Death Penalty To Imprisonment For Life.docx

Death penalty to imprisonment for life; circumstantial evidence; confession before police inadmissible but recovery part is admissible = We are, therefore, convinced that the ultimate conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by commuting the death penalty imposed by the trial Court, was perfectly justified and we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the same. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.; confessional statement= “16. A confession or an admission is evidence against the maker of it so long as its admissibility is not excluded by some provision of law. Provisions of Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with confessions. By virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer under no circumstance is admissible in evidence against an accused. The section deals with confessions made not only when the accused was free and not in police custody but also with the one made by such a person before any investigation had begun. The expression “accused of any offence” in Section 25 would cover the case of an accused who has since been put on trial, whether or not at the time when he made the confessional statement, he was under arrest or in custody as an accused in that case or not. Inadmissibility of a confessional statement made to a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act is based on the ground of public policy. Section 25 of the Evidence Act not only bars proof of admission of an offence by an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer but also the admission contained in the confessional statement of all incriminating facts relating to the commission of an offence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act deals with partial ban to the admissibility of confessions made to a person other than a police officer but we are not concerned with it in this case. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is in the nature of a proviso or an exception, which partially lifts the ban imposed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and makes admissible so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates to the fact thereby discovered, when made by a person accused of an offence while in police custody. Under Section 164 CrPC a statement or confession made in the course of an investigation, may be recorded by a Magistrate, subject to the safeguards imposed by the section itself and can be relied upon at the trial. 19. From a careful perusal of this first information report we find that it discloses the motive for the murder and the manner in which the appellant committed the six murders. The appellant produced the bloodstained sword with which according to him he committed the murders. In our opinion the first information report Ex. P-42, however is not a wholly confessional statement, but only that part of it is admissible in evidence which does not amount to a confession and is not hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The relationship of the appellant with the deceased; the motive for commission of the crime and the presence of his sister-in-law PW 11 do not amount to the confession of committing any crime. Those statements are non-confessional in nature and can be used against the appellant as evidence under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The production and seizure of the sword by the appellant at the police station which was bloodstained, is also saved by the provisions of the Evidence Act. However, the statement that the sword had been used to commit the murders as well as the manner of committing the crime is clearly inadmissible in evidence. Thus, to the limited extent as we have noticed above and save to that extent only the other portion of the first information report Ex. P-42 must be excluded from evidence as the rest of the statement amounts to confession of committing the crime and is not admissible in evidence.” POSTED BY ADVOCATEMMMOHAN ⋅ JULY 26, 2013 FILED UNDER APPEAL, BIHAR, EVIDENCE ACT, GOPAL PRASAD, HIGH COURT, SECTION 364, SUPREME COURT INDIA, TRIAL COURT reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40591 Reportable

IN

THE SUPREME

COURT

OF

INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1575 OF 2009

ANUJ KUMAR GUPTA @ SETHI GUPTA …APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR …RESPONDENT JUDGMENT FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1.

This

appeal

Patna

is

directed

at Bihar dated

2005.

The

said

against

02.11.2007,

appeal

was

the

judgment

passed

in

disposed

of

of

the

High

Criminal

along

Court

of

Appeal No.690 of

with

Criminal

Appeal

No.606/2005, as well as Death Reference No.8 of 2005. 2. To trace the brief facts, the deceased Chhotu Kumar Das @ Abhinav Das (hereinafter Prasad

referred

Das

for

visiting

the

eve

a by

a

of

search

No

local Ram

by

PW-6

narrating

(PW-6),

the

as

‘Chhotu’)

son

left

his

house

21.04.2002

Mela, Navami.

his

at

to

parents

the

police

circumstances

suspicion

which

on

was

held

Thereafter, and,

on

the

every

could

therefore,

station in

he

of

a

the

was

raised

against

any

the

written

report,

the

at

not

in

be

written at

8.15

on

traced

inspite

of

was

10.30

submitted

a.m.

briefly

be

traced.

not

the

p.m.,

village

could

for

Gopal

the

report

deceased person

about

year

22.04.2002

which

informant

disappearance

of

the deceased. 3.

Based

on

Case No.39/2002 and investigation In

the

proceeded

was

course

carried of

the

materials

against

therefore,

interrogated

arrested.

