SURJA RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                             SURJA RAM                                       A
                                   v.
                       STATE OF RAJASTHAN

                        SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

               [G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]                             B

     Indian Penal Code, 1960:

      Ss. 302 and 307-Accused committed murder of his brother, brother's
two minor sons and his aunt-Attempted to commit murder of his brother's      C
wife and daughter-Attack by accused, in cool and calculated manner, in
dead hours of night when his victims were asleep-Absence of provocation
immediately before or even proximately before the murders-ConvictiOn by
trial court-Death sentence passed by trial court confirmed by High
Court-Held-Crime committed by accused falls in categ01y of rarest of rare
cases for which extreme penalty of death is fully justified.                 D
      Sentenc~Accused committed four murders of his relations in cool and
calculated manne~eld, for deciding to award just and appropriate sen-
tence, aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which the
crime has been committed are to be balanced-Fact that accused was not        E
convicted on any previous occasion is not a mitigating factor in favour of
accused that would out weight all aggravatingfactors and circumstances in
which murders had been committed-Death penalty awarded by trial court
and confirmed by High Court. upheld.

      The appellant-accused was prosecuted for committing murders of his F
brother, two minor sons of the said brother, and his aunt (bua) and for
attempting to murder his brother's wife and daughter. The prosecution
case was that the accused and his two brothers had been residing in one
compound in their separate portions. A partition ofjoint property amongst
the brothers was effected. There arose some land dispute amongst the G
brothers about 6-7 months prior to the occurrence, but the said dispute was
said to have been sorted out. About 5-6 days prior to the occurrence, the
accused wanted to erect barbed fencing in the compound, but the proposal
was protested by his brother 'R'. On the fateful night at about 12.30 a.m.
when all were in their sound sleep, 'D' another brother of the accused, woke
up on hearing the cries or 'S', the daughter of'R'. He came out and saw the H
                                     783
    784                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A accused, armed with a kassi, assaulting 'S' who suffered serious injuries on
    her neck, 'D' and the wife of the accused challenged the accused, who ran
    away. The wife of 'R' was found lying seriously injured and his aunt was
    found dead in the courtyard. Inside the room, 'R' and his one son were
    found lying dead, and his other son 'N' critically injured. 'N' succumbed to
    injuries shortly thereafter. The two injured, namely, the wife and the
B   daughter of 'R', were taken to the hospital where on being treated both of
    them survived.

          The trial court found the accused guilty of the charges and sentenced
    him to death under 302 IPC, life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under
C   s. 307 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000
    under s. 450 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused,
    and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court. Aggrieved, the
    accused filed a special leave petition through his counsel and ajail petition.
    The special leave petition was dismissed as regards the order of conviction,
    but notice was issued to the State on the question of sentence passed
D   against the accused.

          It was contended for the appellant-accused that it was not fit case
    calJing for awarding extreme penalty of death sentence; the appellant due
    to the land dispute and the quarrel with the deceased over erecting the
    barbed fence in the compound, suddenly became very much enraged and
E   lost normal frame of mind, and the offences committed by the appellant in
    such uncontrolled framed of mind could not be categorised as rarest of rare
    case.

          Dismissing the appeal and the jail petition, this Court

F       Held : 1.1. It has been indicated by the trial court that the accused
  was in full senses and had committed the murders of four close relations
  one after the other and also attempted to commit murder of his brother's
  wife and daughter in a cool and calculated manner. He did not even feel
  remorsed and being quite alive to the enormity of the crime committed by
G him he escaped from the place of occurrence. [796-E-F]
          1.2. From the evidence adduced, it is clearly revealed that the ac-
    cused, in a cool and calculated manner, intended to wipe out the entire
    family of his brother. In that end in view, he selected the most opportune
    moment, namely dead of night when his brother and other members of his
H   family would remain asleep so that they would be absolutely helpless and
                              SURJARAM. v. STAIB                            785

     not capable to give any defence to save themselves. He did not even spare A
     his old aunt and brutally murdered her. In order to ensure death, the
     accused chose to cut vital part of the body, namely, the neck, by a sharp
     cutting weapon (kassi) when his victims were asleep. [796-A-B]
                                   I                                 .




