SHRI BHAGWAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 10-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRI BHAGWAN 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
MAY 10, 2001 
B 
(M.B. SHAH AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 392, 397, 302 and 57-Robbeiy-Murder 
of.five persons of a .family-Conviction based on circumstantial evidence-
lmposition of'death sentence by Trial Co11rt-Confir111ed by High Court-On 
C appeal, conviction upheld-Sentence commuted to life imprisonment in view 
of young age of accused and his mental suflering due to confinement under 
death sentence-Nature of crime held cruel and sadistic-Hence accused not 
to be released before completion of 20 years-Sentencing-life imprisonment. 
D 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 433(b) rlw 433A-
Applicability of-life imprisonment-Meaning of-Prima facie it means for 
the whole of the remaining period of convict 's natural life-Death sentence-
Commutation qf-Release of the accused held not permissible on completion 
of 14 years, in view of the nature of the offence. 
\:._ 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 114 //lustration (a)-Presumption-
Artic!es connected with crime-Recovery of immediately after commission of 
crime-No account given for such possession-Held, affords presumption of 
guilt-However, presumption weakens if goods change hands. 
Appellant-accused was convicted under Sections 302, 392 and 397 IPC 
F 
for having caused death of five family members of PW-17 and for having 
committed ,robbery in their house. The conviction was based on circumstantial 
evidence that the accused was last seen together with the one of the deceased; 
and that injury was found on the person of the accused; and that an axe, a 
blood-stained shirt and articles taken away from the house of deceased were 
G 
H 
recovered at the instance of the accused immediately after the incident. It 
was proved that the accused had an acquaintance with the family members 
of PW-17. Death sentence was imposed for the offence under section 302 
IPC and sentence imposed for·offences under section 392 and 397 IPC. The 
High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the chain of 
656 
r 
,, 
SHRI BllAGWAN v. STATE OF RA.IASTHAN 
657 
circumstances were not complete and the same were insufficient to draw' A 
inference of guilt of the accused; and that the statement of PW-17, one of 
the relatives of the deceased was not reliable as he did not mention the name 
of appellant in his statement before investigating officer (PW-23); and that 
the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt since there was possibility that 
there must have been more assailants, as series of injuries allegedly had B 
been caused to the deceased persons with various weapons; and that various 
recvoveries effected at the instance of the appellant were doubtful. On the 
question of sentence he contended that the sentence might be commuted t.o 
life imprisonment in view of mitigating factors like appellant's young age 
and his mental suffering due to his confinement under sentence of death. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Courts below have rightly held the appellant guilty of the 
offences charged against him. In view of the facts of the case, there is nQ 
reason to suspect the guilt of the appellant as it is proved that the appellant 
c 
, was seen with one of the deceased before the incident and the appellant had D 
an acquaintance with the family members of the deceased.(664-B; 662-D-EI 
2. The statement of PW,..17 cannot be held to be unreliable. He would 
not have mentioned the name of the appellan~ to PW-23 who recorded his. 
statement, since he must have been under severe psychic trauma at the time 
of giving the statement (Exh. P-8) before the police. PW-23 himself recorded E 
the statement of PW-2 immediately thereafter and in that statement the 
name of the appellant was mentioned as the person last seen with one of the 
deceased. (661-E-Fl 
3. The fact that household items were used as weapons of offence, rules 
out the possibility of the presence of any outsider. It is also not possible to F 
infer anything from the nature o3f injuries as to how many assailants were 
involved. It is quite reasonable and probable that one assailant alone can 
cause so much of injuries especially during the night when the victims 
might have been in deep slumber. (662-BI 
4. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the G 
prosecution as regards recoveries, as there is further corroborative evidence 
to support the recoveries. (662-CI 
5.1. Th

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