LexUMASHANKAR PANDA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UMASHANKAR PANDA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH FEBRUARY 28, 1996 B [DR. AS. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Criminal Law : Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 307. C Murder of wife and two children-Attempt to murder other three children- Provocation-Absence of-Commission of crime-Premediated one-Not due to sudden provocation or mental derangement-Held : offence grnesome, cold-blooded, heinous, atrocious and cruel -No mitigating cir- cumstances but only aggrevating circumstances--"Rarerest of rare D cases''-Death sentence imposed by courts below upheld. Epistol01y jurisdiction-Exercise of by Supreme Court-Letter Petition from convict facing death sentence-Treating of as Special Leave Peti- tion-Grant of leave and hearing of the criminal appeal. E The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to death. According to the prosecution, the appellant committed murder of his wife and two daughters at night by inflicting several injuries by sword. He further caused grievous injuries to his daughter and two sons with intend F to commit murder. However, these three survived. On receiving informa- tion that many persons have sustained injuries and some of them have died at the residence of the appellant, P.W. 3, the Police officer, reached the spot and found the appellant's daughter and sons in a seriously injured cond!tion. A blood stained sword was recovered on .the spot. He was G arrested on the same day and during investigation, it was found that he made extra judicial confession of having committed murder of his wife and children before, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7. A case was registered and a post-mor- ten was held. On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Prosecution H the Sessions Judge came to the conclu"sion that the charge levelled against 1154 ) - \ UMASHANKAR PANDAv. STATE 1155 the appellant was fully established. The death sentence was confirmed by A the High Court. In this appeal it was contended that the murder was not a pre- planned one and was on account of sudden provocation; and that the death sentence should be reduced to one of life imprisonment. On behalf of the respondent-State it was contended that the appel- lant had committed murder of his wife and children without any provoca- tion against helpless dependents during night; and that the death sentence awarded to the appellant did not call for any interference. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The appellant-accused had caused in all 64 sword injuries to all the six persons including the three deceased persons viz., his wife and two children and those injuries speak for themselves about B c the gruesome nature of the crime committed by the accused. There was no D provocation and there is nothing to suggest that there was any quarrel between the accused and his wife or among any one of the family members. The way in which the crime was executed clearly shows that it was a premeditated one and not on account of sudden provocation or any mental-derangement. [1166-E-F] 1.2. The crime indulged in by the accused is undoubtedly gruesome, cold blooded, heinous, atrocious and cruel. On the facts established, there appears to be no mitigating circumstances whatsoever, but only aggravat- ing circumstances which justify the imposition of death sentence. Looking into the manner in which the crime was committed the weapon used, the brutality of the crime, number of persons murdered, the helplessness of the victims, there can be no other conclusion except the one, the Sessions Judge and the High Court arrived at to award the capital sentence to the appellant. [1166-G-H; 1167-A-B] E F Anshad and Others v. State of Kamataka, [1994] 4 SCC 381, Jshubha G Bharatsinh Gohil & Others v. State of Gujarat, [1994] 4 SCC 353 and Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Punjab, [1985] Supp. 1 SCC 80, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 1995. H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) 2 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.95 of the Madhya Pradesh B High Court in A No. 173/95 and Death Reference No.2 of 1995. Vimal Dave for the Appellant. K.N. Shukla, Sakesh Kumar and Uma Nath Singh for the Respon- dent. The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. VENKATASWAMI, J. The appellant who is in Central Jail, C Indore has sent through Superintendent a Petition to set aside the im- pugned judgment of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.