Tag: lifeimprisonment

-Report by Annette Abraham

In a curious turn of events, the Bombay High Court on Friday granted a reduced sentence to the accused in the Sitaram Dada Sarode v. State of Maharashtra case on the grounds of an inconsistent timeline and the occurrence of grave provocation. The accused, an ayurvedic medic, had been convicted of murdering his wife, Sangita Sarode, a pharmacist.

FACTS

The accused married Sangita in 1993. Though they initially lived in Manmad together, Sangita and their children moved to Pune as she secured a job as a pharmacist in the city. Mr. Sitaram would visit his wife and children around once every fortnight. The incident occurred on the evening of 30th August 2008 on one such visit to Pune. Sangita and her children lived at the residence of her mother Shantabai. Here, a supposed quarrel between the accused and his wife resulted in her sustaining a head injury as well as multiple burn wounds.

Sangita was rushed to the hospital where Dr. Govind Kamble recorded Sangita’s statement wherein she stated that Sitaram questioned her fidelity and in rage, hit her on the back of the head and poured a burning substance over her before fleeing the scene. On the basis of this statement, her mother filed a complaint and Sitaram was arrested on 30th August 2008 under Sections 307, 498-A and 504. A second dying declaration was collected by the Head Constable in the evening that day that stated the same.

Sangita succumbed to her injuries six days after the incident on 5th September 2008 and her body was sent for an autopsy. Dr. Ajay Taware conducted the autopsy, concluding that Sangita had sustained 40% burn injuries, the primary cause of death, in addition to a haematoma in her scalp and a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in her brain. Charges against Sitaram were filed under Sections 302, 498-A and 504, however, the accused denied all of them, pleading not guilty. The defence pleaded in the Sessions Court that:

a. The burn wounds sustained by Sangita were caused not due to acid but by fire. On the day of the incident because of the Pola festival, Sangita was preparing food and the over-flaming of the stove caused her injuries.

b. The accused did not have cordial relationships with Shantabai and his brother-in-law Bajirao Masal, who was also present on the day of the incident, and hence they had falsely implicated him and enticed Sitaram’s son to testify against him as well. The Additional Sessions Court found Sitaram to be guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1000/- for the crimes of murder as well as cruelty.

Appellant’s Argument

Mr. Sitaram and his counsel Mr. Pawan Mali raised the matter before the High Court of Bombay requesting the honourable bench to review the legality of the order passed in the sessions court.
The Appellant’s contentions were as follows:

1. Discrepancies in the Timeline Presented –
   The main contention with the timelines lay in the statements collected from Sangita. In the first dying declaration recorded by Dr. Govind Kamble at 6:30 p.m., Sangita’s right leg thumb impression is taken as a signature owing to the fact that both her hands were severely burnt. However, this statement was only signed at 9:30 p.m., 3 hours after it was collected. Even more curiously, in the statement collected by the Head Constable of Police around 9:30 p.m, Sangita’s signature was given as validation. This is a clear contradiction to the circumstances of the first declaration recorded earlier in the day. Hence, the second declaration must be considered void.
2. Incomplete Evidence –
   The combined case papers of Sangita that detailed her treatment in the 6 days preceding her death revealed that she had been treated with Silver sulphate. Further, Dr. Pandit and Dr. Shinde, who administered her immediate treatment, noted that she sustained approximately 45% of burns that seemed to be largely flame burns. Dr. Shinde
   and Dr. Pandit, as well as Dr. Sarala Gandhi who administered anaesthesia to Sangit had not been examined by the prosecution.
3. Provocation –
   From the statements of the main witnesses, it is discernible that constant quarrels used to occur between the married couple and that these often resulted in physical violence.

The appellant, calling upon the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, contended that the constant and unceasing nature of the altercations that occurred over the course of their marriage caused mental turmoil to Sitaram. It was stated that this falls under the ambit of Exception I of Section 300 of the IPC which granted that continuous provocation or torment can be considered equivalent to a singular grave provocation. Under this provision, Sangita’s death would amount not to murder but to culpable homicide.

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that though the accused was responsible for Sangita’s death, the constant provocation caused the accused to temporarily lose the sense of right and wrong and commit the offence and that the murder was not premeditated or planned. Hence, it falls under the ambit of section 304 of the IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

As such, the honourable court ruled that a life sentence was too hefty a punishment and the judgement of the Sessions Court was overruled. Sitaram’s sentence was reduced to 10 years a fine of ₹50,000/- was imposed. Since Sitaram had already served 14 years under imprisonment between 2008 and 2022, the court ordered that he be released forthwith.

-Report by Anas Ali

In the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh versus Nandu @ Nandua, The Supreme Court ruled that if an accused person is found guilty of the offence covered by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), no penalty or punishment may be less than life imprisonment.

