the rarest of rare cases warranting death sentence. Disposing of the appeals, this Court B c HELD : The incident which had happened at the early hours was extremely shocking. Such gruesome and cruel incident cannot but send a D wave of shock to the society at large. In the instant case, the sole eye witness being a child witness of about 9 years did not tell the names of four of the appellants. Although the murders had been committed in a pre-meditated and calculated manner with extreme cruelty and brutality, for which nor· mally sentence of death will be wholly justified, in the special facts of the case, it will not be proper to award extreme sentence of death on the E appellants. Hence, the death sentence was commuted to the sentence of life imprisonment to be suffered by each of the appellants for the offence of murder. No separate sentence was passed against the appellants for the offence under Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC in view of awarding the sentence of death. Since the sentence of death was commuted to that of life imprisonment, sentence or six years rigorous imprisonment imposed against each or the appellants for the offence under Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC with a composite fine of R•. 15,000 r11r the offences under Sections 302 and 436 read with Section 149 !PC. The sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder and the sentence or F six years rigorous imprisonment for die offence under section 436 read with G section 149 IPC will run consecutively. Fine amount should be paid to PW 3 who, not only became an orphan, bu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.