Holding

Section 306(4) CrPC does not require the approver to be examined in open court in the presence of the accused nor obligate the accused to cross‑examine, and consequently the trial stands; however, the death sentence was not appropriate and was commuted to life imprisonment.

Summary

Randhir Basu and a co‑accused were convicted of murdering the mother, father and grandparents of a girl named Sudipa. Sudipa, after being granted pardon, was examined as an approver before a magistrate in chambers, without the accused present for cross‑examination. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that Section 306(4) of the CrPC required open‑court examination in the presence of the accused and a right to cross‑examine, and also argued that the death sentence was disproportionate. The Supreme Court held that Section 306(4) does not mandate open‑court examination or compulsory cross‑examination, so the trial was not vitiated. It further observed that the facts did not warrant the death penalty and commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the conviction but reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Issues considered

Whether Section 306(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that an approver be examined in open court in the presence of the accused and that the accused must be given an opportunity to cross‑examine.
Whether non‑compliance with the alleged mandatory requirements of Section 306(4) vitiates the trial and the conviction.
Whether the death sentence imposed on the appellant is a proportionate punishment given the surrounding circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 202, s. 306(4)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120-B, s. 201, s. 302

Subjects

Criminal Procedure CodeSection 306(4)approver examinationcross‑examinationdeath penaltycommutationmurdertrial procedure

Judgment

A RANADHIR BASU
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL

FEBRUARY 7, 2000

B [G.T NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN JJ]

Criminal Procedure Code, i'973-Section 306( 4 )-Examination of ap-
prove1~Procadin!( before the Magistrate before the committal order is made
is neither an inquuy nor a triaf-Plea of approver being examined in open
C court and not in chambe1~Not sustainable--Further presence of accused
when approver is examined and giv;ng opportunity to accused to cross-examine
approver is not necessary.

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302.

D Death »entence-Accused and 'S' wanted to remove mother of 'S' from
this world--}vfother of 'S' was made to eat 'Kalojam' with poison-At 110 point
of time accused had planned to kill father and grand-parents of 'S'-Accused
killed them out of confusion and ftight that he would be named as the
murderer of S'i· mother-On facts it is not a fit case in which death sentence
E can be regarded as an appropliate prt11fa1iment-TI1us, sentence reduced to
!ife implisonment

Words & Phmses-'Examination o; a witness'-Meaning of

The appellant-accused arnl one 'K' were tried for committing mur·
F ders of the parents and grand parents of one 'S' in the Court of Sessions
Judge.

'S' was ill treated by her mother. The appellant and 'S' wanted her
to be removed from the world. Numerous attempts were made to kill S's
mother. The appellant procured poison from one 'K'. On the fateful day
G 'S's mother was made to eat the 'Kalojam' mixed with poison. Till then
there was not even remotest desire on the part of the appellant to kill S's
father or her grandparents. The appellant killed them out of the confusion
and fright that he would be named as the murderer of S's mother. The
police arrested the appellant and 'K' and filed chargesheet against them.
H Later on 'S' was granted pardon. Then 'S' was examined as approver but
646
RANDHIR BASL' v. STATE 647

not as a witness as contemplated by Section 304(4) of the Criminal A
(
' Procedure Code. Magistrate examined 'S' in his chamber and not in the
' open court and her evidence was also not subjected to cross-examination.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The
Sessions Judge rejected the contention that the trial was vitiated as
mandatory requirement of Section 306(4) of the Code were not complied
B
with and after appreciating evidence of the approver, convicted appellant
under Sections 302 read with 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code and 'K'
under Sections 302 read with 109 of the Code, imposing death sentence on
both of them. The appellant and 'K' challenged the conviction and sentence
in separate appeals. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sen·
tence of the appellant but giving benefit of doubt to 'K' acquitted him. C
Hence this appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1.1. Section 306(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not
mandate that approver must be examined in the open court in the presence D
of the accused and that the accused must be given opportunity to cross·
examine the approver. The object and purpose of examining the person
accepting tender of pardon as a witness is thus limited and the proceedings
which takes place before the Magistrate at that stage is neither an inquiry
nor a trial. (655-E] E
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, [1995) Supp. I SCC 80,
distinguished.