_,         1.3. In the instant case, there is absence of any provocation. There    B
     is nothing on record to indicate that the accused had any occasion to
     reasonably feel aggrieved for any unjust and improper conduct on the part
     of the deceased brother. The joint lands had been partitioned long back;
     and the dispute between the accused and the deceased in respect of only
     one killa of land had been sorted out 8-10 months prior to the incident.
     Thereafter no fresh incident took place to give any occasion to the accused   C
     to feel aggrieved. The quarrel, which took place 5-6 days prior to the
     incident when the deceased brother objected to the proposal to put a
     barbed fencing, cannot be reasonably held to be a cause for being
     temperamentally upset and for enter- taining so much wrath and spirit of
     vengeance as may impel a men of normal composure and frame of mind
                                                                                   D
     to run amock and perpetrate ghastly murders of such magnitude. There
     is no evidence to indicate that in view of such quarrel there had been any
     aftermath and further dispute and resentment between the deceased and
     the accused either . immediately before or even proximately before the
     occurrence. [795-H; 796-A]
                                                                                   E
           2.1. For deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an
     offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which
     a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced in a dispas-
     sionate manner. The fact that the appellant was not convicted for any other
     offence on any previous occasion, can hardly be considered as a mitigating    F
     factor in favour of the appellant that will outweigh all the aggravating
     factors and circumstances in which the crime of murders had been com-
     mitted. The murders had been committed very brutally and mercilessly, of
     absolutely innocent person, namely, the aunt and two minor sons of his
     brother, with whom there was no occasion to come in conflict and to
     entertain any grudge or ill-feeling. [796-F-G]                                G

           2.2. Punishment must also respond to the society's cry for justice
     ~oainst the criminal. While considering the punishment to be given to the
     accused, the Court should be alive not only to the right of the criminal to
     be awarded just and fair punishment by administering justice tempered         H
    786                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A with such mercy as the criminal may justly deserve, but also to the rights
    of the victims of the crime to have the a~sailant appropriately punished
    and the society's reasonable expectation from the court for the appropriate
    deterrent punishment conforming to the gravity of the offence and consis-
    tent with the public abhorrence for the heinous crime committed by the                    '

    accused. [797-C-D]
B                                                                                    ......
          2.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the crime committed
    by the accused falls in the category of rarest of rare cases for which extreme
    penalty of death is fully justified. There is no reason to interfere with the
    sentence of death awarded against the appellant since confirmed by the
c   High Court. [797-E]

           Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1994) 4 SCC 479; Jasnuona Bharat
    Singh & Others v. State of Gujarat, [1994) 4 SCC 353; Dhanarijoy Chatterjee
    v. State of West Bengal, [1994) 2 SCC 220 and Ravji@ Ram Chandra v.
    State of Rajasthan, JT (1995) 8. SC 520, referred to.
D
          Dennis Lounde Mcoautha v. State of California, (402) U.S.183 L. Ed.
    II 711, referred to.

           Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP, AIR (1973) SC 947; Shiv Mohan Singh
    v. State, AIR (1977) SC 949; Bachan Singh v. State, [1980) 2 SCC 684; Shashi
E   Nayar v. Union of India & Ors., [1992) SCC Crl. 24 andAnshad & Ors. v.
    State of Kamataka, [1994) 4 SCC 381, cited.

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    1727 of 1996 Etc.

F        From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.96 of the Rajasthan High
    Court In D.B.Crl.A.No. 265 of 1995.

          Rajiv Dutta for the Appellant.
                                                                                              ~

          K.S. Bhati, M.K. Singh and Ms. Kusum Sharma for the Respondent.
G
          The Judgment of the Court wa5 delivered:

          G.N. RAY, J. Leave granted.                                                '
          The appellant Surja Ram was convicted by the learned Additional .
H   Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1991 for the
                   SURJARAM. v. STATE[G.N.RAY,J.]                       787

offence under Section 302 JPC for murdering his real brother Raji Ram's A
two sons Naresh and Ramesh and Niko Bai their Bua, and for an offence
under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Sudesh, the daughter of
Raji Ram nd Phoola Devi the wife of Raji Ram also for offence under
Section 450 IPC for committing house trespass in order to commit offence
punishable with imprisonment for life. The learned Additional Sessions B
Judge awarded death sentence against the said accused Surja Ram for the
offence of murder. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from life and
a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprison-
ment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC and he was
also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of
Rs._ 1,000, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprison- C
ment for one month for the offence under Section 450 IPC.