The

police

on

confessional

the

out

police

with

appellant the

appellant

the

by PW-9,

investigation, appellant

the

he

by

confessional

on

the

based

statement,

the

dead

body

across the

22.04.2002,

a

and

the

in

Police. suspicious

witnesses. whereafter

portion

deceased

P.S. The

of

some

statement

admissible of

FIR

investigation.

of

made

23.04.2002

the

Sub-Inspector

came

some on

registered

PW-9, he

was

before

the

of was

the

said

recovered

from a river known as Maldiha Dhar. The co-accused Arun Mandal @ Arun Kumar

Mandal

Mandal

could

not

prepared

on

was

conducted

was

by

prosecution accused,

also

be

arrested,

apprehended

24.4.2002

PW-10.

It

proceeded namely,

while on

at

the

Gupta,

day.

the

the

above

appellant

along

Mandal

Sudhir

inquest

and

on

Arun

accused

The

p.m.

based

against

Girendra

that

5.00

was

another

of

the

body

postmortem

was

investigation,

the

with

and

Kumar

the

Sudhir

other

Mandal

for

offences under Sections 364(A), 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. 4. The appellant and the co accused pleaded innocence and the trial Court proceeded their

with

side.

accused placed

the

In a

before

it

Arun

Sections

364(A),

them

and

sentence

and

total

Sudhir

The

trial

guilty

of

and

120-B,

IPC

the

against

them.

Mandal,

that

said

the the

10

on

the

other

on

the

evidence

appellant

and

the

offences imposed

sentence

held

falling

death

counder

penalty

that

on

no

separate

accused,

namely,

Girendra

of

all

offences

charged

the

Death

other

acquitted

to

and

based

and

The

were

PWs-1

appellant

Court

were of

examined

the

conclusion

light

passed

questioning,

the

201

the

prosecution

denial.

reached 302,

in

The

313

Mandal,

was

Gupta

the

made

accused

case.

the

against them. 5.

By virtue

2005

came

preferred other

of the

to

be

by

was

the

made

charges.

As

conviction,

far

life

for

no

sufficient

High

the

by

High

offence

evidence

to

Criminal

on

appellant

the

Section

hold

him

Arun

the was 302 guilty

with

No.8 of

the

appeals

Appeal No.690/2005 and

the and

Reference

along

by

Mandal

commuted

under

Court

co-accused

appellant

Court

High

Court

imposed

the

the

the

against Arun as

imposed,

being

by

The

as

the

for

with

conviction

out

penalty

appellant

preferred

Appeal No.606/2005. upholding

dealt

the

appeal

death

Mandal

judgment

he

concerned, death IPC of

no

offence

acquitted

of

all

sentence the

while

that

while

and

Criminal

impugned,

held

was

in

the

held charge

affirming to

the the

imprisonment

that

there

under

was

Section

364 and 120-B IPC. He was found guilty of charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 6. We heard Ms. Rakhi Ray, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Sanat Tokas, for was

learned

the

counsel

State.

mainly

Learned

contending

representing counsel that

this

for

Mr. the case

Gopal

Singh,

appellant being

one

in

learned her purely

counsel

submissions based

on

circumstantial as

well

appellant and, is

evidence, the

High

made

to

therefore, liable

address

any

reliance

Court

the

upon officer

and

sentence

aside.

The

learned

submission,

while

be

set

by

the

confessional

investigating

conviction

other

placed

on

the

the

to

the

PW-9

counsel the

Court,

statement

imposed

attacking

trial of

the

cannot

stand

on

the

appellant

was

not

able

to

impugned

in

judgment

this appeal. 7.

Learned

counsel

for

well

as

the

High

Court

led

to

the

killing

chain

of

and well

counsel

as

portion

of

imposed

the of

for

the

would

contend

gathered

that

the

chain

the

deceased

by

the

was

complete

in

every

on the

High

State

have

circumstances

sentence

Learned

the

the

appellant

State

Court

also

have

confessional

of

trial

appellant

does

and

respect,

the for

contended

that

the

trial

placed

reliance

the

on

appellant

as

which

since

call

of

Court,

circumstances,

not

only

statement

the

the

conviction interference. Court,

the

as

admissible

made

to

PW-9,

the investigating officer. 8.

