STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusGORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL

                                 [2011] 9 S.C.R. 41


                            STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                            A
                                         V.
                           GORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2007)
                                   JULY 07, 2011
...                                                                         B
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

                   Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201 - Conviction under
             - Continuous quarrels amongst family members over division
             of property - Accused no. 1, his wife (accused no.3) and c
             brother (accused no. 2) on one side and accused no. 1' s
             father, step mother and step sister on the other side - Accused
             no. 1 administered sedative/poisonous substance mixed in
'
             sweets to all family members and when they fell asleep, he
             strangulated father, step mother and step sister to death - D
             Thereafter, he packed the dead bodies in two trunks and
             loaded in different trains, which· were later recovered from
             different railway stations - Conviction of accused no. 1 u/ss.
             302 and 201 by trial court, on the basis of circumstantial
             evidence and award of death sentence - However, acquittal E
             of accused nos. 2 and 3 - High Court upheld the order of
             conviction but modified the sentence of death to life
           . imprisonment - On appeal, held: Prosecution has been able
             to prove a complete chain of events which point towards the
    ·•       guilt of the accused - Right from the evidence of the entire F
             family having the last dinner together and administering of
             sweets with sedatives/poisonous substances to the recovery
             of bodies of the deceased at different railway stations, the
             chain of events stands proved beyond reasonable doubt -
             Statement of the accused uls. 313 Cr.P.C. supports the
      'I
                                                                             G
             prosecution case - Thus, there is no er;or in the concurrent
             findings recorded by the courts below convicting accused no.
             1 u/ss. 302 and 201 - As regards the order of sentence, the
             manner in which the crime has been committed is deplorable
             but the attendant circumstances and the fact that he even
                                         41                                 H
    42       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A   administered the sweets containing sedatives/poisonous
    substance to his own wife (accused no. 3) shows accused's
    frustration, and probably greed, for the property had attained
    volcanic dimensions - Constant nagging was a mitigating
    circumstance in the commission of the crime - Thus, the case
B   does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare cases' - Order
    of sentence as modified by the High Court is upheld.

        Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction on
    basis of - When - Held: When the prosecution is able to
    establish the chain of events to satisfy the ingredients of
c   commission of an offence, accused would be liable to suffer
    the consequences of his proven guilt.

        Sentence/Sentencing - Principles governing sentencing
  policy - Held: Awarding punishment is an onerous function
D in the dispensation of criminal justice - Court is expected to
   keep in mind the facts and circumstances of a case,
  principles governing award of sentence, the legislative intent
  of special or general statute raised in the case and impact of
   awarding punishment - Court need to examine these
E nuances with discernment and in depth - Criminal
  jurisprudence.

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
         s. 354(3) - Conditions to be satisfied prior to imposition
F   of death penalty - Held: Death penalty should be imposed
    in rarest of rare cases and that too for special reasons to be
    recorded - Courts to take into consideration the mitigating
    circumstances and their resultant effects - The conditions of
    providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not
G   to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic
    feature of a reasoning supporting and making award of death
    penalty unquestionable - Circumstances and the manner of
    committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial
    conscience of the court to the extent that the only inevitable
H   conclusion should be awarding the death penalty.
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                 43
                               ADSUL
        -'·
                  s. 354(3) - Legislative intent behind enactment -         A
              Explained.

                   'A' was the real father of accused nos. 1 and 2 while
..            accused no .. 3 is the wife of accused no. 1. 'J' is the step-
              mother of accused nos. 1 and 2 while R and PW.13-'S' are B
     ..j.
              their step-sister and step-brother respectively. There were
              quarrels amongst family members over the partition of the
              property with accused no. 1 to 3 on one side and 'A', his
              wife 'J' and his daughter 'R' on the other side. On the
              night of the incident, accused no. 1 offered sweets c
              containing sedatives/poisonous substance to all - 'A', 'J',
              'SN', 'R' and accused no. 3 and when the family was
              asleep, he killed 'A', 'J' and 'R' by strangulation.
              Thereafter, he packed the dead bodies in two boxes and
              loaded them in two different trains. The same were
                                                                             D
              recovered later from two different railway stations. FIR
              was registered. lnvestigati°""was carried out. Accused
              Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested. The trial court on the basis of,
              the circumstantial evidence-dispute over agricultural land/
              partition; last seen theory; administration of sedative
              through sweets; disposal of dead bodies by accused no. E
              1; identification of accused no. 1 as person loading trunk
              in the train; homicidal death of 'A', 'J' and 'R'; and false
              theory/explanation propounded by accused for absence
              of the victim, convicted accused no. 1 for commission of
              offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and awarded F
              sentence of death. However, accused no. 2 and 3 were
              acquitted. The High Court converted the death penalty
              into life imprisonment while sustained the order of
              conviction. Therefore, accused no. 1 and the State filed
              the instant appeals.                                           G
       1