      Against such convictions and sentences, the accused Surja Ram
preferred D.B Criminal Appeal No. 265 .and 266 of 1995 before the
Rajasthan High Court (Jodhour Bench). The said appeals were heard D
along with D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 1 of 1995 by the Rajasthan
High Court and by the impugned common judgment dated January 18,
1996, the High Court dismissed both the appeals preferred by the accused
Surja Ram and confirmed the death sentence passed against him.

      Surja Ram filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 744 of 1996 through a learned          E
counsel against his convictions and sentences before this Court. He also
sent another special leave petition from Jail to the Registry of .this Court
which has been numbered as D. No. 1007of1996. His special leave petition
was dismissed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel so far as the
order of convictions passed against the said accused is concerned but          F
notice was issued to the State of Rajasthan limited only on the question of
sentences to be passed against the accused for his convictions for the
offences aforesaid.

      Mi;:. Rajiv Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the accused
appellant Surja Ram has submitted that it is not a fit case calling for G
awarding extreme penalty of death sentence because sufficient grounds
warranting such extreme penalty by holding it as one of the rarest of rare
cases are not present. Mr. Dutt has submitted that certain facts, relevant
for the consideration of appropriate punishment to be awarded against the
accused appellant, s11ould be noted.                                       H
    788                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
                                                                                   ...., -
A        The accused appellant and his two brothers Dalip Ram and the
 . deceased Raji Ram has been living in one compound (Ahata) in their
   respective residential unit. The accused appellant used to reside in the
   middle portion of the said compound and the .deceased Raji Ram and
   Dalip Ram used to reside respectively on the northern and southern side
   of the side compound. The parents of the accused and his brothers were
B residing in punjab. There had been partition of joint _property amongst the                ~-"
   brothers. On such partition the accused and Dalip Ram each got 13 killa
   of land and the deceased Raji Ram got 14 killa.

          There was some land dispute amongst the brothers about 6 to 7
C months prior to the said incident of murder but such dispute is stated to
    have been sorted out at the intervention of Sarpanch Chandra Pal.

          About 5 or 6 days prior to the incident, the accused expressed the
    desire to erect wire fericing in the compound but the deceased Raji Ram ·
D   protested against such proposal of the accused.

           The prosecution case as proved by the evidences adduced in the trial,
   is that on August, 7, 1990 at about 9.00 P.M., the members of the family
    of the deceased Raji Ram retired after taking their dinner. The informant.
    Dalip Ram, who is the other brother of the deceased and the wife of Dalip
E Ram were sleeping in their courtyard. Raji Ram and his two sons Naresh
    and Ramesh were sleeping in the outer room of his residential unit. Raji
    Ram's wife Phoola Devi, her daughter Sudesh and Raji Ram's father's
    sister Niko Bai were sleeping in their courtyard. It the courtyard of Surja
    Ram the wife of the accused Imarti was ·also sleeping. After taking meal,
p the appellant went out of the house. At about 12.30 AM., Dalip Ram beard
    the cries or sudesh, when he came out, he saw in the light that the accused
   Surja Ram was standing with a kassi in his hand and was assaulting Sudesh .
  . Dalip Ram and the wife of the accused Imarti challenged the accused and
    the accused had ran away. It has been proved that Sudesh has suffered
    severe injuries on her neck and she fell down in the courtyard and Niko
G and Phoola were also found lying seriously injured. Niko was, however,
   found dead and Phoola was gasping for life. When Dalip Ram went inside
   the room, he found that Raji Ram and his son Naresh were lying dead and.·
   the other son Ramesh though alive, was critically injured. The said Ramesh,
   however, died shortly thereafter and Sudesh and Phoola were taken in a
H jeep and admitted in the hospital at Sangaria. On being treated in the
                        SURJARAM. v. STAIB (G.N. RAY,J.]                      789

     hospital both of them survived.                                                 A·
           In awarding the sentence of death against the accused-appellant, the
     learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that :

           (a) The aci;used had committed extremely barbaric and heinous
     crime of causing murder of ·four persons and also attempted to murder the       B
     other two who, though seriously injured, providentially survived.