Having

considered

and

having

perused

trial

Court

contention based

and of

on

Investigating

the all

the

the

the

respective

judgment other

learned the

of

the

material counsel

confessional

officer,

submissions

conviction

Division

papers, for of to

learned as

find

appellant

the

came

the

Bench,

we

the

statement

of

be

well

that was

appellant

as

the

the

only

that

to

imposed

counsel

merely

PW-9,

and

the

the same

was not in consonance with law. 9. When we examine the case on hand, we find that there was no eye witness

to

circumstantial whether the

the

High

the

occurrence.

evidence, chain

Court

of

was

The

therefore,

our

circumstance complete

whole only

noted

without

by

any

case

is

endeavour the

trial

disruption

based is

to

Court, in

on

the

find

out

as

order

well

to

as

confirm

the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. 10. As far as the admissibility of the confessional statement made by the appellant this

to

aspect

the is

investigating quite

clear,

officer which

PW-9 we

was

wish

concerned, to

explain

the at

law the

on very

outset

and

before

examining

the

chain

of

circumstances

noted

and

explained in the judgment impugned. 11. As far

as

accused

to

the

police

can

be

succinctly

which

the admissibility of the

decision of this

Court

SCC

the

467.

In

confession

long

as

Provisions

its

of

the

the

provisions

against

an

expression time in

accused

who

when

he

made

custody

as

an

Act

since

the

by

with

Evidence

offence” been in

that

made

to

a

based

on

the

the

– 1994 (2) be

usefully

of

a

confessions

trial,

virtue

of

made

to

in

evidence not

only

under

officer of

cover

was

not. public

not

case

at

arrest of

Section

policy.

The

the

Inadmissibility

under

the

begun.

or

case

or

had

whether he

ground

164

made

would

statement,

police

Section

custody but also with 25

it law.

By

admissible

of of

confession

investigation

on

maker

provision

Act and

Act,

Section

put

accused

earlier

under:

some

is

any

confessional

an

can

confessions.

with

in

settled,

to

19

against

the Evidence

before

well

as

circumstance

person

has

is

and

evidence

deals

is

of Rajasthan

and not in police

any

statement

Evidence

of

section

free

of

State

excluded

the

no

a

is

not

30

25 of

The

such

law

reference

16

Procedure deal

under

“accused

confessional the

of Section

is

to

of Criminal

by

making

paras

admission

24

accused was

the

read

an

accused.

made an

or

officer

when the

of

decision,

admissibility

Code

police

one

by

in Bheru Singh v.

Sections

of a

concerned,

which

A

so

is

stated

said

referred, “16.

officer

confessional statement made by an

the or a

25

of

Section

25

of the Evidence Act not only bars proof of admission of an offence by an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a

police

officer

statement offence.

of

officer the

of

but

we

Evidence Act

partially Act

all

Section

admissibility

lifts

and

amounts discovered,

the

makes to

but

a when

also

the

incriminating 26

of

the

confessions are

not

is

in

ban

admission facts

admissible

by

of

much

confession

or

not,

made

a

person

by

it a of as

in

with

commission

of

an

partial

to

the

ban

than

of

a

police

Section

an

exception,

26

of

the

information,

relates

accused

confessional

case.

or

and

such

the

other

this

proviso 25

in

the

person

Sections

so

to

deals

a

with

nature

imposed

Act

to

concerned the

relating

Evidence made

contained

to an

the

27

which

Evidence

whether fact

offence

of

it

thereby while

in

police in

custody.

the

Under

course

subject

to

of

the

Section

an

164

CrPC

investigation,

safeguards

a

may

imposed

by

statement be

or

recorded

the

confession by

section

a

itself

made

Magistrate,

and

can

be

relied upon at the trial. 19.

From

a

that

it

the

appellant

careful

discloses

the

sword

murders.

In

our

is

a

admissible not

in

hit

by

of

the

of

the

The

we

manner

appellant

find

in

which

produced

the the

him

he

committed

information

report

Ex.