                  Dismissing the appeals, the Court
                   HELD: 1.1 It is a case of circumstantial evidence and
              there is no eye-witness or other direct evidence in regard
              to the murder of the three deceased persons. PW- 13 and       H
    44       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A the accused no. 3-'S' required medical assistance on the
    next day as they suffered from vomiting and dysentery
    presumably because of food poisoning caused by the
   sedative-infused pedas, which were offered to them by
   accused no.1. On enquiry by the brother of the deceased
B 'A', the accused had informed him that 'A', 'J' and 'R' had
   gone to place 'AN' for medical treatment and
   subsequently claimed that he had received a telephone
   call from his father stating that the family was proceeding
   to the holy place 'P'. This lead to the arrest of the
c accused. Also, accused no. 1 hired a Maruti Van owned
   by PW14 for the purpose of carrying the two trunks
   containing the three dead bodies from the village to the
   Railway Station. PW-7, a friend of the accused also
   deposed that the trunk was kept in front of his house
   before it was loaded in the Maruti Van. PW12 is a friend
0
   of PW.14 and both of them were together when accused
   no. 1 contacted PW.14 for hiring of Maruti Van on 24th
   October, 2002. They were again together when two
   trunks were lifted in the early 1awn hours on 25th
   October, 2002. Thus, these two persons were material
E witnesses for establishing the fact that these trunks/iron
   boxes were actually carried from the said place to the
  Railway Station by the accused. PW17, brother of 'J'
  identified the dead bodies. His statement is of
  significance in regard to the identification of the dead
F bodies as well as the conduct of the accused
  subsequent to the recovery of the dead bodies. He is the
  person who was provided with incorrect information by
  the accused no.1 regarding whereabouts of the
  deceased. PW13-'S' is another material witness as he
G was also administered the pedas laced with sedatives
  and the same was served in his presence to the
  deceased by the accused no.1. Besides this evidence,
  the statement of PW10-doctor also helped in completing
  the chain of events leading to the commission of the
H crime and its subsequent result. According to PW.10 he
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI              45
                 ADSUL
had treated PW13 and accused no.3 on 24th October,         A
2002 when they were brought to him with the complaint
of diarrhea. When they went to the doctor, the accused
no.1 had accompanied them. [Para 9] [53-H; 54-A-H; 55-
A-F]
                                                           B
     1.2 PW 23, Judicial Magistrate recorded the
statements of PW12, PW14, PW17 and sister of the
deceased 'J' under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW 12, PW 14 and
PW 17 are the main witnesses on whose statement the
entire case of the prosecution rests in addition to the
statement of the Investigating Officers and other formal   C
witnesses. [Paras 10 and 11] [55-G-H; 56-A-B]
      1.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
High Court expressed the opinion that two
circumstances, i.e. the last seen together and the o
homicidal death stands proved by themselves and do
not require further evidence to prove that fact. The view
expressed by the High Court that keeping in view the
photographs of the dead body and the doctor's
statement, it was proved to be a homicidal death, is E
concurred with. The argument that the doctor had not
expressed his opinion with regard to the cause of death
particularly in relation to 'R' and 'J', is not impressive at
all inasmuch as the death of the two persons was proved.
From the injury report on the body of the deceased, the F
photographs and the circumstances attendant thereto, it
is more than clear that this was a case of homicidal
death. The bodies of the deceased were duly identified.
It was practically an admitted case that the deceased as .
well as the accused were living in a joint family and had G
their last meals together, during which the accused had
offered pedas to the family including the deceased. This
is fully substantiated by the statement of PW13 and
PW10. PW13, 'S' is a family member. He had also
suffered the consequences of consuming the pedas and
was treated by PW10-doctor. The factum of carrying of H
    46       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A · two boxes and loading them on the respective trains was
    fully established by the prosecution. In some portion of
    the judgment, the High Court correctly appreciated the
    evidence. It disregarded the statement of PW7 while fully
    relying upon and holding that there were witnesses who
B were truthful and can be safely relied upon. [Para 13] [56-
    H; 57-A-F]
         1.4 The conclusion of the High Court does not suffer
    from any legal infirmity. It is in conformity with the settled
C   principles of law and is based on proper appreciation of
    evidence. The finding of guilt by both the courts is
    concurrent However, they differ only on the question of
    quantum of sentence. On the appreciation of evidence,
    the prosecution has been able to prove a complete chain
    of events which points only towards the guilt of the
D   accused. Even in a case of circumstantial evidence, if the
    prosecution is able to establish the chain of events to
    satisfy the ingredients of commission of an offence, the
    accused would be liable to suffor the consequences of
    his proven guilt. In the instant case, right from the
E   evidence of the entire family having the last dinner
    together and administering of pedas with sedatives or
    poisonous substances to the recovery of bodies of the
    deceased at different railway stations the chain of ev,S!nts
    stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, ·the
F   statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
    further supports the case of the prosecution and
    demolishes the stand of the defence of complete denial.
    Thus, there is no error in the concurrent findings
    recorded by the courts holding the accused guilty of an
G   offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. [Para 14] [60-E-
    H; 61-A-B]

       2.1 Awarding punishment is certainly an onerous
  function in the dispensation of criminal justice. The court
H is expected to keep in mind the facts and circumstances
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                47
                 ADS UL
 of a case, the principles of law governing award of           A
 sentence, the legislative intent of special or general
 statute raised in the case and the impact of awarding
  punishment. These are the nuances which need to be
 examined by the court with discernment and in depth.
 The legislative intent behind enacting Section 354(3)         B
 Cr.P.C. clearly demonstrates the concern of the
  legislature for taking away a human life and imposing
. death penalty upon the accused. Concern for the dignity
  of the human life postulates resistance to taking a life
  through law's instrumentalities and that ought not to be     C
  done, save in the rarest of rare cases, unless the
  alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. In
  exercise of its discretion, the Court would also take into
  consideration the mitigating circumstances and their
  resultant effects. Language of Section 354(3)
                                                               0
  demonstrates the legislative concern and the conditions
  which need to be satisfied prior to imposition of death
  penalty. The words 'in the case of sentence of death the
  special reasons for such sentence' unambiguously
  demonstrates the command of the legislature that such
  reasons have to be recorded for imposing the                 E
  punishment of death sentence. This is how the concept
  of rarest of rare cases has emerged in law. Viewed from
  that angle, both the legislative provisions and judicial
  pronouncements are at ad idem in law. The death penalty
  should be imposed in rarest of rare cases and that too       F
  for special reasons to be recorded. To put it simply, a
  death sentence is not a rule but an exception. Even the
  exception must satisfy the pre-requisites contemplated
  under Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. [Para 16] [61-E-H; 62-A-D]
                                                           G
    2.2 Awarding of death sentence amounts to taking
away the life of an individual, which is the most valuable
right available, whether viewed from the constitutional
point of view or from the human rights point of view. The
condition of providing special reasons for awarding H
    48       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [201119 S.C.R.