1.2. The cross-examination of approve1· was for different reasons ad-
journed from time to time and the last date fixed. On that day the advocate F
of the appellant did not remain present and the appellant declined to cross-
examine the approver. The lawyer representing co-accused also declined to
cross-examine her. Therefore, it cannot be said that the mandatory require-
ment of Section 306(4) was not complied with by examining the approver by
the Magistrate in the absence of the appellant and not giving an opportunity G
to the appellant to cross-examine her. (656-E]

1.3. The phrase "examination of a witness" does not necessarily mean
examination and cross examination of that witness. The type of examina-
tion of a witness contemplated would depend upon the object and purpose
of the provision. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also- · H
l

648 SUPREME COCRT REPORTS [2CCOJ 1 S.C.R.
A contemplates examination of witness yet it has been held, considering the
object and purpose of that provision, that the accused has no lucus standi ''
at the stage of the trial. [655-G]

2.1. 111e appellant and approver wanted only S\ mother- to be
removed from this world. At no point of time the appellant had planned
B to kill S's father and her grand parents. S WdS ill-treated by her mo1ier
and no other way could be seen for improving her future. It was out of
helplessn<!Ss and frustration thalt 'S' and appellant had decided tu remove
her. Till S's mother was made to 1eat the 'Kalojam' mixed with poison there
was not even the remotest desir1e on the part of the appellant to kill S's
C father or her grand parents. The subsequent events happened unexpected-
ly. The appellant killed them out of confusion and fright that he would be
named as the murderer of S's mother. If all these circumstances would
have been taken into consideration probably the trial court would not have
imposed the death sentence upon the appellant and the High Court would
nut have confirmed the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of
D the case, this is nut a fit case in which the death sentence can be regarded
as an appropriate punishment. Hence the sentence is reduced to life
imprisonment. (658-C-E]

CRIMI"JAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
E 282 of 1999.
From the Jul.'.a,ment :,.nd Orclt:r datt:d 23.124.9.98 of the Calcutta High
Court in D.R. No. S/96 and Cr!. A No. 257 of 1996.

S. Muralidhar, Jams J. Nadeem Para and Ms. Neeru Vaid for the
p Appellant.
K.T.S. Tulsi, H.K. Puri, Ujjwal Ban.:rjee, Rakesh Srivastava and S.K.
Puri for the Respondtmt.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G G.T. NANAVATI, J. I. The appellant and one Krishnanendu Jana
were tried for committing murders of Subhash Chandra Pal, his wife
Sulekha Pal, father Davendra Mohan Pal and mother Latika Pal in the
Court of Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Sessions Case No.
4(5) of 1993. The learned trial Judge held that the appellant committed the
H murders and Krishnanendu aided and abetted the appellant in committing
RANDHIRBASL o SI'ATEIU.T.NA...,AVATI,J.] 649

the offence. He accordingly convicted the appellant under Sections 302 A
read with 120-B and 201 LP.C. He convicted Krishnant:ndu under Sections
302 n:ad with 109 I.P.C. He imposed death sentence on both of them.

2. Chalknging their conviction and sentence the appellant and Krish-
nanendu filed separate appeals in the ( '.alcutta High Court. The h:arned
trial Judge also made a reference to tht.: High Court for confirmation of B
the death sentence. The appeals and the reference were heard together
and were disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court confirmed
the conviction and sentence of the appt:llant but gave benefit of doubt to
Krishnanrndu and acquitted him. As his conviction and sentence have been
confirmed the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the same. c
3. The prosecution version, as held proved by the evidence of P.W.
2 Sudipa, was as under :

(a) The family of Subhash Chandra Pal (deceased) consisted of his
parents, wife and the only daughter Sudipa. They were economically well- D
off. Subhash Chandra Pal wanted to give good education to his daughter
Sudipa and, therefore, used to engage private tutors also since Sudipa was
in class VI. In 1988, when Sudipa was in class IX, her father engaged the
appellant as a private tutor to teach her certain subjects as he was residing
hen:by. Initially Sudipa used to go to his house, but after sometime the
appellant, with the consent of Sudipa's parents, started teaching her by
E
going to her house every evening.

