LexRAVINDRA TRIMBAK CHOUTHMAL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ j RA VINDRA TRIMBAK CHOUTHMAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA FEBRUARY 23, 1996 (G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Dowry murder most foul- Whether "rarest of the rare" type-Extreme penalty of death-Whether merited. A B Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 201/34: Dowry murde1~Attrocious C act of severing head of deceased and cutting her body into nine pieces to cause disappearance of evidence-Sentence of imprisonmen~Whether to run con- secutively. Sections 316 & 498A/34: Dowry murder-Death of child in deceased's womb-Killing whether separately intended-Husband's cmelty towards D woman--Significance in view of murder. The appellant had married deceased against wishes of his father. She was persecuted and could live with her husband only for a couple of days and returned to her parents. The appellant brought her back about eight E months later to li•e with him in Bombay. It is alleged that there, for the sake of dowry, he connived with his father, mother and sister in murdering her, and severing her head and cutting her body in nine pieces to cause disappearance of evidence. The child in deceased's womb was also killed in their act. The co-accused the appellant's father and sister died during the course of trial. F The trial court sentenced the appellant to death for the offence under s.302 IPC read with s.1208 for committing murder of deceased and of child in the womb; to R.I. for 7 years under ss.201/34; to R.I. for 3 years under ss.498-A/34 and R.I. for 7 years under ss.304B/34. All his substantive G sentences were ordered to merge in the death sentence. The appellant's mother was also found guilty of various offences, and sentenced. The High Court came to the categorical finding that the circumstan- ces clearly established the active participation of the appellant with his father in hatching the plan, committing the murder and disposing of the H 1009 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R. A body. It confirmed the appellant's conviction for murder of deceased, but changed his conviction. for causing the murder of the child in the womb to one under s.316. It also confirmed his conviction under ss.201/34 and 498A/34. His conviction under s.304B/34 was set aside. The appellant's mother was, however, acquitted of all the charges. B Allowing the appeal partly, the Court HELD : 1. The murder of the deceased was undoubtedly most foul. ~The motive was to get another girl for the appellant who could get dowry to satisfy the _greed of the father. The dowry deaths are blood boiling, as C human blood is spilled to satisfy raw-greed, named greed, a greed which has no limit. [1013-F-G] 2. The case, however, cannot be placed in that category which could be regarded as the "rarest of the rare" type. This is so because dowry death has ceased to belong to that species of killing. The increasing number of D dowry death would bear this. The sentence of death is, therefore, com- muted to one of imprisonment for life. [1013-H; 1014-A; B] 3. However, what has been done to cause disappearance of the evidence relating to the commission of murder - the attrocious way in which the head was severed and the body was cut in nine pieces, makes it E a fit case for conviction under ss.201/34. The sentence of R.I. for 7 years awarded to the appellant, therefore, shall be sustained. This sentence shall run consecutively after the life imprisonment has run its course as per law. [1014-C-D] 4. As killing of the child in the womb was not separately intended F and the offence of cruelty ceased to be of significance and importance in view of murder of the deceased, the, sentences under ss.316 and 498-A/34, and 498-A IPC shall not be added. [1014-D-E) G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order 10/11/12/13/16.10.95 of the Bombay High Court in Confirmation Case No.2/95 & Crl.A.No.245 of 1995. M. Janardhanan, R.S. Hegde and P.P. Singh for the Appellants. H S.M. Jadhav for the Respondents. \ j RAVINDRA TRIMBAKCHOUTHMALv. STATE [HANSARIA,J.] 1011 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. To hang or not tci hang, is the basic question to be decided in this appeal. The murder of Vijaya was undoubtedly most foul. Even so, death sentence can be awarded if murder be of the "rarest of the rare" type. Let it be seen whether this was so. 2. The facts taken as established by the High Court,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.