A   death penalty is not to be construed linguistically but it
    is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting
    and making award of death penalty unquestionable. The
    circumstances and the manner of committing the crime
    should be such that it pricks the judicial conscience of
s   the Court to the extent that the only and inevitable
    conclusion should be awarding of death penalty. [Para
    21] [68-8-D]

       Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
C   Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983
    (3) SCR 413 - relied on.

        D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416:
    1996 (10)Suppl. SCR 284; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
    Bariyar vs. State ofMaharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498: 2009 (9)
D   SCR 90; Vashram Narshibhai Rajpara v. State of Gujarat AIR
    2002 SC 2211: 2002(3)SCR 422 - referred to.

       2.3 In the instant case, the accused belonged to the
  armed forces, his father had married for the second time
E and had children from the second wife. There were
  continuous quarrels with regard to the division of
  property and during these quarrels the accused is stated
  to have even hit his father. It was a pressure which had
  increased with the passage of time and probably this
  frustration attained the limit of commission of such a
F heinous crime by the accused. The manner in which the
  crime has been committed is deplorable but the attendant
  circumstances and the fact that he even administered the
  sweets (pedas) containing sedatives/poisonous
  substance to his own wife, the accused no.3, shows that
G his frustration, and probably greed, for the property had
  attained volcanic dimensions. The intensity of bitterness
  between the members of the family had exacerbated the
  thoughts of revenge and retaliation in him. The constant
  nagging would have to be taken as a mitigating
H circumstance in the commission of this crime. Thus, in
           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                    49
      ~                    ADSUL
          view of the factual matrix and the legal analysis, the            A
          instant case does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare
          cases'. [Para 22] [68-E-H; 69-A]
                              Case Law Reference
           (1980) 2 sec 684               Relied on       Paras 16, 18      B
           1983 (3) SCR 413               Relied on       Para 17
           1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 Referred to           Para 19 ·
           2009 (9) SCR 90                Referred to     Para 19           c
 ·'        2002 ( 3) SCR 422              Referred to     Para 19
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
          No. 999 of 2007.
                                                                            D
              From the Judgment & Order dated 30.09.2005 of the
          High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in
          Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.
          157 of 2005.
                                         WITH                               E
          Crl. A. No. 1623 of 2007.
              Asha Gopalan Nair, Suvira Lal (Amicus Curiae) for the
          appearing parties.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    F

                SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The learned trial court, while
          weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and
          keeping in mind the principle of proportionality of sentence or
      J
          what it termed as "just-desert" for th~ brutal and diabolical     G
          killing of three innocent family members, formed an opinion
          that the Court could not resist from concluding that the only
          sentence that could be awarded to the accused was death
          penalty. Thus, it directed that the accused Goraksha Ambaji
...       Adsul be hanged by the neck till he is dead in terms of Section   H
    . 50       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
  'Cr.P.C.'), subject to confirmation by the High Court in
  accordance with law. Aggrieved by this extreme punishment
  and the order of conviction, the accused challenged the
  judgment of the learned trial court dated 14th February, 2005
B by filing an appeal before the High Court which vide its detailed
  judgment dated 30th September, 2005, declined to confirm
  the· death sentence referred under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C.
  and held the said accused guilty of offence under Sections
  302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and
c sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. In other words,
  the High Court converted the death penalty into life
  imprisonment while sustaining the order of conviction.

        2. The State of Maharashtra has preferred the present
  appeal bearing Crl.A. No. 999/2007, before this Court claiming
D that the said conversion by the High Court is not appropriate
  in the facts and circumstances of the case. The State further
  avers that the High Court in its judgment has fallen in error of
  law as well as failed in appreciation of evidence. It is
  contended that this Court should restore the judgment of the
E trial court on the quantum of sentence by awarding death
  penalty. The accused has filed a separate appeal being Crl.A.
  No. 1623 of 2007 challenging the very same judgment of the
  High Court on the ground that the appellant could not have
  been held guilty for an offence under Sections 302 and 201 of
F the IPC and the appellant was entitled to judgment of acquittal.
         3. Thus, it will be appropriate for us to dispose of both the
     above appeals by a common judgment. For that purpose, we
     may briefly notice the facts giving rise to the present appeals.
G      4. Accused no.1 Goraksha Ambaji Adsul is the son of the
  deceased, Ambaji Ahilaji Adsul. Accused no.3 Sow. Sunita
  Goraksha Adsul is the wife and Accused no.2 Mininath Ambaji
  Adsul is the brother of the Accused no.1 Goraksha. Accused
  no.1 was serving in the Indian Army and used to visit his village
H Hivare-Korda where the family had some agricultural land and
       STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                       51
              ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
      other properties. The deceased, Ambaji Ahilaji Adsul was             A
      also married to the second deceased, Janabai and she was
      his second wife. In other words, Janabai was the stepmother
      of the Accused no.1 and 2 and Reshma (deceased) was
      their stepsister. All these persons used to jointly reside in
      their house in the said village. It has come in evidence that        B
      there used to be quarrels between the Accused no.1, his
      brother and wife on the one side and the deceased Ambaji
      Ahilahi Adsul, his wife Janabai and daughter Reshma on the
      other. The accused used to demand partition of the land and
      other property and allotment of share to the accused and his         C
      brother. This persisted for a considerable time and is said to
      be the motive for commission of the offence.

