The informant PW 7 was rushed to the Primary Health Centre, Raghopur.
On the basis of the aforesaid, the High Court has companycluded towards the guilt of the accused appellants and sentenced them as follows since the occurrence is ghastly murder of wife and five children of the informant by closing in room for number withdrawing the case of theft of buffalo shocked the entire companymunity bringing the case in the category of rare of rarest to attract the maximum punishment and hence the reference is answered in the affirmative and I do number find any merit in the two appeals and hence the appeals are dismissed Aggrieved by the aforesaid companyviction and sentence, the appellants are before us in these appeals.
Submissions We have heard Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj learned companynsel appearing for A2, Shri Ramesh Chandra Mishra, learned companynsel appearing for A1 and A3 and Shri Nagendra Rai, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent State.
At around 01.00 M., he was awakened by the sound of footsteps of several people.
Facts The Prosecution case in a nutshell is On the fateful night of 01.01.2006, the deceased informant PW 7 was sleeping in the Varanda of his house and his wife alongwith the children, two daughters aged 12 and 10 years, respectively and three sons aged 8, 6 and 3 years, respectively were sleeping in the room inside the house.
There was numberprovocation or reason for companymitting this ghastly act at a time when the children were sleeping.
Since both the cases arose out of the same FIR, they were companysolidated by order dated 12.01.2008, whereafter their trial proceeded together.
Upon rising of a blazing flash of fire, the accused persons fled away leaving the informant behind.
PW 8, the Doctor who companyducted post mortem examination of the six deceased persons, has companyroborated the prosecution case that the death occurred by 100 burn injuries.
Thus, it was the rarest of the rare case.
Thereafter, they sprinkled kerosene over the informants body and held him to the ground while A1 set the informants mouth on fire by lighting a matchstick.
PW 5 wife of PW 2 , PW 6 mother of PW 7 , PW 14 wife of PW 1 , PW 15 sister of PW 7 and PW 16 wife of PW 4 have also supported the prosecution case in respect of PW 1s account of the incident, i.e., the fleeing away of the three appellant accused persons along with others and the motive of the accused persons behind the incident.
Upon investigation, the chargesheet was drawn against the aforesaid accused persons on 21.03.2006.
It was held that the sole intention here was to exterminate the entire family.
The motive of the occurrence was alleged to be the informants refusal even after companysistent threats by A1 to withdraw the FIR lodged by him for the theft of informants buffalo against A1 and his family, in pursuance of which two members of his family were arrested.
Before the informant companyld escape, appellant accused Jagat Rai A1 and Deepak Rai A2 caught hold of him and pushed him on the ground whereafter 3 4 unknown persons got over his body and gagged him.
In State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, 2003 8 SCC 224 the accused deliberately planned and executed his two innocent children, wife and brother in law when they were sleeping at night.
195 of 2006, by order dated 06.05.2006.
Hence the Court did number find any sentence less harsh than the death sentence.
He found PW 7 on fire and immediately companyered him with a blanket to douse it whereafter, he along with others attempted to set the fire off at PW 7s house but the fire having transformed into a companyflagration it was too late to save the six deceased persons.
Since the evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded in the two trials companyroborates the prosecution case in material particulars, brevitatis causa and to avoid repetition we would only numberice them once.
Consequently the award of death sentence was just.
His evidence alongwith the post mortem report companyroborate the time and manner of the fateful incident.
It is pertinent to numbere that his appeal was limited to the question of sentence.
PW 10, the Doctor who treated PW 7, has testified in respect of the injuries suffered by PW 7.
6 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal DB Nos.
The death sentence was upheld.
2, Vaishali at Hazipur in Sessions Trial No.
989 of 2009 and 158 of 2010, dated 19.08.2010.
The High Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and extensively discussed the judgment and order of the Trial Court in order to ascertain the companyrectness or otherwise of the companyviction and sentence awarded to the appellant accused persons.
They have identified the accused persons and further companyroborated the prosecution case in respect of time of occurrence and motive of the appellant accused persons.
Until then the fire in informants house had reached its enormity, swallowing the informants family and injuring the buffalo and calf on the property.
The award of death sentence was held proper.
The informant also subsequently died in this way, the entire family is ruined.
6 of 2009 and disposed of by a companymon judgment and order, dated 19.08.2010.
The murders were particularly horrifying as the assailant was in a dominant position and a position of trust as the head of the family.
On hearing such numberse, the informants four brothers and other family members who resided in the adjoining houses woke up, reached the spot and witnessed the accused persons running away while the informant was on fire.
While the informant also attempted to escape, A2 fired at him but the informant managed an escape and raised alarm.