(b) Sudipa was often ill-treated by her mother as she believed that
Sudipa was responsible for all her physical sufferings which had started
after her birth. She was not allowing her to mix with boys and girls with F
the result that she did not have any friend. She was also at times physically
assaulted by her mother. Sudipa used to make complaints about the
ill-treatment by her mother to the appellant. The appellant used to listen
to her complaints and consolt: her and thereby he had won the confidence
of Sudipa. Sudipa also started belit:ving that the appellant was her real well G
wisher.

(c) As the relationship of Sudipa and appellant became more and
more close the appellant starkd touching her body. He used to tell her
stories which could influence her mind and also arouse romantic foeling in
her. By the middle of 1990 they started moving out alone after remaining H
650 SUPREMJ:<. COURT REPORTS [2000] l S.C.R.
A absent from :ht:ir respective schools.

(d) On 24.9.1990 the appe:Iant had a headache when he was in the
house of Sudipa, he had lied down on a sofa and Sudipa had rubbed
Amritanjan balm on her head. This was seen by her mother. After the
appellant had left Sudipa's mother had beaten her for that reason. On two
B subsequent l>Ccasions also her mother had noticed the appellant placing
his hands on the back of Sudipa and because of that she was beaten by her
mother. All these incidents used to be narrated by Sudipa to the appellant.
After hearing the last incident in September, 1990 the appellant had told
Sudipa that her mother really deserved to be taken to a hill and thrown
C down from the hill top.

(e) In November, 1990 her other teacher Ashutosh Chakraborty was
discontinued. Believing that her father had done so at the instance of her
mother, Sud1pa became very agitated and complained about it to the
D appellant. The appdlant took this opportunity to poison her mind by telling
her that her mother was not eagc:r to see improvement in her studies and
to make her life a success and, therefore, if she wanted to come up in life
she should remow her from this world.

(t) During the later half of 1990 tht: appellant had also started telling
E her about his financial difficulties and with her help he obtained a loan of
Rs. 6,000 from her father. When it was not possible for her to get money
from her father she used to give him her ornaments like chain, ring etc.
without the knowledge of her parents. On one occasion she removed cash
from the house and gave it to the appellant. On another occasion she gave
F Indira Vikas Patra worth Rs. 5,0:)0. Thus towards the end of 1990 Sudipa
was under complt:te influence of the appellant and she had started believ-
ing that appdlant was the only true friend interested in her welfare.

(g) Again when her mother told Sudipa not to appear in the 1991
examination and when Sudipa informed the appellant about it, the appel-
G !ant had told her that if she really wanted to remain happy in life she should
remove her from the world. When she had enquired as to how that can be
done the appellant had told her to mix 50 tablets of compose with the
mt:dicine which her mother was taking every day. Initially, she agreed to
that suggestion but could not muster enough courage to do so. In tht:
H beginning of January, 1991 the appellant tried to persuade Sudipa to givt:
RANDHIR BASU v. STAl F :en. ~ANAVATI, J.j 651

some poison to her mother to get rid of her. On 18.1.1991 the appellant's A
wife who had by then become aware of the illicit relationship of the
appellant and Sudipa had gone near Sudipa's house and had shouted loudly
at the family member~ of Sudipa and opc:nly stated that Sudipa was a bad
girl and was having illicit relations with her husband. Sudipa's mother,
therefore, had severely beaten her and wanted the appdlant to be removed
B
as a teacher but her father intervened and the appellant continued as
Sudipa's teacher . This incident hdped the appellant in convincing Sudipa
that she should not wait any longer and must take immediate steps to
remove her mother from this world. This incident also led Sudipa to agree
with the suggestion of the appellant to give some poison to her mother.
Thereafter there were attempts by appellant and Sudipa to procure poison c
·. and get their effects tested. Initially some cyanide and mercury chloride
were obtained from Krishnanendu and experiments were conducted with
the help of Krishnanendu. The appellant had also given one bottle of water
in which lizards were boiled to Sudipa and had instructed her to mix it in
the drinking wakr of her mother as such water was abo considered highly D
poisonous. The attempts to procure poison and get them tested continued
till 16.3.1991. On 16.3.1991 it was decided mix poison with 'kalojams' and
give them to other mother. For this purpose 'kalojams' were also purchastd
but Sudipa could not make up her mind and that attempt of the appellant
failed. On 18.3.1991 the appellant told Sudipa to make her mind strong if
she really wanted to prosper in life. He again went to her house in the
E
evening and told her that after administering poison to her mother an
electric wire should be wrapped around her body so that people would
believe that she had committed suicide. When Sudipa refused to do such
a thing the appellant became angry and told her that there was no other
way to get rid of her mother. So, Sudipa kept all the articles brought by F
the appdlant in the house and concealed them. On 20.3.1991 Sudipa and
appellant moved together from 10 A.M. till about 4.15 P .M. Su di pa then
went home and the appellant followed her at about 6.30 P.M. The appellant
told Sudipa that she should make her mind strong and do whatever was
required to be done otherwise she would suffer for the rest of her life. He G
even thn:atened her that if she did not do what was suggested to her then
he would remain away from her. The appellant then gave her a packet of
sweets containing 'kalojams' and 'sitabhog' and told her to mix poison with
two 'kalojams'. Sudipa mixed some quantity of sodium cyanide with two
'kalojams' and returned them to the appellant. The appellant then waited H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ;2000] I S.C.R.