             5. One Premchand Rangarao Jatav, Deputy Station
        Superintendent, Railway Station, Bhopal (PW9), received a
        memo sent by Sh. R.K. Arora, Train Ticket Examiner (TTE),          D
        informing him that a black coloured trunk was found in Bogie
J       No.S-6 of Train No. 2779 (Goa-Nizamuddin Express) running
;:::::_ via Ahmednagar when it reached Bhopal Railway Station on
c:;     25th October, 2002 at about 7.00 p.m. The black trunk was
~ seized under panchnama and when the same was opened in                   E
        the presence of Dr. Harsh Sharma it was found that it contained
        a dead body which was later identified to be that of Ambaji
        Ahilaji Adsul. Mr. Someshwari Jogeshwari Prasad Mishra,
        ASI, G.R.P. Bhopal (PW11) completed the formalities of
        inquest and post-mortem. After the body was received in the        F
        hospital it was inspected by one Dr. Mrs. Rajni Armit Arora,
        the then Associate Professor at the Department of Forensic
        Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, (PW19). It was
        noticed that a lace was found to have been tied to the portion
        covering neck and throat of the deceased. Dr. Arora                G
        performed the autopsy on 26th October, 2002. She noticed
        ligature mark of brownish colour and ligature material of khaki
        colour shoe lace, two in number, tied around the neck encircling
        it and described the injuries as ante-mortem injuries.
        According to the said doctor, the cause of death was               H
    52        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A strangulation and homicidal in nature and was caused two to
  three days prior to the post-mortem examination. As nobody
  had claimed the body, the blood stained clothes of the
  deceased were seized and the body was cremated at
  Bhadbhada Vishram Ghat, Bhopal. An FIR (exhibit-82) was
B registered with regard to the said crime.

       6. On 25th October, 2002 itself, another train, i.e. Train
  No. 7602-UP (Nanded Pune Express) reached Ahmednagar
  Railway Station at its scheduled time in the morning at about
  6.15 a.m. and departed at 6.30 a.m. Enroute, during the stop
C at Akolner Railway Station for crossing of the train coming
  from opposite direction, Mr. Sanjay Bhujadi, TIE, found one
  white tin trunk in Bogie No. S-4 placed between the two toilets
  of the Bogie No. S-4. After arriving Kasthi Railway Station,
  Mr. Sanjay Bhujadi made a report to the Station Master, Kashti,
D informing him of the said trunk. This memo was delivered to
  GRP, Daund Railway Station (Ex.122). The trunk was removed
  from the bogie and a panchnama was prepared. Thereafter,
  it was opened and two dead bodies were found in that trunk.
  These were later identified as those of Janabai and Reshma.
E Inquest formalities were completed and an FIR (exhibit 125)
  was lodged on 25th October, 2002 as Crime No. 43/2002 for
  offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.

        7. The railway police investigating officer, Mr. B.B. Joshi,
F (PW8) conducted investigation and registered a case vide
  Crime No. 237/2002 on 17th November, 2002 against the
  three accused namely, Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, Sow. Sunita
  Goraksha Adsul and Mininath Ambaji Adsul. On further
  investigation, it was found that the accused persons had
G administered sedative/poisonous substance mixed in pedas
  and thereafter strangulated all the three victims with shoe laces.
  Thereafter, they placed the bodies of the these victims in two
  different trunks . One trunk was kept near the electricity board
  D.P. at nearby Village Malkop and the other at the house of
  one Mr. Sakharam Thakaji Nabge, a friend of the accused
H
     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                      53
            ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    (PW?), before both were transported to the Ahmednagar               A
    Railway Station by the accused Goraksha in a hired maruti
    van. Thereafter, as afore-noticed, these trunks were placed in
    different trains.

1         8. Accused nos. 2 and 3 were arrested on 14th November,       B
    2002 and Accused no.1 on 30th November, 2002. Their
    statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
    by Mr. Sayyad, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 6th February,
    2003 and 7th February, 2003 respectively. Investigation was
    completed and the accused were sent to the court of Judicial
    Magistrate on 11th February, 2003 for committal to the Court        C
    of Sessions so that they could be tried in accordance with law.
    All the three accused had taken the defence of total denial
    and pleaded false implication. Accused no. 1 had specifically
    taken up the plea that between 22nd October, 2002and25th
    October, 2002, he was present at his duty place i.e. the Army       D
    Office at Patiala. The prosecution has examined as many as
    25 witnesses to bring home guilt of the accused persons and
    after recording the statement of the accused under Section
    313 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court after discussing the entire
    evidence on record had found Accused no.1 Goraksha Ambaji           E
    Adsul guilty of an offence under Section 302 as well as Section
    201 of the IPC and awarded the sentence of death to him.
    However, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted as according
    to the trial court, the prosecution had failed to prove its case
    beyond reasonable doubt against these accused. The State            F
    did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal of the said two
    accused and thus, their acquittal has already attained finality.
    Resultantly, in the present appeal, we are only concerned with
    Accused no.1 Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, who has filed an
    independent appeal against the judgment of conviction and           G
    sentence.
          9. As would appear from the above narrated factual matrix,
    it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-
    witness or other direct evidence in regard to the murder of the     H
    54       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A three deceased persons. As is clear from the above, Ambaji
  Ahilaji Adsul was the real father of Accused nos.1 and 2 while
  Accused no.3 is the wife of Accused no.1. Deceased Janabai
  was the second wife of Ambaji and therefore the step-mother
  of Accused nos.1 and 2. Deceased Resh ma and PW13 Su nil
B are the children born to Janabai from Ambaji, thus, they are       ~
  the step-sister and step-brother of the Accused nos.1 and 2.
  It is the case of the prosecution that there used to be quarrels
  and the accused Goraksha used to demand partition of the
  land and other properties. In fact, he is stated to have
c assaulted his father during those quarrels. The accused
  Goraksha had returned home for Diwali. He had brought
  sweets (pedas) with him, which he offered to all, i.e. Ambaji,
  Janabai, Sunita, Reshma and Sunil on the night of 23rd
  October, 2002. These pedas contained sedative/poisonous
D substance and after supper when the family was asleep,
  Goraksha killed his father, stepmother and stepsister by
  strangulation and packed the deC:td bodies in two metallic
  boxes. One of the boxes was loaded in the train 2779 UP,
  Goa-Nizammudin Express while the other was loaded in train
  7602-UP, Nanded-Pune Express and the same were recovered
E at Bhopal and Daund Railway Stations respectively, as noticed
  above. Sunil and the accused Sunita required medical
  assistance on the next day as they suffered from vomiting and
  dysentery presumably because of food poisoning caused by
  the sedative-infused pedas, which were offered to them by
F Accused no.1 Goraksha. Another suspicious circumstance
  which led to the arrest of the accused was that on enquiry by
  the brother of the deceased Ambaji, the accused had informed
  him that Ambaji, Janabai and Reshma had gone to
  Ahmednagar for medical treatment and subsequently claimed
G that he had received a telephone call from his father stating
  that the family was proceeding to the holy place of Pandharpur.
  Still another circumstance which connected accused no.1 with
  the commission of the crime was that he had hired a maruti
  van owned by PW14 Bapusaheb Shinde for the purpose of
H carrying
     _.,..--·
              the two trunks containing the three dead bodies from
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                 55
        ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

