Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1333-1334 OF 2010
Sonu Sardar Appellant
Versus
State of Chhatt!"arh Re!pondent
J U D G M E N T
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
The!e are appeal! a"an!t the #ud"$ent of the H"h
Court of Chhatt!"arh n Cr$nal Referen%e No&' of ())*
and Cr$nal Appeal No& (+) of ())* %onfr$n" the
%on,%ton of the appellant and the death penalt- $po!ed on
h$ under Se%ton ./0 of the Indan Penal Code 1for !hort
2IPC34&
(& The pro!e%uton %a!e ,er- 5refl- ! that on (0&''&())+6
Sha$$ A7htar 1for !hort 2Sha$$346 a !%rap dealer and a
re!dent of ,lla"e Cher6 D!tt& 8a7unthpur6 Chhatt!"arh6
had "one to Rapur for !elln" !%rap& He !old the !%rap and
re%e,ed %a!h of R!&'69)6))):; and returned to h! hou!e
<th the %a!h& H! <fe6 Ru7!ana 856 7ept the %a!h n
dfferent pla%e! of her hou!e6 <h%h <a! to 5e depo!ted n
the 5an7 the ne=t da-& At a5out 0&)) p&$& on (0&''&())+6
Sonu Sardar6 the appellant heren6 and A#a- Sn"h > Fotu
alon" <th three other per!on! %a$e <th !%rap to the !hop
of Sha$$ and left after !elln" !%rap for R!&+*):;& The
appellant and A#a- Sn"h and three other per!on!6 ho<e,er6
returned at a5out 9&)) p&$& on the !a$e da- and 7no%7ed
on the door of the hou!e of Sha$$& ?hen the door <a!
opened6 the appellant and A#a- Sn"h and three other
per!on! de$anded $one- fro$ Sha$$& One of the!e f,e
per!on! then 5olted the door fro$ n!de and t<o other
per!on! %au"ht hold of A!"ar Al6 dr,er of Sha$$6 and one
of the$ %au"ht hold of Sha$$& The- 7ept a 7nfe on the
ne%7 of Sha$$ and %o$pelled h$ to ",e %a!h <h%h he
<a! ha,n" n h! po%7et& Sha5ana @hatun 1for !hort
2Sha5ana346 the dau"hter of Sha$$6 <ho <a! pre!ent n!de6
tred to f"ht 5ut an atte$pt <a! $ade 5- the appellant and
h! people to a!!ault her and !he !o$eho< e!%aped throu"h
the 5a%7 door and <ent to the hou!e of Ra$lal6 a 7lo$eter
a<a- fro$ the hou!e of Sha$$& Sha5ana told Ra$lal
2
a5out the n%dent at her hou!e and <hen Ra$lal <anted to
"o to ther hou!e6 Sha5ana a!7ed h$ not to "o 5e%au!e !he
<a! afrad that Sonu Sardar and other! $a- 7ll h$& That
n"ht Sha5ana !ta-ed at the hou!e of Ra$lal and ne=t
$ornn" at a5out +;A a&$&6 Sha5ana6 Ra$lal and h! <fe
Dhanpat5a %a$e to the hou!e of Sha$$ and found that
Ba7ut and A!na6 . -ear! old !on and A -ear! old dau"hter of
Sha$$6 <ere %r-n" near the dead 5ode! of Sha$$6
Ru7!ana 856 Ba7u5 and @u$ar Rana6 9 -ear! old !on and
/ -ear! old dau"hter of Sha$$& Sha5ana then <ent to
8a7unthpur and narrated the n%dent to her un%le Na!$
A7htar6 <ho reported the $atter the Pol%e& The Pol%e
rea%hed the !pot and the FIR <a! lod"ed& The dead 5ode!