           (b) The accused committed murder of his own real brother, two
     minor sons of his brother and also his Bua. Although the accused also
     attempted· to kill the daughter and the wife of his brother, they, being        C
     seriously injured, luckily survived.

           (c) The accused committed the murder of the said persons and also
     attempted to murder the other two close relations while all the said victims
     ware defenceless as they were asleep then and therefore, had no oppor-
     tunity to save themselves or resist the attack.                                 D
           ( d) The accused attempted to kill Phoola his brother's wife by cutting
     her neck and being critically injured, she remained unconscious for about
     15 days and hovered between life are death but luckily survived. Attempt
     was also made to kill the daughter of his brother by cutting her neck~th
     kassi but she also luckily survived.                                            E
           (e) The intention of the accused was only to murder all the said
     persons because the inflicted injuries or the neck of all the said persons·
     with a sharp cutting weapon (kassi).

           (f) The accused ensured that male member in the family of his             F
     brother Raji Ram was alive. As a matter of fact, he attempted to wipe out
     the whole family of Raji Ram but the widow and the daughter of Raji Ram
     survived even though they suffered serious injuries on their.necks by the
     kassi blows inflicted by the accused.
                                                                                     G
           (g) There was no instigation or provocation for causing the said
     murders of four very close relations and· attempting to cause murders of
     the other two persons.

           (h) For some land dispute which was settled six months before and
     the dispute an_d altercation over a small incident of putting the barbed wire   H



.l
    790                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A in the compound of the residential complex which had also taken place 2
    to 3 days before the incident, the' accused in cool and calculated manner
    attacked all the said persons wheri they were sleeping in their house and
    were utterly helpless in resisting attacks m<1de on them.

          (i) The previous and the subsequent conduct of the accused clearly
B revealed that he ·was mentally alert for which he selected the opportune
    moment to commit the said murders when the victims were asleep and after
    committing the crime escaped from the scene of crime.

          G) There was comple_te absence of any feeling of remorse of the
C accused.

        The learned Additional Sessions Judge after indicating the aforesaid
  aggravating factors in the commission of the crime to the finding that there
  was absence of any mitigating factor in favour of the accused and the
  heinous act of murder of four persons including on old aunt and two minor
D sons of his real brother and attempting also to kill his brother's wife and
  her daughter in a most cool and calculated manner by ensuring that none
  of the victim could offer <iny resistance because they were asleep at the
  time of being attacked, constituted the offence committed by the accused
  as one of the rarest of rare cases for which the extreme penalty of death
E was warranted.

          The learned Judge held that the death sentence per se was not
    unconstitutional as has been held by this Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State
    of U.P., AIR (1970) SC 947; Shiv Mohan Singh v. State, AIR (1977) SC
    949; Bachan Singh v. State, (1980] 2 SCC 684; Shashi Nayar v. Union of
F   India and Others, (1992] SCC Crl. 24.

         Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has sub-
  mitted that though the appellant has committed a very serious crime by
  killing his own brother, his two minor sons and his Bua when they were
  asleep and he also attempted to kill his brother's wife and brother's
G daughter, the appellant did not act with cruelty or in a barbaric manner
  and also did not torture anyone of them before committing the murder of
  attempting to cause murder. The learned counsel has submitted that
  though it is extremely unfortunate that the appellant committed the said
  ghastly murders of his brother and its two minor sons and the old aunt and
H also attempted to kill brother's wife and daughter, it should be kept in mind
                   SURJARAM. v. STATE (G.N. RAY,J.]                     791

that the appellant felt deeply aggrieved against the conduct of his brother    A
Raji Ram on account of dispute with him in land matter and the recent
quarrel which he had with th.e deceased for not allowing the appellant to
put fending as desired by him, in the ·compound of their residential com-
plex. The appellant unfortunately fell victim to his deep seeded ill feeling
towards his brother and members of the family of the said brother and lost
                                                                               B
his normal frame of mind for which he could not restrain himself and being
made with rage and being actuated by an urge for vengeance, murdered
the said persons and attempted to murder the other two.