Village Malkop to the Railway Station, Ahmednagar. PW-7 A
Sakharam Nabge, a friend of the accused had also deposed
that the trunk was kept in front of his house before it was
loaded in the Maruti Van. PW12, Saban Vishnu Thorat is a 1
friend of Bapusaheb Shinde and both of them were together
when Goraksha contacted Bapusaheb for hiring of Maruti Van B
on 24th October, 2002. They were again together when two
trunks were lifted in the early dawn hours on 25th October,
2002. Thus, these two persons were material witnesses for
establishing the fact that these trunks/iron boxes were actually
carried from the place afore-indicated to the Railway Station c
by the accused. PW17, Pandurang Daobhat is the brother of
the deceased Janabai and had identified the dead bodies.
His statement is of significance in regard to the identification
of the dead bodies as well as the conduct of the accused
subsequent to the recovery of the dead bodies. He is the 0
person who was provided with incorrect information by the
accused Goraksha regarding whereabouts of the deceased.
PW13 Sunil is another material witness as he was also
administered the pedas laced with sedatives and the same
was served in his presence to the deceased by the Accused
no.1 Goraksha. Besides this evidence, the statement of Dr. E
Sanjay Pande, PW10 also helps in completing the chain of
events leading to the commission of the crime and its
subsequent result. According to this witness, he had treated
Sunil (PW13) and Sunita (Accused no.3) on 24th October,
2002 when they were brought to him with the complaint of F
diarrhea. When they went to the doctor, Goraksha, the Accused
no.1 had accompanied them.

     10. PW23, Ezaz Ahmed, Judicial Magistrate, First Class
at Sahabad had recorded the statements of PW12, PW14, G
PW17 and Meerabai Daobhat, sister of the deceased Janabai
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. We may also notice that
some of the panch witnesses who had signed the panchnamas
turned hostile and PW7 Sakharam, a personal friend of the
                                                              H
    56            SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2011] 9 S.C.R.


A   accused Goraksha also did not fully support the case of the
    prosecution.

         11. The above are the main witnesses on whose statement
    the entire case of the prosecution rests, of course, in addition
    to the statement of the Investigating Officers and other formal
8
    witnesses. Accused nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted by the trial
    court and the High Court noticed that it was not concerned
    with the merit or otherwise of their acquittal by the trial court
    as the State had not preferred any appeal against the judgment
    of acquittal.
c
         12. At this stage, we· may usefully refer to the
    circumstances which were relied upon by the prosecution
    before the courts and they were as follows:-

D         (i)      Motive - dispute over agricultural land/partition.
                   (Evidence of PW-13 Sunil and PW-17 Pandurang)

          (ii)     Last seen together - (togetherness by virtue of joint
                   family).

E         (iii)    Administration of sedative through sweets.
                   (Evidence of PW-13 Sunil and PW-10 Dr. Pande).

          (iv)     The disposal of dead bodies by Accused no.1
                   (Evidence of PW-12 Baban, PW-14 Bapusaheb).

F         (v)      Identification of Accused no.1 as person loading
                   one trunk in Goa-Nizammuddin Express train (PW-
                   15 Aradhana).

          (vi)     Homicidal death.
G
          (vii)    False theory/explanation propounded by accused
                   for absence of the victim. (Evidence of PW-13
                   Sunil and PW-17 Pandurang).

        13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
H   Court expressed the opinion that two circumstances, i.e. the
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                      57
        ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
last seen together and the homicidal death stands proved by         A
themselves and do not require further evidence to prove that
fact. We fully agree with the view expressed by the High Court
that, keeping in view the photographs of the dead body and
the doctor's statement, it was proved to be a homicidal death.
The learned counsel appearing for the Accused no.1 (appellant)      B
argued with some vehemence that the doctor had not
expressed his opinion with regard to the cause of death
particularly in relation to Reshma and Janabai, as is evident
from Exhibits 113 and 114. But this argument does not
impress us at all inasmuch as the death of the two persons          c
have been proved. From the injury report on the body of the
deceased, the photographs and the circumstances attendant
thereto, it is more than clear that this was a case of homicidal
death. The bodies of the deceased were duly identified. It
was practically an admitted case that the deceased as well as
                                                                    0
the accused were living in a joint family and had their last
meals together, during which the accused had offered pedas
to the family including the deceased. This is fully substantiated
by the statement of PW13 and PW10. PW13, Sunil is a
family member. He had also suffered the consequences of             E
consuming the pedas and was treated by PW10, Dr. Pande.
The factum of carrying of two boxes and loading them on the
respective trains has also been fully established by the
prosecution as we have above-discussed. At this stage, we
may refer to some extracts- of the High Court judgment where
in our view the High Court has correctly appreciated the            F
evidence. It disregarded the statement of PW7 while fully
relying upon and holding that there were witnesses who were
truthful and can be safely relied upon, the Court held as under:

