RAM DEO CHAUHAN ALIAS RAJ NATH CHAUHAN versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 31-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAM DEO CHAUHAN ALIAS RAJ NATH CHAUHAN 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
JULY 31, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code 1860 : Section 302. 
Murder-Circumstantial evidence-Conviction based on-Imposition of 
death penalty-Legality of 
Death Penalty-Accused-Quadruple murder of four members of a fam-
ily including a child and two women-Murders committed after previous plan-
ning and in the most brutal manner-Medical evidence indicating that accused 
was not deprived of his senses at the time of commission of offence-Confession 
D 
of accused duly proved-Sentence of death imposed by Trial Court and af-
firmed by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held the case of the 
accused falls under rarest of the rare category-Hence infliction of death 
penalty was called for-Award of lesser sentence only on the ground of the 
appellant being a youth at the time of occurrence not a mitigating circum-
stance. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136. 
Appeal-Concurrent findings of facts by courts below-Power of Su-
preme Court to interfere with. 
F 
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 323, 325 and 326 of 
G 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He committed murder of four persons of a 
family and caused injuries to the mother of deceased No. 1 and to the 
neighbourer of the deceased. The prosecution case, based on circumstan-
tial evidence, was that the appellant committed a pre-planned, cold blooded 
brutal murder of four members of a family - including a child aged 2-1/2 
years and two women - when they were sleeping. Trial Court convicted 
him of the offences charged and awarded him death sentence. High Court 
affirmed the conviction of the accused. It found that the accused 
committed heinous, dastardly, gruesome and cruel crime after pre-medita-
tion. Accordingly, it confirmed the death sentence awarded by the Trial 
H 
Court. Both the courts below concurrently found that the incriminating 
28 
b 
'
-
-
R.D. CHAUHAN ALIAS R.N. CHAUHAN v. STATE 
29 
circumstances in the case were such which lead only to the hypothesis of 
A 
the guilt and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the 
appellant. A confessional statement made by the accused was also duly 
proved. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that as there was no direct evidence available in the case it would not be 
B 
safe to convict and sentence him for the offence of murder. It was also 
suggested that the accused might have been deprived of his senses at the 
time of commission of the crime. Pursuant to the directions of this court 
the accused was examined by a Medical Board. From the report it was 
clear that his cognitive faculties were within normal limit and there was no 
C 
evidence to suggest abnormalities in his mental faculties. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial 
Court and confirmed_by the High Court is upheld. It is generally believed 
and accepted that the witnesses may lie but the circumstances cannot. It 
has rightly been found that the circumstances proved against the appellant 
form themselves into a complete chain unerringly pointing to his guilt. 
[31-D; 32-H; 33B] 
D 
2. There is no good ground to deviate from the general practice that 
E 
in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India normally the 
concurrent findings of fact relating to appreciation of evidence would not 
be re-opened. In this case no circumstance has been referred to requiring 
re-appreciation of evidence. [33-A; B] 
Malempati Pattabhi Narendra v. Ghattamanent Maruthi Prasad and 
F 
Anr., [2000] 5 SCC 226, referred to. 
3. On the basis of the medical report, it cannot be said that the 
appellant was, in any way, deprived of his senses even temporarily at the 
time of commission of offence. It appears from his confessional statement, 
which has been duly proved, that he had prepared himself for committing 
G 
this ghastly crime of murdering four innocent persons. There is no doubt 
that the murders have been committed by the appellant after previous 
planning which involved extreme brutality. [36-D] 
4. It is true that in a civilised society a tooth for tooth, and a nail for 
nail or death for death is not the rule but it is equally true that when a man 
H 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
becomes a beast and menace to the society, he can be deprived of his life 
according to the procedure established by law, a

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