Holding

The murder, though most foul, does not qualify as "rarest of the rare"; therefore, the death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment and the seven‑year rigorous imprisonment for s.201/34 runs consecutively, while other ancillary sentences are not added.

Summary

The appellant, Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal, conspired with his father to murder his wife Vijaya for dowry, severing her head and cutting her body into nine pieces to conceal evidence, also causing the death of the unborn child. He was convicted of murder under s.302 read with s.1208, and of offences under s.201/34, s.316, s.498A/34 and s.304B/34, receiving a death sentence and additional rigorous imprisonments. The Supreme Court examined whether the murder qualified as "rarest of the rare" to justify death, and held that despite its foul nature, it did not meet that threshold, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court affirmed the seven‑year rigorous imprisonment for the offence of concealing a murder (s.201/34) and ordered it to run consecutively after the life term, while refusing to add sentences for s.316 and s.498A/34 and upholding the High Court’s setting aside of the s.304B conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, modifying the punishment but confirming the convictions.

Issues considered

Whether the murder constitutes a "rarest of the rare" case warranting the death penalty
Whether the death sentence should be upheld or commuted
Whether the sentences for ancillary offences (s.201/34, s.316, s.498A/34, s.304B/34) should run consecutively, merge, or be set aside

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 1208, s. 201, s. 302, s. 304B, s. 316, s. 34, s. 498A

Subjects

dowry deathmurderdeath penaltyrarest of the rarelife imprisonmentconsecutive sentencingIPC sections 302, 1208, 201, 34, 316, 498A, 304B

Judgment

\

j
RAVINDRA TRIMBAK CHOUTHMAL A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

FEBRUARY 23, 1996

(G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Dowry murder most foul-
Whether "rarest of the rare" type-Extreme penalty of death-Whether merited.

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 201/34: Dowry murde1~Attrocious C
act of severing head of deceased and cutting her body into nine pieces to cause
disappearance of evidence-Sentence of imprisonmen~Whether to run con-
secutively.

Sections 316 & 498A/34: Dowry murder-Death of child in deceased's
womb-Killing whether separately intended-Husband's cmelty towards D
woman--Significance in view of murder.

The appellant had married deceased against wishes of his father. She
was persecuted and could live with her husband only for a couple of days
and returned to her parents. The appellant brought her back about eight E
months later to li•e with him in Bombay. It is alleged that there, for the
sake of dowry, he connived with his father, mother and sister in murdering
her, and severing her head and cutting her body in nine pieces to cause
disappearance of evidence. The child in deceased's womb was also killed
in their act. The co-accused the appellant's father and sister died during
the course of trial. F

The trial court sentenced the appellant to death for the offence under
s.302 IPC read with s.1208 for committing murder of deceased and of child
in the womb; to R.I. for 7 years under ss.201/34; to R.I. for 3 years under
ss.498-A/34 and R.I. for 7 years under ss.304B/34. All his substantive G
sentences were ordered to merge in the death sentence. The appellant's
mother was also found guilty of various offences, and sentenced.

The High Court came to the categorical finding that the circumstan-
ces clearly established the active participation of the appellant with his
father in hatching the plan, committing the murder and disposing of the H
1009
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.
\
A body. It confirmed the appellant's conviction for murder of deceased, but
changed his conviction. for causing the murder of the child in the womb to
one under s.316. It also confirmed his conviction under ss.201/34 and
498A/34. His conviction under s.304B/34 was set aside. The appellant's
mother was, however, acquitted of all the charges.

B Allowing the appeal partly, the Court

HELD : 1. The murder of the deceased was undoubtedly most foul.
~The motive was to get another girl for the appellant who could get dowry
to satisfy the _greed of the father. The dowry deaths are blood boiling, as
C human blood is spilled to satisfy raw-greed, named greed, a greed which
has no limit. [1013-F-G]

2. The case, however, cannot be placed in that category which could
be regarded as the "rarest of the rare" type. This is so because dowry death
has ceased to belong to that species of killing. The increasing number of
D dowry death would bear this. The sentence of death is, therefore, com-
muted to one of imprisonment for life. [1013-H; 1014-A; B]

3. However, what has been done to cause disappearance of the
evidence relating to the commission of murder - the attrocious way in
which the head was severed and the body was cut in nine pieces, makes it
E a fit case for conviction under ss.201/34. The sentence of R.I. for 7 years
awarded to the appellant, therefore, shall be sustained. This sentence shall
run consecutively after the life imprisonment has run its course as per law.
[1014-C-D]
4. As killing of the child in the womb was not separately intended
F and the offence of cruelty ceased to be of significance and importance in
view of murder of the deceased, the, sentences under ss.316 and 498-A/34,
and 498-A IPC shall not be added. [1014-D-E)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
252 of 1996.
G
From the Judgment and Order 10/11/12/13/16.10.95 of the Bombay
High Court in Confirmation Case No.2/95 & Crl.A.No.245 of 1995.