                                                                    G
    'To sum-up the assessment of evidence of these seven
    vital witnesses, we may say that, PW-7 Sakharam Nabge
    has made himself sufficiently useless for the prosecution.
    Evidence of PW-12 Baban· Thorat is acceptable to
    establish that Accused No.1 had contracted with PW-14           H
    58        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A        Bapusaheb and accordingly two trunks were transported
         from Malkop D.P. to Ahmednagar Railway Station at the
         instance of Accused No.1 (sic), for which accused no.1
         paid hire charges of Rs.200/-. Evidence of PW-14
         Bapusaheb, although shaky, can be relied upon on the
B        same point, to the extent it is in harmony with the evidence
         of PW-12. We find PW-10 Dr. Pande, in the absence of
         case-papers to refresh his memory, to be not reliable.
         PW-15 Aradhana also cannot be relied upon for the
         purpose of identification of Accused No.1, although she
c        can be believed to the extent that the trunk was loaded in
         Goa-Nizamuddin Express, at Ahmednagar Railway
         Station. PW-17 Pandurang can be relied upon for
         identification of the victims and subsequent conduct of
         Accused No.1, so also to some extent, possible motive i.e.
         quarrels on the point of partition. PW-13 Sunil, although
D
         a child witness, can certainly be believed regarding
         togetherness on the fateful night, more so because that is
         an admitted position. His evidence regarding quarrels on
         the point of partition can also be accepted, because of
         support from Pandurang and probability. The story of
E        administration of Pedhas containing some sedative/
         poisonous substance and subsequent admission to Mate
         Hospital, has become a story not acceptable without risk,
         more so when such story is not supported by any case
         papers.
F
         xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
         We have subjected the evidence to close scrutiny and only
         thereafter arrived at our conclusion as to whether
         witnesses are to be believed and if yes, to what extent.
G
         By relying upon Anthony D. Souza - Vs. - State of Kera/a,
         A.l.R. 2003 S.C. 258 and Darshansingh -Vs.- State of
         Punjab, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 702, learned A.P.P. has
         propounded that, in case accused makes a statement
H        under section 313 of Cr.P.C. completely denying the
    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                     59
           ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
      prosecution case and established facts and offers false A
      answers or explanation, that can b0 counted as providing
      missing link from complete chain of the prosecution
      evidence and circumstances, in a case based on
      circumstantial evidence. Relying on these cases, an
      argument that false explanation can be utilized as one of B
      the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence was
      advanced, in order to persuade this Court that story
      narrated by accused Goraksha to PW-17 Pandurang
.
'
      about the victims having gone to Pandharpur should be
      taken into consideration as false explanation, although not    c
      to the Court, to the relatives and others. In fact, as already
      pointed out earlier, accused have persisted in sticking to
      this explanation even during the curse (sic) of their
      statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973, without
      demonstrating to the Court that either of the two trains, i.e.
                                                                      0
      Goa-Nizamuddin Express and Nanded-Pune Express
      travel via Padharpur (sic). We may state it here itself, that ·
      explanation offered by the accused about his having
      received a message from Balasaheb Sinare of Village
      Padali, who received telephone of the deceased Ambaji, E
      of the three victims having gone to Pandharpur cannot be
      said to have been probabilised in the absence of evidence
      of said Balasaheb Sinare. The two trains not having been
      demonstrate as passing through Pandharpur gives
      another set back to the said defence.
                                                                      F
      24. In the light of acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 by
      the trial court, learned Advocate for the appellant has
      placed reliance upon the observations of the Supreme
      Court in the matter of Suraj Mal - Vs- State (Delhi
      Administration), A.LR. 1979 S.C. 1408, and more G
      particularly, observation to the following effect in para 2: ~

             "where witnesses make tow (sic) inconsistent
             statements in their evidence, either at one stage or
             at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses          H
    60        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 9 S.C.R.


A               becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence, and
                in absence of special circumstances, no conviction
                can be based on the evidence of such witness."

         This was a case under Prevention of Corruption Act.
         Three police officers were tried for allegedly having
B                                                                         ,.,
         accepted bribe. PW No.s 6, 8 and 9, Shiv Naryan, Prem                  Al
         Nath and Sham Sunder resiled from their statements which
         they made in their chief examination and all of them stated
         that Ram Naryan (one of the three accused) refused to
         accept the bribe. Ram Naryan was, therefore, acquitted
c        by the trial Court. Another accused Devender Singh was
         acquitted by the High Court on the ground that the sanction
         was not valid.

         We are unable to appreciate the applicability of the ratio
D        to the matter at hands. As can be seen from the impugned
         judgment, in the present matter, Accused No.s 2 and 3 are
         acquitted by the trial Court because there is no evidence
         referring to them .... ."

       14. The above conclusion of the High Court does not
E
  suffer from any legal infirmity. It is in conformity with the settled
  principles of law and is based on proper appreciation of
  evidence. In fact, finding of guilt by both the Courts is
  concurrent. However, they differ only on the question of
  quantum of sentence. On the appreciation of evidence, we
F are also of the considered view that the prosecution has been
  able to prove a complete chain of events which points only
  towards the guilt of the accused. Even in a case of
  circumstantial evidence, if the prosecution is able to establish
  the chain of events to satisfy the ingredients of commission of
G an offence, the accused would be liable to suffer the
                                                                           "
  consequences of his proven guilt. In the present case, right
  from the evidence of the entire family having the last dinner
  together and administering of pedas with sedatives or
  poisonous substances to the recovery of bodies of the
H deceased at different railway stations the chain of events stands
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                   61
        ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact; the statement of the A
accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. further supports the
case of the prosecution and demolishes the stand of the
defence of complete denial. Thus, we are unable to find any
error in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts holding
the accused guilty of an offence under Sections 302 and 201 B
of the IPC.

      15. Next, we are concerned with whether this Court should
exercise its judicial discretion to enhance his punishment from
life imprisonment to death sentence, as contemplated on behalf C
of the State in its appeal.