<ere !ent for autop!- to the Co$$unt- Health Centre6
8a7unthpur6 and a tea$ led 5- Dr& A!ho7 @u$ar %arred
out the post mortem. In %our!e of n,e!t"aton6 the
In,e!t"atn" Off%er re%orded !tate$ent! of !e,eral per!on!
under Se%ton '0'6 Cr&P&C& The appellant and h! %o;
a%%u!ed6 A#a- and Chhot 8a6 <ere arre!ted 5ut the other
per!on! a5!%onded after %o$$!!on of %r$e& 8lood;!taned
T;!hrt and tur5an of the appellant and an a=e <th 5ro7en
3
handle6 a rod and a 7nfe <ere !eCed& Te!t Identf%aton
Parade <a! %arred out on )'&'(&())+ n <h%h Sha5ana
dentfed the appellant a! <ell a! A#a- a! t<o of the f,e
per!on! <ho had %o$e to the hou!e of Sha$$ on
(0&''&())+ and <ere de$andn" $one-& The !eCed art%le!
<ere !ent to the Foren!% S%en%e La5orator-6 Rapur& After
%o$pleton of n,e!t"aton6 a %har"e!heet <a! fled and
Se!!on! Tral No&)0:())0 <a! %ondu%ted 5- the Se!!on!
Jud"e6 @or-a6 8a7unthpur 1Chhatt!"arh4&
.& In %our!e of the tral6 the pro!e%uton e=a$ned .*
<tne!!e!& Sha5ana <a! e=a$ned a! P?;'6 Ra$lal <a!
e=a$ned a! P?;(6 Na!$ A7htar <a! e=a$ned a! P?;. and
Dhanpat5a <a! e=a$ned a! P?;+& Dr& A!ho7 @u$ar <a!
e=a$ned a! P?;.0 and the In,e!t"atn" Off%er <a!
e=a$ned a! P?;.9& A lar"e nu$5er of do%u$ent! and the
!eCed art%le! <ere al!o e=h5ted& The tral %ourt re%orded
the !tate$ent! of the appellant under Se%ton .'.6 Cr& P&C&
After hearn" the ar"u$ent!6 the tral %ourt held that t <a!
%lear fro$ the e,den%e of P?;'6 P?;(6 P?;. and P?;+ that
the appellant had %o$$tted the da%ot- at the hou!e of
Sha$$ 5et<een 9&)) p&$& of (0&''&())+ and +&)) a&$& of
4
(9&''&())+ and thereafter %o$$tted $urder of Sha$$6
A!"ar6 Ru7!ana 856 Ba7u5 and @u$ar Rana <th rod6
7nfe and a=e and that the pro!e%uton had !u%%eeded n
e!ta5l!hn" the "ult of the appellant under Se%ton ./06
IPC6 5e-ond rea!ona5le dou5t& After hearn" %oun!el for the
parte! on the Due!ton of !enten%e6 the tral %ourt al!o held
that the %a!e fall! n the %ate"or- of rare!t of rare %a!e! and
$po!ed the !enten%e of death on the appellant& 8- the
$pu"ned #ud"$ent6 the H"h Court ha! %onfr$ed the
%on,%ton of the appellant under Se%ton ./06 IPC6 and al!o
the !enten%e of death&
+& Learned %oun!el for the appellant !u5$tted that the
appellant had 5een %on,%ted on the !ole te!t$on- of
Sha5ana 1P?;'46 a ten -ear! old %hld <ho %ould not ha,e
dentfed the appellant a! one of the f,e per!on! <ho
%o$$tted the da%ot- and $urder on the n"ht of
(0&''&())+& She !u5$tted that t ! on the nfor$aton
re%e,ed fro$ P?;' that P?;. had lod"ed the FIR6 5ut n the
FIR the appellant ha! not 5een na$ed& She ar"ued that had
P?;' 7no<n the appellant6 !he <ould ha,e told P?;. the
na$e of the appellant and P?;. <ould ha,e $entoned the
5
na$e of the appellant n the FIR& She !u5$tted that t <ll
therefore not 5e !afe for th! Court to !u!tan the %on,%ton
of the appellant&
5. Learned %oun!el for the State6 on the other hand6
!u5$tted that althou"h P?;' ! a $nor6 her e,den%e <a!