      The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that life
once put to end can never be brought back. It is, therefore, essentially C
necessary to give a very careful and serious consideration as to whether
such extreme penalty of death which will put an end of the life of the
accused, should be awarded in a case or not. The learned counsel has also
submitted that the number of persons murdered though a relevant con-
sideration in weighing the gravity or a crime is not the only consideration · D
in selecting the extreme penalty for murder and unless the crime per-
petrated by an accused can safely be placed in the category of rarest of
rare cases, the extreme penalty to death should not be awarded. In support
of such contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a
decision of this Court in Anshad and Others v. State of Karnataka, [1994)
4 sec 381.                                                                    E

      The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
facts and circumstances of the case do not reveal that the accused was a
maniac or otherwise blood-thirsty with a high degree of propensity to
commit murder of innocent persons. On the contrary, the accused is a poor      F
agriculturist who was not booked for any crime. Unfortunately, for the said
land dispute and the quarrel with the deceased in connection with putting
of a barbed fence in the domestic house, the appellant suddenly became
very much enraged and lost the normal frame of mind and control over his
passions. In such uncontrolled frame of mind, he decided to murder his         G
brother and his family members so as to but an end of any dispute with
them for ever. Such act though very heinous and extremely lamentable,
cannot be categorised as rarest of rare cases. The learned counsel has
submitted that the accused attacked each of the victim with a sharp·cutting
instrument 'kassi' and inflicted injuries on the neck of each of the victim
so that the death could be hastened. There was no tendency on his part to      H
    792                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A subject any of the victim to any cruel treatment or tortura before killing
    them. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions
    Judge and the High Court should not have awarded the extreme penalty
    of death against the appellant The appellant should be given a chance to
    reform himself in jail and regent for his crime during long span of imprison.:
    ment for life and thereafter to be a useful member in the society. He has,
B
    therefore, submitted that the d~ath penalty should be set aside by commut-
    in.g the sentence to the sentence of imprisonment for life.

           The learned counsel for the State, however, opposed the submissions
    of the learned counsel for the appellant that the crime committed by the
C accused did not constitute a rarest or rare cases for which the extreme
    penalty of death is warranted. It has been submitted by the learned counsel
    for State that all the brothers had specific share of the land on partition of
    joint property and they had been enjoying their respective share of land.
    There is nothing on record to indicate that peaceful enjoyment of the land
D allotted to the share of the accused was sought to be interfered with by the
    deceased who was none else but his real brother. On the contrary, it has
    been proved that there was a dispute between the brothers in respect of
  · only one killa of partitioned land. Such dispute was also sorted out at the
    intervention of the Sarpanch of the village several months back. Hence,
E there was no just cause for nursing any aggrieved feeling and sense of
    injustice meted out to him in the hands of the said brother. There was
    tµinor dispute between the deceased and the accused 5 to 6 d~ys before
    the date of the incident when the accused wanted to put a barbed fencing
    on a portion of their residential complex and the deceased protested
F against such intention of the accused. In a domestic life, such petty discord
    and dissension ofte.n happen. For such a petty discord, there cannot be any
    of occasion of any map of normal composure to lose control of his senses
    and to become so enraged as to commit murder of brother and his two
  ·minor sons and an old aunt and to attempt to murder the brother's wife
    and daughter unless he is a person of cruel nature and absolutely men
G minded. Even if it is assumed that because of such dispute, the appellant
    had felt aggrieved and became enraged, the murders had not been com-
   .mitted immediately after the occurrence when the accused might have lost
    normal fo. ie of mind. The incident of dispute in connection with putting
 •of fencing had taken place several days before the date of commission of
H murders. It is quite evident that the accused did not commit said crime
                   SURJARAM. v. STATE[G.N.RAY,J.]                      793