     16. The factual matrix of the case as well as the evidence
which has been led by the prosecution to bring home the guilt
of the accused, we have already discussed in some detail.
Presently, we may discuss the principles which have been D
long settled by this Court for imposition of death penalty. The
principles governing the sentencing policy in our criminal
jurisprudence have more or less been consistent, right from
the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab ((1980) E
2 sec 684]. Awarding punishment is certainly an onerous
function in the dispensation of criminal justice. The Court is
expected to keep in mind the facts and circumstances of a
case, the principles of law governing award of sentence, the
legislative intent of special or general statute raised in the F
case and the impact of awarding punishment. These are the
nuances which need to be examined by the Court with
discernment and in depth. The legislative intent behind enacting _
Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C. clearly demonstrates the concern
of the legislature for taking away a human life and imposing G
death penalty upon the accused. Concern for the dignity of the
human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's
instrumentalities and that ought not to be done, save in the
rarest of rare cases, unless the alternative option is
unquestionably foreclosed. In exercise of its discretion, the H
    62        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A Court would also take into consideration the mitigating
  circumstances and their resultant effects. Language of Section
  354(3) demonstrates the legislative concern and the conditions
  which need to be satisfied prior to imposition of death penalty.
  The words, 'in the case of sentence of death the special
B reasons for such sentence' unambiguously demonstrates the
  command of the legislature that such reasons have to be
  recorded for imposing the punishment of death sentence. This
  is how the concept of rarest of rare cases has emerged in
  law. Viewed from that angle, both the legislative provisions
C and judicial pronouncements are at ad idem in law. The death
  penalty should be imposed in rarest of rare cases and that too
  for special reasons to be recorded. To put it simply, a death
  sentence is not a rule but an exception. Even the exception
  must satisfy the pre-requisites contemplated under Section
  354(3) of the Cr.P.C. in light of the dictum of the Court in the
0
  case of Bachan Singh (supra).
       17. The Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the
  case of Bachan Singh (supra) has been summarized in
  paragraph 38 in the case of Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab
E (1983) 3 SCC 470 and the following guidelines have been
  stated while considering the possibility of awarding sentence
  of death:
         "i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted
F        except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
         ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances
         of the 'offender' also required to be taken into
         consideration along with the circumstances of the 'Crime'.
G        iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is
         an exception, Death sentence must be imposed only when
         life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate
         punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of
         the crime, and provided, and only provided the option to
H
..,       STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                    63
                 ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
      "
              impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be A
              conscientiously exercised having· regard to the nature and
              circumstances of the crime and all the relevant
              circumstances.
              iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
                                                                        B
              circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the
              mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full
              weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the
              aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the
              option is exercised."
                                                                            c
               18. The judgment in the case of Bachan Singh (supra),
          did not only state the above guidelines in some elaboration,
          but also specified the mitigating circumstances which could
          be considered by the Court while determining such serious
          issues and they are as follows:                              D
              "Mitigating circumstances. - In the exercise of its
              discretion in the above cases, the court shall take into
              account the following circumstances:
              (1) That the offence was committed under the influence        E
              of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
              (2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old,
              he shall not be sentenced to death.
                                                                            F
              (3) The probability that the accused would not commit
              criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing
              threat to society.
              (4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and
              rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the G
              accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above.
              (5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the
              accused believed that he was morally justified in
              committing the offence.                                 H
    64        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A        (6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination
         of another person.
         (7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was
         mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his
B        capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct."

         19. Now, we may examine certain illustrations arising from
   the judicial pronouncements of this Court. In the case of D.K.
   Basu v. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416) this Court
C took the view that custodial torture and consequential death in
   custody was an offence which fell in the category of rarest of
   rare cases. While specifying the reasons in support of such
   decision, the Court awarded death penalty in that case. In the
   case of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs. State of
   Maharashtra [(2009) 6 SCC 498], this Court also spelt out in
D paragraphs 56 to 58 that nature, motive, impact of a crime,
   culpability, quality of evidence, socio-economic circumstances,
   impossibility of rehabilitation are the factors which the court may
  take into consideration while dealing with such cases. In that
   case the friends of the victim had called him to see a movie
E and after seeing the movie, a ransom call was made, but with
  the fear of being caught, they murdered the victim. The Court
  felt that there was no evidence to show that the criminals were
  incapable of reforming themselves, that it was not a rarest of
  rare case, and therefore, declined to award death sentence to
F the accused. Interpersonal circumstances prevailing between
  the deceased and the accused was also held to be a relevant
  consideration in the case of Vashram Narshibhai Rajpara v.
  State of Gujarat [AIR 2002 SC 2211] where constant nagging
  by family was treated as the mitigating factor, if the accused is
G mentally unbalanced and as a result murders the family
  members. Similarly, the intensity of bitterness which prevailed
  and the escalation of simmering thoughts into a thirst for
  revenge and retaliation were also considered to be a relevant
  factor by this Court in different cases.
H
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                          65
        ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
      20. This Court in the case of Satishbhushan Bariyar A
(supra) also considered various doctrines, principles and
factors which would be considered by the Courts while dealing
with such cases. The Court discussed in some elaboration
the applicability of doctrine of rehabilitation and the doctrine of
prudence. While considering the application of the doctrine of B
rehabilitation and the extent of weightage to be given to the
mitigating circumstances, it noticed the nature of the evidence
and the background of the accused. The conviction in that
case was entirely based upon the statement of the approver
 and was a case purely of circumstantial evidence. Thus, c
 applying the doctrine of prudence, it noticed the fact that the
 accused were unemployed, young men in search of job and
 they were not criminals. In execution of a plan proposed by
 the appellant and accepted by others, they kidnapped a friend
 of theirs. The kidnapping was done with the motive of procuring 0
 ransom from his family but later they murdered him because
 of the fear of getting caught, and later cut the body into pieces
 and disposed it off at different places. One of the accused
 had turned approver and as already noticed, the conviction
 was primarily based upon the statement ofthe approver. Basing · E
 its reasoning on the application of doctrine of prudence and
 the version put forward by the accused, the Court, while
 declining to award death penalty and only awarding life
  imprisonment, held as under: -
     "135. Right to life, in its barest of connotation would imply       F
     right to mere survival. In this form, right to life is the most
     fundamental of all rights. Consequently, a punishment which
     aims at taking away life is the gravest punishment. Capital
     punishment imposes a limitation on the essential content
     of the fundamental right to life, eliminating it irretrievably.     G
     We realize the absolute nature of this right, in the sense
     that it is a source of all other rights. Other rights may be
     limited, and may even be withdrawn and then granted
     again, but their ultimate limit is to be found in the
     preservation of the right to life. Right to life is the essential   H
    66         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A         content of all rights under the Constitution. If life is taken
          away, all other rights cease to exist.

         xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
          168. We must, however, add that in a case of this nature
B         where the entire prosecution case revolves round the
          statement of an approver or dependant upon the
          circumstantial evidence, the prudence doctrine should be
          invoked. For the aforementioned purpose, at the stage of
          sentencing evaluation of evidence would not be
c         permissible, the courts not only have to solely depend
          upon the findings arrived at for the purpose of recording a
         judgment of conviction, but also consider the matter
         keeping in view of evidences which have been brought on
         record on behalf of the parties and in particular the accused
D        for imposition of a lesser punishment. A statement of
         approver in regard to the manner in which crime has been
         committed vis-a-vis the role played by the accused, on the
         one hand, and that of the approver, on the other, must be
         tested on the touchstone of the prudence doctrine
E
          169. The accused persons were not criminals. They were
          friends. The deceased was said to have been selected
         because his father was rich. The motive, if any, was to
         collect some money. They were not professional killers.
         They have no criminal history. All were unemployed and
F        were searching for jobs. Further if age of the accused was
         a relevant factor for the High Court for not imposing death
         penalty on Accused No. 2 and 3, the same standard should
         have been applied to the case of the appellant also who
         was only two years older and still a young man in age.
G        Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were as much a part of the crime
         as the appellant. Though it is true, that it was he who
         allegedly proposed the idea of kidnapping, but at the same
         time it must not be forgotten that the said plan was only
         executed when all the persons involved gave their consent
H
     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                       67
            ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
       fue~.                                                             A
       171. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
       requires that when the conviction is for an offence
       punishable with death or in the alternative with
       imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years,
                                                                         8
       the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence
       awarded, and in the case of sentence of death, the special
       reasons thereof. We do not think that the reasons
       assigned by the courts below disclose any special reason
       to uphold the death penalty. The discretion granted to the        C
       courts must be exercised very cautiously espeCially
       because of the irrevocable character to death penalty.
       Requirements of law to assign special reasons should not
..     be construed to be an empty formality .

        172. We have previously noted that the judicial principles       D
       for imposition of death penalty are far from being uniform.
       Without going into the merits and demerits of such
       discretion and subjectivity, we must nevertheless reiterate
       the basic principle, stated repeatedly by this Court, that life
       imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an exception.          E
       Each case must therefore be analyzed and the
       appropriateness of punishment determined on a case-by-
       case basis with death sentence not to be awarded save
       in the 'rarest of rare' case where reform is not possible.
       Keeping in mind at least this principle we do not think that      F
       any of the factors in the present case discussed above
       warrants the award of the death penalty. There are no
       special reasons to record the death penalty and the
       mitigating factors in the present case, discussed
      •previously, are, in our opinion, sufficient to place it out of    G
       the "rarest of rare" category.

       173. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the
       opinion that this is not a case where death penalty should
       be imposed. The appellant, therefore, instead of being
       awarded death penalty, is sentenced.to undergo rigorous           H
    68       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A        imprisonment for life. Subject to the modification in the
         sentence of appellant (A 1) mentioned hereinbefore, both
         the appeals of the appellant as also that of the State are
         dismissed."

       21. The above principle, as supported by case illustrations,
8
  clearly depicts the various precepts which would govern the
  exercise of judicial discretion by the Courts within the
  parameters spelt out under Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C.
  Awarding of death sentence amounts to taking away the life of
  an individual, which is the most valuable right available, whether
C viewed from the constitutional point of view or from the human
  rights point of view. The condition of providing special reasons
  for awarding death penalty is not to be construed linguistically
  but it is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting
  and making award of death penalty unquestionable. The
D circumstances and the manner of committing the crime should
  be such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the Court to the
  extent that the only and inevitable conclusion should be
  awarding of death penalty.
E      22. In the present case, the accused belonged to the
  armed forces, his father had married for the second time and
  had children from the second wife. There were continuous
  quarrels with regard to the division of property and during
  thes~ quarrels the accused is stated to have even hit his father.
F It was a pressure which had increased with the passage of
  time and probably this frustration attained the limit of
  commission of such a heinous crime by the accused. Surely,
  the manner in which the crime has been committed is deplorable
  but the attendant circumstances and the fact that he even
G administered the sweets (pedas) containing sedatives/
  poisonous substance to his own wife Sunita Goraksha Adsul,
  the Accused no.3, shows that his frustration, and probably
  greed, for the property had attained volcanic dimensions. The
  intensity of bitterness between the members of the family had
  exacerbated the thoughts of revenge and retaliation in him.
H
     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GORAKSHA AMBAJI                       69
r
            ADSUL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
    The constant nagging would have to be taken as a mitigating          A
    circumstance in the commission of this crime. Resultantly, in
    view of the above factual matrix and the legal analysis, we do
    not find that the present case falls in the category of 'rarest of
    rare cases'.
                                                                         B
           23. For the reasons afore-recorded, we dismiss both the
    appeals.

    N.J.                                        Appeals dismissed.