M. Janardhanan, R.S. Hegde and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.

H S.M. Jadhav for the Respondents.
j
RAVINDRA TRIMBAKCHOUTHMALv. STATE [HANSARIA,J.] 1011

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

HANSARIA, J. To hang or not tci hang, is the basic question to be
decided in this appeal. The murder of Vijaya was undoubtedly most foul.
Even so, death sentence can be awarded if murder be of the "rarest of the
rare" type. Let it be seen whether this was so.
B
2. The facts taken as established by the High Court, to whom
reference was made after the trial court had awarded the death sentence
and appeals were preferred, are that Vijaya got officially married to the
appellant on April 24, 1990. This was against the wishes of his father
Trimbak, who had wanted to get his son married to some other girl and C
had hoped for good dowry from that marriage. Vijaya could live only for
a couple of days with her husband before she returned back to her parents'
house, because she felt that she was persecuted by Friyatama, sister of the
appellant. On return to her parents' house, she told her father Ashruba
about the demand of dowry made by Trit11bak and the appellant. The D
demand was of Rs. 25,000/-. Ashruba, however, being an employee with
mea&rre salary, could agree to pay only Rs. 5,000/-. The further accepted
case is that on or about December 2, 1990, the appellant took Vijaya to
Bombay. On December 14, 1990, Trimbak and his wife Mudrikabai came
to Bombay. All of them were seen together at about 9.15 p.m. Thereafter
nobody saw Vijaya alive. E

3. Vijaya had been taken to Bombay with a promise that she would
be sent back 1.m January 3, 1991 for delivery at her parents' house, as she
was carrying a child of about 8 months then. As she did not come even
8-10 days after 3rd January, Ashruba got worried as to what had happened p
to her daughter. He sent his two sons to Bo~bay who, alongwith two of
their friends, reached there on 15th January. On inquiry being made from
the appellant about Vijaya, it was told that she was in good health. On
desiring to meet her, the appellant, who was then a Lecturer in Sardar
Patel Engineering College at Andheri, said that he would take them to the
house at about 4 p.m. when she could be met. The four persons then left G
for Juhu Beach and when came back to College around 4 p.m., they came
to know that the appellant had already left without leaving any message.
After making inquiries about the residential address they reached the place
to be informed that the appellant and his father had left with bags and
baggage. About Vijaya, neighbors told that she had been sent to her H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A parents' house for delivery. This shocked the boys and they apprehended
some foul play. Coming back to Aurangabad (the town where the parents
lived) they narrated to Ashruba what had happened at Bombay. Further
inquiries were made at Bombay to be given out the same story.

B 4. This led Ashruba to lodge a complaint at Borivli Police Station on
24th J anua~y. Police arrested Trimbak who expressed his willingness to
show the place where Vijay's head was thrown after she was murdered.
The head was found in the shrub near Gorai Creek. The head was iden-
tified to be of Vijaya because of the peculiar nature of her curly hair and
projected teeth. Trimbak further told to the police that body of Vijaya was
C cut in nine pieces and was kept in two suitcases, which had been thrown in
a Nala. Trimbak led to police that place but coµld not find the suitcases.
The appellant, on being interrogated, made a statement that he will point
out the razor and certain other articles which had been thrown at Gorai
Creek. On the police being led to that place, two knives and a razor were
D found. Ultimately, the nine pieces of the cut body were found contained in
two bags which had been kept in a local train at Borivli which was
proceeding towards Churchgate. The two bags were taken charge of by the
railway police and the body was sent for postmortem.