FACTS

The Appellant; the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court had reduced the sentence of the accused to what he had already undergone. The accused had been sentenced to life imprisonment when he was convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

It was argued by the appellants that the punishment that could be imposed would be death or imprisonment for life and also a fine, however, it shall not be less than imprisonment for life. Any punishment or sentence that is less than life imprisonment would violate Section 302 of the IPC.

COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court has entertained the appeal of the state. The Court gave a decision in the favour of the state and set aside the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was observed

“The punishment for murder under Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore, the
minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine. There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC.”

The decision of the trial court was restored and the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.

–Report by Ishika Sehgal

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and life sentences of four people in the case of MOHAMMAD IRFAN VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA for conspiring a terrorist attack in Bengaluru’s Indian Institute of Science in December 2005.

FACTS OF THE CASE

There was a shootout at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 2005, which was being investigated. During this investigation, a larger conspiracy concerning Lasker-e-Toiba(LeT), a banned organization in India was revealed. After carrying out the full investigation, eight persons were arrayed as accused. Accused no.8 or A-8 was shown to be absconding. A trial was held for A-1 to A-7. In 2011, the trial court acquitted A-7 but found A-1 to A-6 guilty and passed an order under the Indian Penal Code,1860; Explosive Substances Act,1908; Arms Act, 1959 and Unlawful activities prevention Act, 1967.

Four appeals were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6. A separate appeal was filed by A-3. The state also filed an appeal against the acquittal of A-7. The High Court upheld the imprisonment under section 121A for A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6. A-2 was given 8 years of imprisonment under section 5 of the explosives arms act while the order of acquittal of A-7 was upheld.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, a special leave petition was filed by A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-6. No appeals had been preferred by A-2 and A-3. The state had also not filed any appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

It was contended that the charges under Sections 121 and 153A of the IPC had not been established, leaving only the charge under Section 121A of the IPC, which was also without merit. There was no justification for the High Court to extend the sentence to life imprisonment in a charge where 7 years of imprisonment were sufficient. According to the accused, the circumstances in the record did not support such an exercise. Further, it was stated that the recovery of the books and explosive substances is insufficient for sustaining a charge under section 121A of the IPC. It was contended that the sentence entered into the record did not meet the requirements of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which asked for a sanction from the competent authority for the prosecution of an accused for an offense punishable, among other things, under Chapter VI of the IPC.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE/ RESPONDENTS

The state contended that the material on record which was recovered during the investigation such as a diary, books, minutes of meetings attended by the accused, and the explosives are enough to put the matter against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The documents are signed by all the accused and have been verified by a handwriting expert. The diary and the books clearly mention their intent. The sanction had been obtained for the prosecution of the accused under section 196 by a competent authority and considering the number of explosives recovered, the enhancement of punishment was required.

SUPREME COURT’S DECISION

The court read the judgments delivered by the lower courts in detail and also considered the evidence of record and held that the accused are guilty. It held that the question of obtaining sanction under section 196 does not arise as it had been obtained by Undersecretary after discussion with the Home Minister and the Chief Minister.

The court further observed that though the witnesses turned hostile, some evidence can be deduced from the testimony which cannot be rejected like some of the accused being members of the trust and going for meetings. Further, the court observed:

“……The recoveries of books and literature were completely supported by the concerned Panch witnesses and the Panchanamas on record. The books and literature did carry inflammatory content and messages. The translations of the original versions in Urdu were placed on record by the Prosecution. The voluntary statements which led to such recoveries and the recoveries themselves were also proved by the Prosecution. One important piece of material recovered from A-2 was Diary Exh.P-92. The tenor and text of the contents were captured quite correctly by the trial court in its judgment as referred to hereinabove. The signatures of the concerned accused were proved beyond any doubt through the evidence of PW67, handwriting expert. It thus stood established that the Accused had assembled together with the intent as disclosed from the minutes of the meetings of the Trust. The explosive substances, details of which are given hereinabove were recovered from A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-6. Voluntary statements of said Accused and consequential recoveries effected through Panchas were also duly proved by the Prosecution.

The court relied on a number of judgments to reach the decision. Relying on the observations of Navjot Sandhu, Mir Hasan Khan vs State, Nazir Khan, etc, the court held that from the language of section 121A, persons who plan to “overawe” the central or state government by use of criminal force will be guilty. From all the evidence the intent of conspiracy was clear and it is not necessary that an illegal commission or omission must take place to be punished under section 121A.

The court emphasized that, if the conspiracy, in this case, had been carried out, it would have caused significant harm to public safety and the lives and safety of the people, therefore enhancement of the sentence to life imprisonment was necessary. Such conspiracies shall be dealt with strictly. All the appeals were dismissed as they were devoid of any merit.