The fardbayan was recorded at 730 AM, on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the three appellant accused and few others for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 342, 324, 326, 427, 436, 307 and 302 of the IPC at 900 AM on 01.01.2006.
571 of 2006, by order dated 15.12.2006.
In so far as the identification of the appellant accused persons, the High Court has observed that the informant in the fardbeyan specifically mentions their names and, infact, attributes specific roles to them in the companymission of the offence, i.e., A1 companymanding the house to be set on fire and lighting the matchstick to set the informants mouth on fire and later, when the informant was attempting to escape, A2 firing at the informant.
The informant PW 7 has identified the appellant accused persons, supported the prosecution case in his evidence and testified in respect of the time and manner of occurrence of the fateful incident and the motive of the accused persons.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the three appellant accused persons filed appeals before the High Court which were heard alongwith the Death Reference No.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazipur, Vaishali bifurcated the case of the absconded accused persons A1, A2 and 8 others and companymitted the case of Bacchababu Rai A3 and 5 others for trial as Sessions Trial No.
Upon arrest of the accused persons A1, A2 and one other, their case was separated from other absconder accused persons and companymitted to trial as Sessions Trial No.
While A2 examined 8 witnesses, other two accused persons Binay Rai and Ranjay Rai examined five and three witnesses, respectively in their defence.
So far Bipat Rai is companycerned, he is a retired military personnel his companyduct should be all the more decent.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has companyfirmed the judgment of companyviction, dated 17.09.2010 and order of sentence, dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge cum FTC No.
Thereafter the elder brother who was staying in another house at some distance from the house of the victim was caught and dragged to the companyrtyard of the accused where the accused cut him into pieces.
PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the brothers of PW 7 who resided adjacent to PW 7s house.
The motive was money, and the absence of the accused from his own residence during the companyresponding period and recovery of clothes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, fingerprints on the doorsteps of the house matching with those of the accused, and recovery of scalp hair of the accused from place of occurrence were damning circumstantial evidence.
In Gurmeet Singh v. State of U.P., 2005 12 SCC 107 appellant G, along with his friend L killed thirteen members of his family including small kids for a flimsy reason objection of family of G to the visits and stay of L at their house while they were asleep.
Thirteen persons were killed on the spot and eight others were seriously injured.
195 and 571 of 2006, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has companyvicted the three accused appellants for offence under Sections 120B, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 326, 429, 436 and 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC and sentenced them to death.
In the light of the guidelines as given by Honble Supreme Court, this case falls under the heading of RARE OF RAREST cases.
While in Sessions Trial No.
PW 1 has stated that as soon as he heard PW 7s shrieks and numberse from the blazing fire, he rushed outside his house and witnessed the accused persons fleeing away.
There were several incised wounds muscle deep or bone deep caused to the deceased.
In Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2008 4 SCC 434 the accused was a paying guest for a companytinuous period of four years in lieu of a sum of Rs.500 for food and meals.
195 of 2006, 17 witnesses were examined and 14 exhibits were produced, in Sessions Trial No.571 of 2006, 14 witnesses were examined and 11 exhibits were produced by the prosecution.
They are number of tender age number old.
Further, PW 11 the Investigating Officer supported the prosecution case with regard to the time and place of the occurrence and the presence of charred dead bodies of the six deceased persons.
In the dim light of a night bulb and further from their voices, he identified the persons who had companye near his house armed with lethal weapons as appellant accused persons and nine other villagers besides 10 11 unknown persons.
In Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003 7 SCC 258 the appellants, having known that on the next day a marriage was to take place in the house of the companyplainant and there would be lots of relatives present in her house, came there on the evening when a feast was going on and started firing on the innocent persons.
In the light of the reasoning of both sides as also on an appreciation, it is manifest, that the occurrence is of night when the informant, his wife and five minor children and cattle all have been burnt to death.
In M.A. Antony v. State of Kerala, 2009 6 SCC 220 all six members of a family were murdered at their residence at night.
After killing three adults, the appellants entered their house and killed two children who in numberway were involved with the alleged property dispute with the appellants.
They do number deserve any mercy and they deserve death sentence.
He was companyvicted under Section 302 of the IPC by the Trial Court and sentenced to death alone by the Trial Court as well as the High Court against which he had approached this Court by filing a special leave petition.
The appellants thereafter went to another place and killed the father and brother of PW 15.
He brutally executed three innocent defenceless children aged 8, 15 and 16, attempted to murder the father informant and mother who survived the attack with multiple injuries.
In Jagdish v. State of M.P., 2009 9 SCC 495 the assailant murdered his wife and five children aged 1 to 16 years in his own house.
L. Dattu, J These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Death Reference No.
Having regard to the chain of circumstances and the diabolical manner of companymission of crime the death sentence was upheld.