A for the mother of Sudipa to come upstairs. By that time the appellant had
assured that the grand mother and grand father of Sudipa were on the
ground floor and the father of Sudipa had gone out. At about 8.20 P.M.
Sudipa's mother went on the first floor and entt:red the bed room where
the appellant and Sudipa were sitting. The appellant told her that as
B promised earlier he had brought sweets for her and so saying placed one
'kalojams' in the hand of Sudipa's mother. Sudipa could not bear this sight
and went out of the room. At that time Sudipa's father was seen coming
upstairs. She immediately wi:nt back to the bed room and told the appellant
about it. The appellant then picked up one 'kalojam' and one 'sita-bhog'
and told her to give those sweets to her father. Sudipa then went to her
C father's room and placed them on the table. She then went downstairs to
find out what her grand mother and grand father were doing. After finding
them there she again went upstairs and when she peeped into her father's
room she saw that her father had eaten those sweets and was gasping for
breath. Seeing the precarious condition of her father she rushed to the
D appellant and told him about it. She again went to her father's room and
seeing that her father was almost collapsing asked the appellant as to why
he had killed her father. The appellant told her that as her father had seen
him giving 'Kalojam' to her mother and would have named him as the
person who had given poisoned i;weet, he was also required to be finished.
E He then asked her to follow his instructions and warned her that if she did
not do so her death was also inevitable. Sudipa had become highly
perplexed and did what the appellant had told her to do. Seeing the grand
parents coming up the appellant asked Sudipa to leave the house immedi- t
ately. When the grand mother reached the first floor the appellant gave
her one 'Kalojam' and when she asked for water the appellant gave her
F water mixed with mercury chloride. Sudipa returned at about 9.30 P.M.
When she enquired as to where her grand father was the appellant told
her that the grand father had also suffered the same fate as others. The
appellant then told her to follow his instructions and threatened her that
if she did not do so all the people would blame her for the murders of
G those persons. Thereafter an attempt was made by both of them to conceal
or destroy the articles used for killing the four persons and wash off finger
prints of the appellant. The appellant th<:n told her that he would \cave the
place after tying her up and after some time she 5hould raise an alarm and
tell others that 5ume unknown persons had come to her house tu meet her
H father and that she was tied up in that manner by those pl:rsons. The
RAi\IDHIR HASL v. STATE :G.T. NANAVATI, J.] 653

appdlant kft Sudipa\ house at about 11 P.M. As instructed by the appel- A
!ant Sudipa remained tied up for sometime and raised cries thereafter.
Hearing her cries the neighbours had come there and untied her hands.
Th1.: police was cal.11.:d. Initially, Sudipa gave the same version which she
was instructed to say to others by the appellant. On the next day the
appellant remained with Sudipa and gave her instructions not to divulge B
tht: truth about the incident. Sudipa then stayed with different relatives for
few days. During that period the appellant used to meet and instruct her
not to disclose the truth.