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
E the appellant, his father Trimbak, his mother Mudrikabai and his sister
Priyatama. During the course of trial, the father and sister died; and so,
only the appellant and his mother faced it fully. The former was convicted
under section 302 read with 1208 of the l.P.C. for Committing tl;ie murder
of Vijaya; and also of the child in the womb. He'was further found guilty
F. under·sections 201/34, so too under sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC.
He was awarded the sentence of death for the offence under section 302
read with 1208: to R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 201/34;
to R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for three
months for 498-A/34 offence; and R.I. for seven years for 304-B/34 offence-
th~ same being the minimum sentence prescribed under law. As the
G appellant was awarded death sentence, it was stated by the trial court that
all his substantive sentences shall merge in this sentence. Mudrikabai (the
mother) was also found guilty under some sections and various sentences
were awarded to her.

H 6. On appeal being preferred by the convicts and reference being
)_
RAVINDRA TRIMBAKCHOUTIIMALv. STATE [HANSARIA,J.] 1013

made by the Addi. Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence, A
all the cases were heard together and by the impugned judgment the High
Court has acquitted Mudrikabai of all the charges, but has confirmed the
conviction of the appellant for the murder of Vijaya. As for the offence of
causing the murder of the child in the womb, the conviction has been
altered to section 316, for which the sentence is R.L for ten years. The B
High Court has also confirmed the conviction under sections 201/34 and
498-A/34 and the sentences as awarded. The conviction under section
304-B/34 has, however, been set aside.

7. This appeal having been admitted only on the question of sentence,
we have heard learned counsel for the parties regarding the same. Shri C
J anardhnan, senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, has contended
that the present was not a case of death sentence inasmuch as it was
Trimbak who had done all the acts and the appellant had really no part to
play, as he had married Vijaya out of love and he continued to love her.
As to the prosecution case of his having brought Vijaya to Bombay, it is
urged that that had been done at the request of Vijaya and the appellant D
had no inkling as to what was playing in the mind of his father.

8. We cannot at all accept the aforesaid in view of the finding of both
the courts below that the appellant was hand in glove with his father, both
of whom had hatched a plan and murdered· Vijaya and also had thought E
out as how to dispose of the body. There are materials on record to show
that Vijaya had been brought to Bombay, not to show the love of the
husband, but to get her killed at the cruel hands of her father-in-law. The
High Court, after noting the evidence, has come to categorical finding that
the circumstances dearly establish the active participation of the appellant
with his father right from the beginning till the end. F
9. The present was thus a murder most foul, as pointed out by us in
the opening paragraph. The motive was to get another girl for the appellant
who could get dowry to satisfy the greed of the father. Dowry-deaths are
blood-boiling, as human blood is spilled to satisfy raw-greed, naked greed; G
a greed which has no limit. Nonetheless, question is whether the extreme
penalty was merited in the present case?

10. We have given considered thought to the question and we have
not been able to place the case in, that category which could be regarded
as the "rarest of the rare" type. This is so bec_ause dowry death has ceased H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.
\.
A to belong to that species of killing. The increasing number of dowry deaths
would bear this. To halt the rising graph, we, at one point, thought to·
maintain the sentence; but we entertain doubt about the deterrent effect
of a death penalty. We, therefore, resist ourselves from upholding the death
sentence, much thought we would have desired annihilation of a despicable
character like the appellant before us. We, therefore, commute the sen-
B tence of death to one of R.I. for life imprisonment.

11. But then, it is a fit case, according to us, where, for the offence
under section 201/34, the sentence awarded, which is R.I. for seven years
being the maximum for a case of the present type, should be sustained, in ·
C view of what had been done to cause disappearance of the evidence
relating to the commission of murder - the atrocious way in which the head
was severed and the body was cut in nine pieces. These cry for maximum
sentence. Not only this, the sentence has to run consecutively, and not
concurrently, to who our strong disapproval to the loathsome, revolting and
dreaded device adopted to cause disappearance of the dead body. To these
D sentences, we do not, however, desire to add those awarded for offences
under Sections 316 and 498-N34, as killing of the child in the womb was
not separately intended, and 498-A offence ceases to be of significance and
importance in view of the murder of Vijaya.

12. The result is that the appeal stands allowed to the extent that the
E sentence of death is converted to one of imprisonment for life. But th'en,
the sentence of seven years' R.I. for the offence under sections 201/34 IPC
would start running after the life imprisonment has run its course as per
law.

F P.S.S. Appeal allowed partly.

.-