under a grave and sudden provocation and in a fit of emotional set back A
out being determined to wipe out the entire family of his brother, he
selected the most opportune moment to commit the said ghastly murders
at dead of night when the brother and the members of his family were fast
asleep and were completely helpless to put up any defence.
                                                                             B
       The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that even if the
accused had occasion to feel aggrieved against ·his brother either on
account of the land dispute, though in fact no such dispute was then
existing, or account of resistance given by the brother in not allowing the
accused to put a fencing in their residential complex, there was no occasion
for the accused to kill two innocent minor sons of his brother who were C
asleep at the time of murder. Similarly, there was not occasion to kill the
old aunt and also to attempt to kill the brother's wife and the brother's
daughter when they where also asleep and completely defenceless. The
brother's wife and daughter were given serious injuries by the sharp cutting
instrument on their necks and it was due to extreme good luck that they D
ultimately survived after prolonged medical treatment in the hospital. The
learned counsel for the State has submitted that such act of murders and
attempt to murder had not been committed on account of any grave or
sudden provocation but the same had been committed in a cool and
calculated manner with clear and definite intention to wipe out each
member of the family of his real brother. Such act on the part of the E
accused has been rightly categorised by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge and also by the High Court as one of the rarest of rare cases of
murder. The learned counsel has submitted that the said act of extreme
brutality in committing the murder of helpless innocent persons it bound
to shock the conscience of the society and the cry of the society for justice p
and just punishment to the criminal cannot be met by showing any sym-
pathy to the accused, when there is no real mitigating factor in favour of
the accused. He has, therefore, submitted that on interference is called for
against the capital sentence awarded against the accused.        '

       After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances G
of the case, it appears to us that for deciding just and appropriate sentence
to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and
circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately
balanced in a dispassionate manner. Such act of balancing is indeed a
difficult task, it has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Lounde Mcoautha H
    794                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A v. State of California, 402 U.S. 183 L. Bo II 711 that no formula of a full
    proof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in
    determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infuiite. variety of
    circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime of murder. In the
    absence of any full proof formula which may provide any basis for
B   reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to
    the consideration of gravity of crime of murder, the discretionary judgment
    in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be
    equitable distinguished.

          In Shanker v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1994] 4 SCC 479, this Court has
C indicated that the choice as to which one of the two punishments provided
    for murder is a proper one in a given case depend upon the particular
    circumstances of that case and the Court has to exercise its discretion
    judicially and on well-recognised principles after balancing all the mitigat-
    ing or aggravat~g circumstances 6f the case.

D         In Jasnuona Bharat Singh and Others. v. State of Gujarat, [1994] 4
    SCC 353, it has been held by this Court that in the matter of death
    sentence, the Courts are required to answer new challenges and mould the
    sentencing system to meet these challenges. The object should be to protect
    the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law
E   by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would
    operate the sentencing system as to impose such sentence with reflects the
    conscience of the Society and the sentencing process has to be stern where
    it should be.

        In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, [1994] 2 SCC 220,
F this Court has observed that shockingly large number of criminals go
  unpunished thereby increasing encouraging the criminals and in the ul-
  timate making, justice suffer by weakening the system's credibility. The
  imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court
  response to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Justice
G demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that
  that courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only
  keep in view the right of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of
  the crime and the society at last while considering the imposition of
  appropriate punishment.

H         Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji @ Ram Chandra v.
                       SURJARAM. v. STA1E[G.N.RAY,J.]                      795

     State of Rajastlzan, JT (1995) 8 SC 520. It has been held in the said case A
     that it is the nature and gravity or the crime but not the criminal, which
     are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal
     trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not
     awarded for· a crime which has been committed not only against the
     individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and B
     victim belong·. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be
     irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and
     brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the
     crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to the society's
     cry for justice against the criminal. If for extremely heinous crime of
     murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most C
     deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will
     lose its relevance.

          . In the instant case, there is absence of any provocation. There is no
     material on record from which it can be reasonably held that the accused D
     had any occasion to reasonably feel aggrieved for any unjust and improper
     conduct on the part of the deceased brother. It has transpired from
     evidence adduced that joint lands had been partitioned long back amongst
     the brothers and each of the brothers including the deceased and the
     accused had been possessing his respective allotted lands. There was an
     occasion for difference and dispute between the accused and the deceased E
     in respect of only one kills of land but such dispute had been sorted out
     at the intervention of the Sarpanch of the village about eight to ten months
     before the incident. After that no fresh incident had taken place in recent
     past for which there was any occasion for the accused to feel aggrieved
     concerning his landed property. From the evidence it transpires that all the F
     three brothers had been residing in separate portion within their residential
     compound or Ahata. A few days before the incident, there was a quarrel
     between the accused and the deceased when the accused intended to put
     a barbed fencing on a portion of their residential complex out the deceased
     objected to such course of action. Such incident cannot be reasonably held G