rela5le and !he had !tood the te!t of %ro!!;e=a$naton& He
further !u5$tted that P?;' narrated the n%dent not onl-
to P?;.6 5ut al!o to P?;( and P?;+ and the e,den%e of P?;
( and P?;+ <ould !ho< that P?;' had %learl- $entoned
that out of the f,e per!on!6 <ho had %o$$tted the da%ot-
and $urder on the n"ht of (0&''&())+6 there <a! a sardar&
He further !u5$tted that P?;' ha! al!o !tated n her
e,den%e that the appellant had "one to her father3! !hop A to
0 t$e! 5efore the (0&''&())+ to !ell !%rap and hen%e !he
%ould dentf- h$ a! one of the f,e per!on! <ho had
%o$$tted the da%ot- and $urder on the n"ht of
(0&''&())+& Moreo,er6 at the t$e of the Te!t Identf%aton
Parade %ondu%ted 5- the Ma"!trate 1P?;''46 P?;' dentfed
the appellant a! one of the f,e per!on!6 <ho had %o$e to the
hou!e of Sha$$ on (0&''&())+ and <ere de$andn"
$one-& He !u5$tted that the e,den%e of P?;' that the
6
appellant part%pated n the da%ot- and $urder on
(0&''&())+ ! %orro5orated 5- the re%o,er- of the ron rod
and a=e on the !tate$ent of the appellant and 5- the fa%t
that the !eCed T;!hrt and tur5an of the appellant <ere
5lood;!taned&
6. ?e ha,e %on!dered the !u5$!!on! of learned %oun!el
for the parte! and <e fnd that durn" n,e!t"aton a Te!t
Identf%aton Parade <a! %arred out on )'&'(&())+ and out
of the ten per!on! <ho <ere pre!ented6 the appellant and
A#a- Sn"h > Fotu <ere dentfed 5- P?;' a! the t<o
per!on!6 <ho <ere a$on"!t the f,e per!on! <ho had %o$e to
the hou!e of Sha$$ and <ere de$andn" $one- fro$ h$&
Fro$ the e,den%e of P?;( a! <ell a! the e,den%e of P?;+6
<e fnd that P?;'6 !oon after !he e!%aped fro$ the hou!e of
Sha$$6 ha! $entoned that one of the f,e per!on! <ho had
"one to the hou!e of Sha$$ <a! a sardar& In her %ro!!;
e=a$naton6 P?;' ha! !tated that !he 7ne< the appellant a!
he had %o$e to ther hou!e for !elln" !%rap& Moreo,er6 the
5ro7en a=e <th 5ro7en handle and ron rod 1E=t& P&(+4 <ere
re%o,ered pur!uant to the !tate$ent of the appellant 1E=t&
P&'04& P?;.06 Dr& A!ho7 @u$ar6 after narratn" the n#ure!
7
on the dead 5ode! of Sha$$6 A!"ar Al6 Ru7!ana 856
Ba7u5 and @u$ar Rana6 ha! opned that the death ha! 5een
on a%%ount of !ho%7 a! a re!ult of fatal n#ure!& The n#ure!
de!%r5ed 5- the$ are not onl- n%!ed <ound! 5ut $ultple
fra%ture! of te$poral and paretal 5one! and on the head
<h%h %ould ha,e 5een %au!ed 5- the a=e and the ron rod&
The report of the Foren!% S%en%e La5orator- 1E=t&P&0'4
%onfr$! pre!en%e of hu$an 5lood on the %lothe! of the
de%ea!ed per!on!6 a=e and ron rod 1E=t& P&(+4 a! <ell a! the
tur5an and T;!hrt of the appellant 1E=t& P&.94 <h%h had
5een !eCed& Thu!6 the %on,%ton of the appellant ! not onl-
5a!ed on the oral te!t$on- of P?;'6 5ut al!o the e,den%e of
P?;(6 P?;.6 P?;+6 P?;.06 the !eCed art%le! and al!o the
report of the Foren!% S%en%e La5orator-& It ! further
e!ta5l!hed fro$ the e,den%e of P?;' and the Panchanama
of the hou!e of Sha$$ $ade on (*&''&())+ that onl- %a!h
of R!&0A690):; <a! a,ala5le and the re$ann" %a!h out of
R!&'69)6))):; <a! $!!n"& The pro!e%uton ha!6 n our
%on!dered opnon6 pro,ed 5e-ond rea!ona5le dou5t that the
appellant part%pated n the offen%e of da%ot- and $urder
8
and ha! 5een r"htl- %on,%ted for the offen%e under Se%ton
./06 IPC&
7. On the Due!ton of !enten%e6 learned %oun!el for the
appellant !u5$tted that th! Court ha! held n Ramesh and
others v. State of Rajasthan E1()''4 . SCC 0*AF that 5efore
a<ardn" death !enten%e6 the tral %ourt <a! e=pe%ted to ",e
ela5orate rea!on!& She !u5$tted that the rea!on! ",en 5-
the tral %ourt for a<ardn" death !enten%e on the appellant
<ere not ela5orate& She !u5$tted that n Ramesh and
others v. State of Rajasthan 1!upra4 th! Court dd not fnd
%lear e,den%e a! to <h%h of the three per!on! <ho
part%pated n the %r$e <a! the a%tual author of the
n#ure! on Ra$lal and Shant De, and held that a! t !