4. The police continued the investigation and on 9.10.1991 arrested
Sudipa. On that day she came to know that the appellant was also arrested. C
On 1:.10.1991 she expressed her desire to confess and, therefore, she was
taken to S.D.J.~l. Barrackpore. The police then filed a charge sheet against
the three accused persons including Sudipa on 20.12.1991. On 13.1.1992 an
application was made to S.D.J,M. Barrackpore for granting pardon to
Sudipa. The S.D.J..M. recorded the statement of Sudipa and granted par- D
don on 15.10.1992. As she was not thereafter examined as a witness as
required by Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. she was again produced before the
S.D.J.M. on 4.1U992. She was examined on 4.11.1992 and 9.11.1992. The
case was then committed to the Sessions Court and the trial proceeded
against the appellant and Krishnanendu.
E
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution had relied upon the
: evidence of Sudipa (P.W. 2) and other corroborating material consisting
\
-"
j
of oral testimony of other prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence,
seized articles and circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge
rejected the conti::ntion that the trial was vitiated as the mandatory require-
F
ment of Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. was not complied with. The learned Judge
hdd that the evidence of P.W. 2 stood corrohorated on material particulars
by the other independent evidence on record. Her evidence regarding
ill-tn:atment by her mother was corroborated by the evidence of Jagadish
Dutta (P.W.24) and Samiran Chakraborty (P.W.26). Her evidence that she
was not allowed to mix with other boys and girls and, therefore, she did G
not have friends was corroborated by the evidence of Purnima Pal (P.W.
25) and Anima Pal (P.W. 32). Her evidence that the appellant used to
comtc to her house everyday in the evening was corroborated by the
evidcoct of P.Ws. 26 and 32. The karned Judge bdieved the evidence of
these witn.:sses as it had remained almo~t um.:hallenged. The evidence of H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A Durga Rani Pal (P.W.5), Sumit Pal (P.W. 22), Jagadish Dutta (P.W. 24)
and Purnima Pal (P.W. 25) was also found acceptable and the learned
Judge held that it corroborated the evidence of Sudipa that she and the
appellant were moving together alont: and people used to talk about their
relationship. Her version that she used to go out with the appellant even
B during the school time and, therefore, used to remain absent from the
school was corroborated by the evidence of Subrato Bhawal (P.W.7),
Gautam Chaki (P.W.8), Rita Sen (P.W. 19) and the attendance register
(Ext. 62). The absence of the appellant from the school was also proved
by the evidence of Madan Mohan Nath (P.W. 18) and the attendance
n:gister (Ext. 61 ). The fact thalt the appellant was in financial difficulties
C and that Sudipa used to give her gold ornaments to him stood corroborated
by the evidence of Dilip Kumar Karmakar (P.W.13) and Exhibits 28, 28/1,
28/2 and 28'3. Her evidence that for getting rid of her mother the appellant
had purchased cyanide, mercury chloride and chloroform was held cor-
roborated by the find of those articles from her house and the evidence of
D Kush Chandra Roy (P.W.41), seizure memo (Ext. 103) and the report of
the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. 140). Her evidence that for
the purpose of finding out effectiveness of the poison which they had
purchased wme experiments w1~re performed was partly corroborated by
the evidenct.: of Durga Rani Pal (P.W.5) and Gautam Chaki (P.W.8). Her
E version that cyanide was mixed with Kalojam for giving them to her mother
was also corroborated by the find of a packet of sweets (M Ext. 4) from
her house. Her evidence that her mother and father ate poisoned Kalojam
and that her grand-mother and grand-father were also administered poison ·'-..,
received corroboration from the medical evidence. On the point of at-
tempts made to conceal or des:roy the articles used for causing murders
F her evidence stood corroborated by the find of soap water (M Ext. 51/l),
)
.(
half burnt note book and the seizure memo. After appreciating her
evidence the learned Sessions Judge held that it was safe to rely upon it as ,1

it not only stood corroborated on material particulars by independent
evidence but was also found true and reliable. He, therefore, convicted \I
G both the accused as stated above. \
I '
6. The High Court, after r1~-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the
findings recorded by the trial Court. It also did not find any substance in
the contention that the mandatory requirement of Section 306(4) Cr.P.C.
H was not complied with. It, therefore, dismissed the appellant's appeal.
RANDHIRBASU v. STATE(G.T.NANAVATI,J.] 655

