LexRAM SINGH versus SONIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
'
i.
RAM SINGH
A
v.
SONIA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 15, 2007
[B.N. AGRA WAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]
B
Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 rlw Sections 34 and 120-B.
Murder-'Rarest of rare' cases-Death sentence-Imposition of-
Justification-Extrajudicial confession-Circumstantial evidence-Accused C
A-1 (daughter) along with her husband accused A-2 had not only murdered
her step brother and his whole family, which included three children of 45
days, 2 112 years and 4 years but also her own father, mother, sister and
sister-in-law while they were sleeping so as to prevent her father from giving
the property to her step brother and his family-Trial court convicted the D
accused persons on the basis of confession and circumstantial evidence and
imposed sentence of death on them-However, High Court commuted the
death sentence into life imprisonment-Correctness of-Held: The fact ~hat
the murders in question were committed in such a diabolic manner while the
victims were sleeping, without any provocation whatsoever from the victims'
side indicates the cold-blooded and premeditated approach of the accused E
to cause the death of the victims-The act was diabolic of the most superlative
degree in conception and cruel in execution and that both the accused
persons were not possessed of the basic humanness and completely lack the
psyche or mindset which could be amenable for any reformation-This is an
act which is not only revolting but also dastardly-The case ~ndoubtedly
falls within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases-Hence, High Court .not
justified in commuting the death sentence into life imprisonment-High Court
judgment set aside and that of the trial court restored-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, Ss. 164 and 463.
F
According to the prosecution, when PW-57, one of the employees of the G
deceased, and A-2 were sitting at the saw mill located by the side of a farmhouse
of the deceased, a telephone call was received by A-2 from A-1 conveying her
desire to celebrate the birthday of her deceased sister and that she would bring
her from the school in which she was studying. At about 9.30 pm, A-1 along
651
H
y
'
., .
RAM SINGH v. SONIA
653
Sections 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to death. A
The High Court, while upholding their convictions, had commuted the sentence
-of death into life imprisonment. Hence the appeals.
On behalf of the accused persons, it was contended that A-I was forced
to write the suicide note after having been tortured in police custody; that the
judicial confession made by A-I to PW-62 was not recorded according to the B
procedure prescribed by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
which could not be cured by Section 463 Cr.P.C.; that A-I was kept under
direct or indirect police surveillance and, therefore, she was in police custody
when she made the confession; that the hospital record was tampered with;
that the fingerprints from the iron rod used to commit the crime were not
lifted and that the FIR was ante timed.
C
Allowing the appeal filed by the State and dismissing the appeal filed by
the accused persons, the Court
HELD:I. There is overwhelming evidence to show the presence of A-1
at the place of occurrence on the intervening nights on the day of the incident. D
The trial court and the High Court have relied on the evidence of PW-57,
PW-58, PW-46, PW-25 and PW-64 after close and careful scrutiny of the
same. The view taken by the trial court and the High Court is the correct
one. [Para 12] (663-G; 664-A)
2. A bare perusal of the suicide note which was addressed by A-1 to
none other than A-2 {her husband], would show that in the very first line she
has confessed of having eliminated everybody and that she was ending her
E
F
life as well. In this very letter of hers, A-l has admitted having written it
immediately after the occurrence. This fact stands proved by the evidence of
PW-57 who, in his evidence, has stated that he picked up the said letter from
A-l's bed and thereafter left for the police station. Therefore, there was no
reason for any of the police officials to be present at the place of occurrence
from the time the crime was committed until the arrival of the police officials
after the lodgment of the FIR. Both the courts below have relied upon the
evidence of PW-57 and PW-26 on this point and there is no reason to disbelieve G
their testimony. (Para 14) [664-C, D, E]
3.1. In her SuiciExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.