LexSHIV RAM AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHIV RAM AND ANR. ETC. A v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH OCTOBER 21, 1997 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860 : Section 149-Common object-Determination of-Brutal murder of A-1 's brother whose head was severed prior to the mass murder in the instant C case-Manner of assault and the mode of brutality in the present crime indicates that common object of the unlawful assembly was not only to commit murder of those who were suspected to have committed murder of A- l's brother but also to commit mass murder to take revenge against their family members-Jn these circumstances the plea of some of the accused D persons that they had nothing to do with the murders of A-l's brother not sustainable-Unlawful assembly could develop a common object on the spur of the moment to commit massacre. Criminal Procedure Code. 1973: Sections 154 and I 57-FIR-Delay in sending a copy to Magistrate- Held, would not demolish the other positive and credible evidence on record-- Would only show carelessness on the part of the police. Ante-timed FIR-FIR lodged at 9.05 p.m. with the police station located E at a distance of I 5 kms from the place of occurrence and the inquest report F prepared on the following day-Non-mention of title of crime in the inquest report-Police reaching the place of occurrence at I lp.m.-Held, such minor omission is nothing but a bona fide error or casual approach on the part of investigating agency which does not affect the substratum of the prosecution story. G Criminal Trial : Death Sentence--When justified -Accused persons forming unlawful assembly to take revenge for the murder of A-1 's brother whose head was severed-Mass murders of five committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, 531 If 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner-Three heads were severed and an innocent boy of 10 years roasted alive-Accused persons first immobilized three victims by firing on non-vital part and then severing their heads- Accused taking out victory procession with three heads by raising slogans- Held, the case squarely falls within the ambit of rarest of rare cases and B hence death penalty justified in respect of A-1 and five other co-assused- Penal Code, 1860-Sections 3021149-Sentence-Rarest of rare case-Death penalty. Death Sentence-Commutation of-Mass murder-A-6, member of the unlawful assembly having common object to commit mass murders- C Prosecution alleged that A-6 fired from his gun which hit a boy of 10 years who fell down-Other accused threw him into the fire-No other role attributed to A-6-Dead body of the boy totally charred-No injury found on his body-No pellet recovered from the dead body or from the ashes-Held, there being no conclusive evidence that A-6 caused firearm injury to the deceased boy, the High court was not justified in awarding him extreme D penalty of death-Sentence commuted to imprisonment for life-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 3021149. Witnesses-Related witness-Only close relatives of the deceased giving evidence-No independent witnesses examined-Held, such evidence cannot E be discarded on ground of their relationship with deceased-llowever, the Court must scrutinize their evidence with care and caution--ln view of common tendency of outsiders not to get themselves involved in a criminal case, it would be quite natural that no independent witness would come forward to assist the prosecution in a case of brutal mass murders-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 3021149. F The brother of A-1 (Ck) was suspected to have been murdered by two brothers of D-1. In revenge the present crime has been committed by 24 accused persons in which five persons were murdered including a child of 10 years who was roasted alive. The accused persons formed an unlawful G assembly whose common object was not only to commit the murders of SP and RG but also to commit the mass murders of family of D-2 as they ')Vere under the belief that SP and RG were hiding and taking shelter in the house of D-2. The accused persons first fired at D-1, injured him and thereafter opened the door and searched for RG and SP. D-1 was immobilized by causing a gun shot injury. D-2 came out of his room. He was fired at on a non-vital H part, immobilized and thereafter the accused persons assaulted him with SHIV RAM v. STATE OF U.P. 533 Banka, A-2, A-4 and A-13 held him facilitating A-1 severe his head. The A accused did not s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.