P-42,

but

not

only

amount

Section

appellant

and

report

to

statement, does

provisions

murder

murders.

first

which

information

according

confessional

the

relationship

six

the

first

the

which

opinion

evidence

this

for

the

with

wholly

of

motive

committed

bloodstained not

perusal

25

with

to

of

the

that a

part

however of

confession

the

Evidence

deceased;

the

it

is

and

is

Act.

The

motive

for

commission of the crime and the presence of his sister-in-law PW 11 do not

amount

are

non-confessional

as

to

evidence

seizure

under

of

the

bloodstained, However,

is

also

in

as

by

and

first

information

the

rest

of

the

can

the

at

the

that

the

sword

manner

of

Thus,

report

to Ex.

be

appellant by

the

to

used

been

P-42

must

the

limited only be

to

the used

excluded

confession

which

to

is

as

Act. the

clearly

we

portion

from of

was

commit

crime

other

and

Evidence

extent

the

appellant

production

station

of

statements

the

The

police

committing the

Those

against

Act.

the

had

extent

amounts

crime.

provisions

that

statement

any

Evidence

saved

save

the

committing

and

8

evidence.

above

of

nature

Section

well

of

in

statement

as

inadmissible

confession

sword

the

murders noticed

the

have of

the

evidence

committing

as the

crime and is not admissible in evidence.” (Emphasis

added)

12. In this context we can also refer to a recent decision of this Court in Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh – 2012 (6) SCC 107. In para 52, the

legal

statement

position of

the

as

regards

accused,

which

the

admissibility

can

be

treated

submission

of

the

of

some

part

as

admission

of

the

has

been

explained as under in para 52: 52.

We

the

State.

statement

find It of

force is the

in

quite

the

common

accused

that

whenever

based and

on

learned

Senior

admissible

wherever

Counsel

portion

recoveries

are

of

for the

made,

the

same

are

admissible

situations

to

explain

nature

recoveries

of

planting

the

Similarly,

the

to

admissions

mere

facts

as

came

they

of

the

statement

from

mere

can

the

which

relied

connected

the

court they

were

facts

would

for the

those

to

possession not

upon

in

as

does

of

with

accused

into

where

statement

be

intrinsically

for

how

to

is

is of

places

but

it

satisfaction

the

which

are

and

at

accused

which

the

and

part

implicate

evidence

to

same

this

in

the

or

for

recovered.

in

any

way

only

amount

ascertaining

the

other

occurrence,

while

at

the same time, the same would not in any way result in implicating the accused

in

the

offence

directly.

(Emphasis added) 13.

Since

officer

the

confessional

(PW-9),

it

statement

is

was

necessary

made

to

before

note

what

the

investigating

exactly

was

the

confession stated to have been made, which enabled the IO to make some progress

in

confession stated also

his of

that

the

to

to

many

and of

the

made

Arun

evidence

related

body

the

of

Mandal

statements

admission,

at

the

one

co-accused the

on

Arun

identical

According

appellant

based

arrested very

investigation.

to

deceased

p.m.

on

he

recorded

23.04.2002.

furnished

by

who

made

confession,

by

also the

appellant.

to

have

alleged can

the

PW-9,

information

Mandal,

which

11.30

to

in

our

be

noted

was

Though

been

opinion,

and

accepted

of

the

found,

as

place

based

by

on

He

he

which

was

would

refer

the the

appellant only

admissible where

the

also

appellant,

PW-9

admitted

considered

identification

Chhotu

a

the

the

part

in

the

the dead

admission

of

the

appellant and the co-accused. 14. Insofar as the said part of the evidence of PW-9 read along with the admission evidence (a

found that

river

in

the

stream)

where

the

water

of

Maldiha

within

the

fell could

not

dead

body

therefore,

dead

Exhibits-4 appellant

along

at after

was

with

body

of

Dhar.

that

lift

very

getting

5

is

taken

PW-4,

the

deceased

PW-9

stated

of

concerned,

to

the

jurisdiction

immediately

and

the Chhotu

Barhara

the

body

place

under

necessary

place

paternal

that

the

that

called

was of

come the

recovered

of

clearance,

that

Dhar the

(stream)