dff%ult to !a- that Ra$e!h alone <a! the author of the
n#ure! on Ra$lal a! <ell a! Shant De,6 death !enten%e
a<arded to Ra$e!h !hould 5e $odfed to lfe $pr!on$ent&
She !u5$tted that n the pre!ent %a!e al!o f,e per!on! ha,e
%o$$tted the offen%e under Se%ton ./06 IPC6 and a! the
a%tual role of the appellant n the offen%e ! not 7no<n the
death !enten%e !hould 5e $odfed to lfe $pr!on$ent&
9
8. Learned %oun!el for the State6 on the other hand6
!u5$tted that the appellant ha! part%pated n the offen%e
under Se%ton ./06 IPC6 and a! $an- a! f,e nno%ent
per!on!6 n%ludn" t<o %hldren6 ha,e lo!t ther l,e! and the
tral %ourt ha! ",en !uff%ent rea!on! for a<ardn" death
!enten%e to the appellant& He %ted the de%!on of th! Court
n Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand E1())+4 ( SCC ..*F for
the propo!ton that the pun!h$ent !hould 5e proportonate
to the %r$e %o$$tted 5- the a%%u!ed& He !u5$tted that n
the fa%t! of the pre!ent %a!e6 !n%e the %r$e <a! henou! n
nature and re!ulted n the death of f,e per!on!6 death
!enten%e <ould 5e proportonate to the %r$e %o$$tted 5-
the appellant& He al!o reled on Atbir ,& Government of N!
of "elhi E1()')4 / SCC 'F n <h%h th! Court held that
pre,entn" per!on! n the hou!e to e!%ape and %o$$ttn"
5rutal $urder of a! $an- a! three per!on! n!de the hou!e
are a""ra,atn" %r%u$!tan%e! <arrantn" $po!ton of
death !enten%e on the a%%u!ed& He !u5$tted that n the
pre!ent %a!e al!o6 a! the appellant had %lo!ed and 5olted the
door to pre,ent an e!%ape of an- per!on fro$ the hou!e6 and
10
had then 5rutall- $urdered a! $an- a! f,e per!on!6 death
!enten%e !hould 5e $po!ed on the appellant&
/& ?e ha,e %on!dered the !u5$!!on! of the learned
%oun!el for the parte! and <e fnd that the tral %ourt ha!