-·   to be a cause for being temperamentally upset and for entertaining so much
     wrath and spirit of vengeance as may impel a man of normal composure
     and frame of mind to run amock and perpetrate ghastly murders of such
     mignitude. There is no evidence to indicate that in view of such quarrel
     happening a few days prior to the incident there had been any aftermath
     and further dispute and resentment between the deceased and the accused H
    796                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A either immediately before or even proximately before the incident of
    murders and attempts to commit murders. From the evidence adduced, it
    is clearly revealed that the accused, in a cool and calculated manner
    intended to wipe out the entire family of his brother. In that and in 'View,
    he selected the most opportune momef!t, namely, dead of night when his
B brother and other members of this family would remain asleep s6 that they
    would be absolutely helpless and not capable to give any defence to save
    themselves, in order to ensure death, the accused chose to out vital part of
    the body, namely, the neck by a sharp cutting weapon (kassi) when his
    victims were asleep. He, .therefore, succeeded in murdering his brother
    Raji Ram and his two minor sons by cutting their necks without any
C resistance from them. He did not even spare the poor old aunt and brutally
    murdered her by cutting her neck when she was asleep. In order to wipe
    out the whole family of his brother, the accused also attempted to murder
  . the brother's wife and the brother's daughter when they were also asleep.
    Both the brother's wife and the daugh~er were critically injured by accused
D by cutting their necks. The wife of the brother, as a matter of fact, hovered
    between life and death and re~ained unconscious for a number of days
    but out of sheer luck she could survive. The daughter of the brother also
    luckily survived after being seriously injured when her neck was also cut by
    giving a number of injuries in and around the neck. It has been indicated
    by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the accused was in full senses
E and committed the murders of four close relations one after the other and
    also attempted to commit murder of his brother's wife and \(laughte{ in a
    cool and calculated manner. He did not even feel remorsed and being quite
    alive to the enormity of the crime committed by him he escaped from the
    place of occurrence.
F
         It is true that the appellant was not convicted for any other offence
  on any previous occasion. Such fact can hardly be considered as a mitigat-
  ing factor in favour of the appellant that will outweigh all the aggravating
  factors and circumstances in which the crime of the murders had been
  committed. The murders had been committed very brutally and mercilessly
G of absolutely innocent persons, namely, the Bua and two minor sons <1f his
  brother with whom there was no occasion to come in conflict and to
  entertain any grudge or ill feeling. Even if it is assumed that there was still
  some property dispute between the brothers despite sorting out of such
  dispute at the intervention of the Sarpanch, for such common place proper-
H ty .dispute between brothers particularly when the accused was not dispos-
                   SURJARAM. v. STATE [G.N.RAY,J.]                     797

 sessed from the possession and enjoyment of his demarcated landed A
 property by the deceased brother, it cannot be reasonably held that the
 accused had a genuine cause to feel aggrieved for injustice meted out to
 him in the hands of his deceased brother which may impel him to cause
 the murder of his brother. In any event, there colild not be any cause to
 take a decision to wipe out the entire family of the brother in a very cruel B
 manner when being asleep they were absolutely helpless. The members of
 the family of his brother were absolutely innocent and two of them were
 even minors. Such murders and attempt to commit murders in a cool and
·calculated manner without provocation cannot but shock the conscience of
 the society which must abhor such heinous crime committed on helpless
 innocent person. Punishment must also respond to the society's cry for C
 justice against the criminal. While considering the punishment to be given
 to the accused, the Court should be alive not only to the right of the
 criminal to be awarded just and fair punishment by administering justice
 tempered with such mercy as the criminal may justly deserve, put also to
 the rights of the victims of the crime to have the assailant appropriately D
 punished and the society's reasonable expectation from the court for the
 appropriate deterrent punishment conforming to the gravity of the offence
 and consistent with the public abhorrence for the heinous crime committed
 by the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the same, we are of the
 view, that th~ crime committed by the accused falls in the category of rarest
 of rare cases for which extreme penalty of -death is fully justified, we, E
 therefore, find no reason to interfere with the sentence of death awarded
 against the appellant since confirmed by the High Court. This appeal and
 the jail petition being numbered as D. No. 1007/96 stand dismissed.

R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.
                                                                             F