7. It was contended by Mr. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing A
for the appdlant, that Sudipa was not 'examined as a witness' as con-
templated by Section 306(4) Cr. P.C. He submitted that Sudipa was ex-
amined by the Magistrate in his chamber and not in the open court and at
that time the accused were not kept present. Her evidence was subjected
to cross-examination. In support of his submission he relied upon the
B
decision of this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, [1995]
Supp. 1 SCC 80. In that case this Court after pointing out the object and
purpose of enacting Section 306(4) Cr. P.C. has held that since the
provision has been made for the benefit of the accused it must be regarded
as mandatory. lt has observed therein that "the object and purpose in
enacting this mandatory provision is obviously intended to provide a c
safeguard to the accused inasmuch as the approver has to make a statement
disclosing his evidence at the preliminary stage before the committal order
is made and the accused not only becomes aware of the evidence against
him but he is also afforded an opportunity to meet with, the evidence of a11
approver before the committi11g court itself at the very threshold .............. " D
From this observation it does not follow that the person who is granted
pardon must be examined in presence of the accused and that the accused
has a right to appear and cross-examine him at that stage also. As pointed
out by this Court in that case the object is to provide an opportunity to the
accused to show to the Court that the approver's evidence at the trial is
E
untrustworthy in view of the contradictions or improvements made by him
during his evidence at the trial. Considering the object and purpose of
examining the person accepting tender of pardon as a witness is thus
limited. The proceeding which takes place before the Magistrate at that
stage is neither an inquiry nor a trial. Therefore, the submission of the
learned counsel that Sudipa should have been examined as witness in open F
court and not in the chamber and that while she was examined the
Magistrate should have kept the accused present and afforded to them an
opportunity tu cross examine Sudipa cannot be accepted. The phrase
'examination of a witness' does not necessarily mean examination and cross
examination of that witness. What type of examination of a witness is G
contemplated would depend upon the object and purpose of that provision.
Section 202 Cr.P.C. also contemplates examination of witness yet it has
been held, considering the object and purpose of that provision, that the
accused has 110 locus standi at that stage. However, it is not necessary to
deal with this contention any further as the facts of this case do not support H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R.

A the contention. The record of the Magistrate which was perused by both
the Courts below and which we have also scrutinised carefully discloses
that on 24.2.1992 Sudipa and both the accused were produced before the
Magistrate for n:cording her statement under Section 306 Cr.P.C. On that
day, the learned Magistrate, in presence of the accused, passed an order
B for producing Sudipa on 4.11.1992 for examining her as a witness. On
4.11.1992 both the accused were present in the chamber of the learned
Magistrate and in their presence statement of Sudipa was n:corded under
Section 306(4) till 5.00 P.M. and the police was directed to keep all of them
present on 9.11.1992 for recording her further statement. On 9.11.1992 her
further statement was recorded. Copies of the evidence of Sudipa were
C supplied to both the accused and that fact was ascertained by the learned
Magistrate on 25.11.1992 when all of them were produced before him. The
learned Mll.gistrate had thereafter fixed 6.1.1993 as a date for cross-ex-
amination of Sudipa. On that day, an application was given on behalf of
the appellant for local inspection of the place of offence before cross-ex-
D aming Sudipa. That application was granted and the accused were directed
to be produced on 3.2.1993 for further cross-examination. The cross-
examination of Sudipa was then for different reasons adjourned from time
to time and the last date fixed for that purpose was 30.3.1993. On that day
the advocate of the appellant did not remain present. The appellant
E declined to cross-examine her. The lawyer representing Krishnanendu also
declined to cross-examine her. Therefore, there is no justification in the
grievance made by the learned counsel that Sudipa was examined by the
Magistrate in absence of the appellant and the appellant was not afforded
an opportunity to cross-examine her. For this reason also it is also not
possible to agree with the contention raised by him that the mandatory
F requirement of Section 306(4) was not complied with.