Purnea, he

in

deceased from

Dhar

district

place,

out

Maldiha

of

Maldiha

protection

official

has

uncle

since P.S.,

from

it

left

he the

armed

forces

and,

the

body

was

handed sent

over

for

to

carrying

corroborated proceeded dead

body also

Chhotu were

with

and

was

the

PW-9,

that

that

he

deceased.

open,

the

as

reached

PW-4

of by

the

out

further

stated

his

by

same

was

evidence

also

stating

that

place

Maldiha

Dhar,

the

appellant

and

co

accused.

of

his

nephew,

body

as

the

eyes

that out

and

that

that of

co

he

and

dead

protruding

the

appellant

by

the

and in

PW-9

the

identified was

jurisdiction

mortem.

guided

pointed

He

tongue

his

version

they as

of

post

said

found

stated

station

necessary

above

along

Mandal

police

out

the

Arun He

the

where

the

there

accused

dead

were

the

body

marks

of

throttling in the neck of the deceased. 15. From the above evidence of PW-9, supported by the version of PW-4, it has

come

accused from

to

light

Arun

Mandal,

Maldiha

the

eyes

that

Dhar

of

the

at

the

the

body

(river

dead

instance

of

of

deceased

stream)

body

and

the

the

and

that

it

the

tongue

appellant

and

Chhotu

was were

the

was

noted

co-

recovered

at

that

protruding

out.

time There

were also signs of marks on the neck of the deceased Chhotu. The said part

of

to

the

confessional

straightaway

killing

of

and

co-accused,

which

was

identity was

certainly

the

to

where

the at

the

virtue

the

the

cannot

the

part

of

the

instance of

knowledge the

be

said

to

the

of

the

co-accused of

body

the of

PW-9,

rest

dead

within

by

by

and

aside place

exclusively

admissible

recorded

appellant

Leaving

of

as

as

the

deceased.

the

the

lying,

implicate

the

admission,

statement

appellant

the

deceased

of

the

application

of

was

appellant, Section

8,

read along with Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 16.

In

such

circumstances,

on

behalf

offered

circumstances

he

of

was

in

the

the

able

absence

appellant

to

lead

the

of

any

convincing

accused Police

as

party

to to

explanation

under

what

place

where

the

the dead body of the deceased was found, it will have to be held that such in

recovery the

of

case

considered prosecution

of

along to

the

dead

this

nature,

with rope

the

body,

rest in

of

definite

admission

on

behalf

agency

was

to

recover

able

would

of

the

killing

deceased.

which

act

the

Therefore, the

the

a

very

deadly

circumstances

appellant of

is

against

the

alleged

once

we

find

of

the

by

circumstance the

demonstrated

in

appellant

body

clinching

which deceased

appellant by

the

of

the

crime that the from

there

was

prosecuting a

place,

which

was

other

aspect

any

within

the

to

examined

be

convincing though

the

in

explain,

knowledge

is

whether

explanation

Unfortunately appellant

special

except

the

to

above

of

the

get

the

appellant

over

incriminating

the

313

questioning

a

mere

denial

appellant, came

the

there

he

had

was

no

with

admission.

was

an

only

forward

said

circumstance

where

the

put

to

opportunity

to

other

convincing

explanation offered by him. 17. Thus, we reach a conclusion that the said circumstance of recovery of the

body

stream)

of

the

at

deceased

the

from

instance

of

the

the

place

called

appellant

as

Maldiha spoken

Dhar to

(a

by

river PW-9,

supported by the evidence of PW4, we have to only see whether rest of the

circumstances

Court,

were

appellant perused

considered

sufficient

and

the

the

to

sentence

judgment

by

of

the

trial

confirm imposed

the

the on

trial

Court,

as

well

ultimate

him.

Court,

On

as

as

the

conviction this

well

aspect

as

the

High

of

the

when

we

High

Court,

the following circumstances have been found to be established: (i)

PW-1

referred

to

the

factum

of

the

appellant

attempting

to

ride

a

motorcycle in a narrow lane opposite to the shop of PW-1 and that when PW-1

advised

appellant

him

parked

that

the

said

vehicle

cannot

motorcycle

pass

near

through

the

shop

the of

said PW-1

lane

the

and

went

away to Thakurbari on foot; (ii) PW-1 was asked by the father of the accused who was also arrayed as

A-3,

namely,

Girendra

Gupta

who

requested

PW-1

not

to

divulge

while

he

the

said fact about the parking of the motorcycle to anyone; (iii)

According

with

others

to

were

PW-4,

the

uncle

searching

for

the

of

the

deceased

he

deceased, was

informed

by

along an

old

lady that she saw two persons going in a motorcycle with a boy sitting in

between

them

though

she

could

not

identify

any

of

them

due

to

darkness. (iv) The deceased who went to attend the Mela at about 8 or 9 p.m. on 21.04.2002 did not return back as spoken to by PW-7.