re%orded the follo<n" !pe%al rea!on! under Se%ton .A+ 1.4
of the Cr$nal Pro%edure Code6 '*/* for a<ardn" the death
!enten%e on the appellantG
14 The %r$e <a! pre;$edtated&
14 The %r$e ha! !tru%7 fear and terror n the pu5l%
$nd&
14 Helple!! and defen%ele!! <o$en and t<o $nor
%hldren a"ed e"ht and four -ear! 5e!de! t<o adult $en
<ere $urdered&
1,4 A!"ar Al6 the dr,er of Sha$$6 <ho had onl-
!topped n the hou!e for h! food6 <a! al!o not !pared&
1,4 Ta7n" ad,anta"e of earler 5u!ne!! relaton! <th
Sha$$6 the appellant $ade a frendl- entr- and %o$$tted
the $urder!&
1,4 The ntenton <a! to 7ll all $e$5er! of the fa$l-
thou"h !urpr!n"l- a != $onth old 5a5- and a four -ear old
%hld re$aned al,e&
1,4 The f,e $urder! <ere 5rutal6 "rote!Due6 da5ol%al6
re,oltn" and da!tardl-6 <h%h nd%ated the %r$nalt- of
the perpetrator! of the %r$e&
1,4 No ph-!%al or fnan%al har$ appear! to ha,e 5een
%au!ed 5- the de%ea!ed to the a%%u!ed&
11
A! a"an!t the!e a""ra,atn" %r%u$!tan%e!6 the tral %ourt
dd not fnd an- $t"atn" %r%u$!tan%e n fa,our of the
appellant to a,od the death penalt-& Th! !6 therefore6 not
one of tho!e %a!e! n <h%h the tral %ourt ha! not re%orded
ela5orate rea!on! for a<ardn" death !enten%e to the
appellant a! %ontended 5- learned %oun!el for the appellant&
')& Re"ardn" the role of the appellant n the %o$$!!on of
the offen%e of da%ot- and $urder6 <e ha,e alread- found
that the tur5an and T;!hrt of the appellant6 <h%h <ere
!eCed and !ent for e=a$naton to the Foren!% S%en%e
La5orator-6 had pre!en%e of hu$an 5lood& ?e ha,e al!o
found that the a=e and the ron rod6 <h%h <ere re%o,ered
pur!uant to the !tate$ent of the appellant6 had al!o 5lood;
!tan!& ?e ha,e al!o found fro$ the e,den%e of P?;' that
<hen her $other <a! %oo7n" food and %a$e out on hearn"
the %o$$oton6 the appellant <a! de$andn" $one- fro$
her father and her father "a,e to the appellant all the $one-
<h%h he <a! ha,n" n h! po%7et& There !6 therefore6 %lear
and defnte e,den%e n th! %a!e to !ho< that the appellant
not onl- part%pated n the %r$e6 5ut al!o pla-ed the lead
role n the offen%e under Se%ton ./06 IPC& Th! !6 therefore6
12
not a %a!e <here t %an 5e held that the role of the appellant
<a! not !u%h a! to <arrant death !enten%e under Se%ton
./06 IPC&
11. In a re%ent #ud"$ent n Sunder Sin#h v. State of
$ttaranchal E1()')4 ') SCC 0''F6 th! Court found that the
a%%u!ed had poured petrol n the roo$ and !et t to fre and
%lo!ed the door of the roo$ <hen all the $e$5er! of the
fa$l- <ere ha,n" ther food n!de the roo$ and6 a! a
re!ult6 f,e $e$5er! of the fa$l- lo!t ther l,e! and the
!=th $e$5er of the fa$l-6 a helple!! lad-6 !ur,,ed& Th!
Court held that the a%%u!ed had %o$$tted the %r$e <th
pre;$edtaton and n a %old 5looded $anner <thout an-
$$edate pro,o%aton fro$ the de%ea!ed and all th! <a!
done on a%%ount of en$t- "on" on n re!pe%t of the fa$l-
land! and th! <a! one of tho!e rare!t of rare %a!e! n <h%h
death !enten%e !hould 5e $po!ed& The fa%t! n the pre!ent
%a!e are no dfferent& F,e $e$5er! of a fa$l- n%ludn" t<o
$nor %hldren and the dr,er <ere ruthle!!l- 7lled 5- the
u!e of a 7nfe6 an a=e and an ron rod and <th the help of
four other!& The %r$e <a! o5,ou!l- %o$$tted after pre;
$edtaton <th a5!olutel- no %on!deraton for hu$an l,e!
13
and for $one-& E,en thou"h the appellant <a! -oun"6 h!
%r$nal propen!te! are 5e-ond refor$ and he ! a $ena%e
to the !o%et-& The tral %ourt and the H"h Court <ere
therefore r"ht n %o$n" to the %on%lu!on that th! ! one of
tho!e rare!t of rare %a!e! n <h%h death !enten%e ! the
approprate pun!h$ent&
'(& In the re!ult6 <e fnd no $ert n the!e appeal! and <e
!u!tan the %on,%ton of the appellant a! <ell a! the
!enten%e of death under Se%ton ./06 IPC6 and d!$!! the
appeal!&
&&J&
1A& @& Patna74
&&J&
1S<atanter @u$ar4
Ne< Delh6
Fe5ruar- (.6 ()'(&
14