STATUTES
INDIAN PENAL CODE (45 of 1860)
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872
BENCH:
A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
28 FEBRUARY 2012
FACT:
The appellant ‘Brajendra Singh was the residence of LIG Flat No. 225, Vikash Nagar, Dewas. Liladhar Tiwari was the neighbour of the appellant. Both the appellant and Liladhar Tiwari stayed in two different rooms of the same flat. Smt. Aradhna, the deceased wife of the appellant, used to talk to Liladhar, to which the appellant had serious objections.
The appellant had forbidden her from doing so. Once the appellant stopped her from talking to Liladhar Tiwari, but she retorted that she would die and poured kerosene oil on her person and then put herself on fire. The appellant claims to have made an effort to extinguish the fire. However, being under the impression that she was dying, he also caused injuries to his wife by a knife and killed her.
After killing his wife, he was concerned about what would be the fate of their children, who will now have to grow up without their mother.
Thus, he killed them by the same process, i.e., inflicting injuries by knife to the throat of the children. The incident is said to have occurred at 2330 hours on the night of 27th February, 2005.
FACT IN ISSUE:
- Whether Brajendra Singh put on fire to Aradhna or she herself put on fire.
- Whether Brajendra Singh killed the children or her wife Aradhna.
ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER:
- The accused had stated that his wife had murdered the three children and that he had only inflicted injuries on her body under a belief that she was not going to survive. He had no intention to kill her. Thus, the applicant cannot be punished for murder of the entire family.
- The imposition of extreme penalty of death was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The incident even if, as stated by the prosecution, assumed to be correct, still it was an offence committed on extreme provocation and at the spur of the moment without any intent to kill any person.
ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT:
- Neither the death of three children nor that of his wife Aradhna is disputed and/or practically admitted by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has also admitted that he had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased Aradhna with a knife.
- The appellant could have save the life of his children being a father, seeing his wife killing his children, would certainly have prevented the death of at least two out of the three children. This abnormal conduct of the appellant renders his defence unbelievable and untrustworthy.
JUDGEMENT HELD:
- The Honorable Judge A. K. Patnaik and Honorable Judge Swatanter Kumar awarded to the accused to one of life imprisonment (21 years).
JUDGEMENT REASONING:
- The appellant himself is the greatest sufferer. He has lost his children, whom he had brought up for years and also his wife.
- Besides that, it was not a planned crime and also lacked motive. It was a crime which had been committed out of suspicion and frustration.
- The circumstances examined cumulatively would, to some extent, suggest the existence of a mental imbalance in the accused at the moment of committing the crime
CONCLUSION:
Considering the above aspects, we are of the considered view that it is not a case which falls in the category of rarest of rare cases where imposition of death sentence is imperative.
BY GAURAV KUMAR