LexSAIBANNA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SAIBANNA v. ST A TE OF KARNA T AKA APRIL 21, 2005 B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA,JJ.] Pena! Code, 1860-Section 302-Pre-planned brutal murder without provocation-"Rarest of rare case"-Death sentence-Accused-appellant was already convicted to life imprisonment for murder of his first wife-While he C was out on parole, suspecting the fidelity of his second wife, he murdered her as also his minor daughter of I~ years, when they were asleep, by assaulting them with a hunting knife-Imposition of death sentence by Courts below after convicting appellant under Section 302-Justification of-Held: Justified- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 235(2) r/w 354(3) and 427 (2). D According to prosecution the appellant murdered his second wife and minor daughter of 1 Yz years when he was out on parole while serving life imprisonment for murdering his first wife. He committed the offence by assaulting the victims with a jambia- a hunting knife while they were asleep at night. Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 E IPC and sentenced him to death holding that the case belonged to the category of "rarest of rare case" and there were no mitigati:ng circumstances. High Court, in appeal, upheld the conviction and the death penalty. It enumerated the following circumstances as indicative of the present case being a "rarest of rare case" where imposition of death F penalty is justified, namely, that the accused-appellant was already convicted to life imprisonment for murder of his first wife and he committed the present murders while he was out on parole; that tthe murder was the result of preplanning on his part is evident from the fact that the murder weapon is ajambia, a hunting knife used for attack, 111ot ordinarily available in a house; that even ifthe appellant had some rea!>on G to suspect the fidelity of his wife, which motivated him to murder her, there could have been absolutely no reason for killing the defencelless child of Biz years of age; that the murders were committed when the victims were helpless and asleep and that no extenuating circumsta111ces in favour of the appellant were either pleaded or proved. Hence the H 760 - SAIBANNA v. ST A TE OF KARNAT AKA 761 appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The finding of the Sessions Court as well as the High Court that the appellant is guilty of the offence of murder under Section A 302 IPC, of his wife and his minor daughter is correct. f 765-CI B 2. As to whether the circumstances make a case a "rarest of rare case", it is a matter of judicial assessment. A prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the remainder of his life in prison unless the sentence is commuted or remitted and such sentence could not be equated with any fixed term. If that be so, there could be no imposition C of a second life term on the appellant as it would be a meaningless exercise. In the teeth of Section 427(2) CrPC, it is doubtful whether a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life can be visited with another term of imprisonment for life to run consecutively with the previous one. f 768-D-F) D Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 SCR 440, relied on. 3. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that E the appellant's case bri5.tles with special circumstances requisite for imposition of the death penalty. (769-B) Ranjit Singh alias Roda v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, [1984) 1 sec 31, distinguished. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (19831 3 SCC 470; Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR (1983) F SC 473; Sew.:zka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1991) 3 SCC 471; Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234; Ram Anup Singh v. State of Bihar, (20021 6 SCC 686; Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 6 sec 686, Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 sec 745 and G Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 35 and Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 2004. •· H 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.2003/21.8.2003 and 10.10.2003 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl.Ref. No. 2/2003, Crl.A. No. 497/2Q93. Ms. Subhad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.