SURJA RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 25-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURJA RAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1960: 
Ss. 302 and 307-Accused committed murder of his brother, brother's 
two minor sons and his aunt-Attempted to commit murder of his brother's C 
wife and daughter-Attack by accused, in cool and calculated manner, in 
dead hours of night when his victims were asleep-Absence of provocation 
immediately before or even proximately before the murders-ConvictiOn by 
trial court-Death sentence passed by trial court confirmed by High 
Court-Held-Crime committed by accused falls in categ01y of rarest of rare 
cases for which extreme penalty of death is fully justified. 
D 
Sentenc~Accused committed four murders of his relations in cool and 
calculated manne~eld, for deciding to award just and appropriate sen-
tence, aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which the 
crime has been committed are to be balanced-Fact that accused was not E 
convicted on any previous occasion is not a mitigating factor in favour of 
accused that would out weight all aggravatingf actors and circumstances in 
which murders had been committed-Death penalty awarded by trial court 
and confirmed by High Court. upheld. 
The appellant-accused was prosecuted for committing murders of his F 
brother, two minor sons of the said brother, and his aunt (bua) and for 
attempting to murder his brother's wife and daughter. The prosecution 
case was that the accused and his two brothers had been residing in one 
compound in their separate portions. A partition of joint property amongst 
the brothers was effected. There arose some land dispute amongst the G 
brothers about 6-7 months prior to the occurrence, but the said dispute was 
said to have been sorted out. About 5-6 days prior to the occurrence, the 
accused wanted to erect barbed fencing in the compound, but the proposal 
was protested by his brother 'R'. On the fateful night at about 12.30 a.m. 
when all were in their sound sleep, 'D' another brother of the accused, woke 
up on hearing the cries or 'S', the daughter of'R'. He came out and saw the H 
783 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A accused, armed with a kassi, assaulting 'S' who suffered serious injuries on 
her neck, 'D' and the wife of the accused challenged the accused, who ran 
away. The wife of 'R' was found lying seriously injured and his aunt was 
found dead in the courtyard. Inside the room, 'R' and his one son were 
found lying dead, and his other son 'N' critically injured. 'N' succumbed to 
B 
injuries shortly thereafter. The two injured, namely, the wife and the 
daughter of 'R', were taken to the hospital where on being treated both of 
them survived. 
The trial court found the accused guilty of the charges and sentenced 
him to death under 302 IPC, life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under 
C s. 307 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 
under s. 450 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, 
and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court. Aggrieved, the 
accused filed a special leave petition through his counsel and ajail petition. 
The special leave petition was dismissed as regards the order of conviction, 
but notice was issued to the State on the question of sentence passed 
D against the accused. 
It was contended for the appellant-accused that it was not fit case 
calJing for awarding extreme penalty of death sentence; the appellant due 
to the land dispute and the quarrel with the deceased over erecting the 
barbed fence in the compound, suddenly became very much enraged and 
E lost normal frame of mind, and the offences committed by the appellant in 
such uncontrolled framed of mind could not be categorised as rarest of rare 
case. 
Dismissing the appeal and the jail petition, this Court 
F 
Held : 1.1. It has been indicated by the trial court that the accused 
was in full senses and had committed the murders of four close relations 
one after the other and also attempted to commit murder of his brother's 
wife and daughter in a cool and calculated manner. He did not even feel 
remorsed and being quite alive to the enormity of the crime committed by 
G him he escaped from the place of occurrence. [796-E-F] 
1.2. From the evidence adduced, it is clearly revealed that the ac-
cused, in a cool and calculated manner, intended to wipe out the entire 
family of his brother. In that end in view, he selected the mo

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