STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus GORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 07-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 41 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
A 
V. 
GORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2007) 
JULY 07, 2011 
B 
... 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201 - Conviction under 
- Continuous quarrels amongst family members over division 
of property - Accused no. 1, his wife (accused no.3) and c 
brother (accused no. 2) on one side and accused no. 1' s 
father, step mother and step sister on the other side - Accused 
' 
no. 1 administered sedative/poisonous substance mixed in 
sweets to all family members and when they fell asleep, he 
strangulated father, step mother and step sister to death -
D 
Thereafter, he packed the dead bodies in two trunks and 
loaded in different trains, which· were later recovered from 
different railway stations - Conviction of accused no. 1 u/ss. 
302 and 201 by trial court, on the basis of circumstantial 
evidence and award of death sentence - However, acquittal E 
of accused nos. 2 and 3 - High Court upheld the order of 
conviction but modified the sentence of death to life 
. imprisonment - On appeal, held: Prosecution has been able 
to prove a complete chain of events which point towards the 
·• 
guilt of the accused - Right from the evidence of the entire 
F 
family having the last dinner together and administering of 
sweets with sedatives/poisonous substances to the recovery 
of bodies of the deceased at different railway stations, the 
chain of events stands proved beyond reasonable doubt -
Statement of the accused uls. 313 Cr.P.C. supports the G 
'I 
prosecution case - Thus, there is no er;or in the concurrent 
findings recorded by the courts below convicting accused no. 
1 u/ss. 302 and 201 - As regards the order of sentence, the 
manner in which the crime has been committed is deplorable 
but the attendant circumstances and the fact that he even H 
41 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
administered the sweets containing sedatives/poisonous 
substance to his own wife (accused no. 3) shows accused's 
frustration, and probably greed, for the property had attained 
volcanic dimensions - Constant nagging was a mitigating 
circumstance in the commission of the crime - Thus, the case 
does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare cases' - Order 
of sentence as modified by the High Court is upheld. 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction on 
basis of - When - Held: When the prosecution is able to 
establish the chain of events to satisfy the ingredients of 
commission of an offence, accused would be liable to suffer 
the consequences of his proven guilt. 
Sentence/Sentencing - Principles governing sentencing 
policy - Held: Awarding punishment is an onerous function 
in the dispensation of criminal justice - Court is expected to 
keep in mind the facts and circumstances of a case, 
principles governing award of sentence, the legislative intent 
of special or general statute raised in the case and impact of 
awarding punishment - Court need to examine these 
nuances with discernment and in depth -
Criminal 
jurisprudence. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
s. 354(3) - Conditions to be satisfied prior to imposition 
F 
of death penalty - Held: Death penalty should be imposed 
in rarest of rare cases and that too for special reasons to be 
recorded - Courts to take into consideration the mitigating 
circumstances and their resultant effects - The conditions of 
providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not 
G 
to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic 
feature of a reasoning supporting and making award of death 
penalty unquestionable - Circumstances and the manner of 
committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial 
conscience of the court to the extent that the only inevitable 
H 
conclusion should be awarding the death penalty. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI 
43 
ADSUL 
-'· 
A 
s. 354(3) -
Legislative intent behind enactment -
Explained. 
'A' was the real father of accused nos. 1 and 2 while 
.. 
accused no .. 3 is the wife of accused no. 1. 'J' is the step-
mother of accused nos. 1 and 2 while R and PW.13-'S' are B 
..j. 
their step-sister and step-brother respectively. There were 
quarrels amongst family members over the partition of the 
property with accused no. 1 to 3 on one side and 'A', his 
wife 'J' and his daughter 'R' on the other side. On the 
night of the incident, accused no. 1 offered sweets c 
containing sedatives/poisonous

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