8. It was n~xt contended by Mr. Muralidhar that Sudipa's evidence
contained many contradictions and improvements and, therefort:, it ought
not to have been accepted by the courts below. All the contradictions to
G which our attention was drawn have bet:n considered by the courts below
and they have bet:n rightly held to be contradictions on minor points, as
they are with respect to the exact date, time or place when the events stated
had taken place. ln view of the fact that she was deposing before the court
with respect to the events which had taken place over a period of three
H years some inconsistencies of a minor nature can be regarded as natural.
RAi"IDHIR BASC' v. STATE[G.I'. NANAVAT!,J.j 657

She has given more d1;tails while deposing before the Sessions Court, but A
they are not improvements of such a nature as would cri::ate any doubt
regarding her trustworthini::ss. Mr. Muralidhar, however, spi::cifically drew
our attention to the fact that before the Magistrate she had not stated a
word about the manner in which her grand-father and grand-mother were
murdi::n:d on the date of the incident, whereas in her evidence before the B
court she has n:fom:d to the talk which she had with the appellant in that
behal[ It appears to bc an omission caused by oversight. The fact that her
grand parents were also murdered at about the same time was not in
dispute. The circumstance that Sudipa and appellant alone were present
in the house at the relevant time also stands established by the evidence
on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sudipa was making a deliberate
c
improvement with respect to the murders of her grand-father and grand-
mother in order to falsely involve the appdlant. It was next submitted by
Mr. Muralidhar that when Sudipa's evidence was recorded by the
Magistrate under Section 306(4) she had deposed as if she was only a
witm:ss to the whole incident and had not taken any part in commission of D
the offence. He submitted that Sudipa had not stated who had mixed
poison with 'kalojam' given to her mother. Having gone through her
statement, we find that she has in dear terms stated that she had applied
poison to two 'kalojams' and om: of those 'kalojams' was handed over by
the appdlant to her mothh in her pn:sence. She has also stated that sht: E
had taken the plate containing one 'kalujam' and one 'sitabhog' given to
her by the appellant tu her father's bed ·room and had kept it on a table
there. Thus, Sudip~ had not made 'lny attempt tu hid<· or conceal th.: part
placed by her. Having rn1cfully scrul;nisu.l her >iatemcnl we find that she
had givc;n full and correct v1.:rsion of the incident. Her evidence before the F
Court was also consistent. Both the courb below were, therefore, justified
in accepting her evidence and recording the conviction of the appellant.

9. One more submission made by Mr. Muralidhar for not accepting
her evidence was that her evidence against Krishnanendu has not been
believed by the High Court and that would imply that she had not told the G
truth. We could have appreciated this submission if the High Court had
rejected her evidence against Krishnanendu on the ground that it was false
or of doubtful nature. The High Court did not accept her evidence because
it was of the view that it was unsafe to rely upon it in absence of inde-
pendent corroboration. Therefore, non-acceptance of her against Krish- H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2000J 1 S.C.R.

A nanendu does not, in our opinion, introduce any infirmity in her evidence ~/
or create any doubt regarding her reliability as a witness.

10. It was lastly contended by Mr. Muralidhar that the courts below
were not justified in imposing death senttnce upon the appdlant. The High
Court has confirmed the death sentence on the ground that the appellant
B committed four murders 'with the design of avarice'', The High Court
further observed that the murders were committed in a cruel and calcu-
lated manner and they were committed with siniskr design. What appears
to have been overlooked by tht courts below is that the appellant and
Sudipa wanted only Sudipa's mother to be removed from this world. At no
C point of time the appellant had planned to kill Sudipa's father and her
grand parents. Sudipa was ill-treated by her mother and no other way could
be seen for improving Sudipa's future. It was, therefore, out of helplessness
and frustration that Sudipa and appellant had decided to remove her.
There was no other reason. Till Sudipa's mother was made to eat the
'kalojam' mixed with poison there was not even the remotest desire on the
D part of the appellant to kill Sudipa's father or her grand parents. The
subsequent events happened unexpecttdly. The appellant kilkd them out
of confusion and fright that he would be named as the murderer of Sudipa's
mother. If all these circumstances would have been taken into considera-
tion probably the trial Court would not have imposed the death sentence
E upon the appellant and the High Court would not have confirmed the
same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. we are of lht
view that this is not a fit case in which the death sentence can be regardt·.d
as an appropriate punishment.

11. We, thtrefore, partly allow this appeal. We confirm the conviction
F of the appellant for causing deaths of all the four victims, but reduce the
sentence of death to the sentence of imprisonmtnt for lifo.

NJ. App.:al partly allowed.