(v) The body of the deceased was recovered from Maldiha Dhar (a river stream) based on the identification of the appellant. (vi)

When

bulging

the

out

body

and

was

the

recovered

tongue

was

report

of

it

was

noted

protruding

out

that

the

apart

from

that

the

eyeball

was

bruises

noted

on both sides of the neck. (vii)

The

postmortem

deceased

was

due

deceased.

The

said

was

bulging

and

to

PW-10

asphyxia

postmortem the

tongue

confirms

by

strangulating

report was

also

death

the

neck

made

it

clear

out

and

the

protruding

of

the

of

that

the

eyeball

abrasions

on

both sides of the neck were also noted. (viii)

The

admissible

appellant

also

the

about

fact

version

revealed the

of

the

that

his

father

parking

of

a

confessional

statement

asked

not

A-3

motorcycle

PW-1

of

the

of

to

appellant

the

disclose near

his

shop. (ix)

The

used

by

recovery the

of

appellant

the at

motorcycle

the

instance

bearing of

the

registration No.BR-39 0148 appellant

from

his

house

which was marked as Ext.8. (x)

PW-10

confirmed

the

postmortem

that

he

could

doctor

in

mention

the

the

course

of

of

death

cause

the

cross-examination

with

certainty

and

that in any case it was not a case of drowning.

18. The above circumstances having been found to be fully established, the conclusion holding in

of

that

order

the the

to

trial chain

lead

squarely

responsible

justified.

Though

point

out

recording Ext.4, that

some of

pursuant the

said

Court, of

to

the

the to

only

the

learned

discrepancy alleged which

discrepancy

well

circumstances

the

for

as

in

that was of

counsel

for

matter

confessional the

body

was

a

was

very

of

that the

trivial

High

every

the

of Arun

of out,

the we

and

on

was

was

well

attempted

to

Mandal

and

appellant are

in

respect

appellant

appellant

arrest

one

in

Court

deceased,

the

statement traced

the

complete

conclusion

killing the

of

of that

under

the score

view we

do not find any scope to dislodge the findings of the Courts below. We

are,

therefore,

appellant

under

convinced Section

that 302

the of

ultimate

IPC

and

conviction the

sentence

of

the

of

life

imprisonment imposed on him by commuting the death penalty imposed by the

trial

grounds

Court, to

was

interfere

perfectly with

the

justified same.

and

The

we appeal

do fails

not

find

and

the

any

good

same

is

dismissed. ………….……….…………………………..J. [A.K. Patnaik]

………….…….………………………………J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla] New

Delhi;

July 24, 2013.

About these ads Share this: 

Facebook



Twitter



Google



LinkedIn2



Reddit



LAW FOR ALL



MMMLAWREPORT



Tumblr



Email



Print

 Related Accused right to have a lawyer - whether the appellant was denied due process of law and whether the conduct of trial was contrary to the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Code and, in particular, that he was not given a fair and impartial trial and was denied the right of the counsel before discussing the merits of the appeal. whether the matter requires to be remanded for a de novo trial in accordance with law or not? = Gravity of the offences and the criminality with which the appellant is charged are important factors that need to be kept in mind, though it is a fact that in the first instance the accused has been denied due process. While having due consideration to the appellant’s right, the nature of the offence and its gravity, the impact of crime on the society, more particularly the crime that has shaken the public and resulted in death of four persons in a public transport bus can not be ignored and overlooked. It is desirable that punishment should follow offence as closely as possible. In an extremely serious criminal case of the exceptional nature like the present one, it would occasion in failure of justice if the prosecution is not taken to the logical conclusion. Justice is supreme. The retrial of the appellant, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances, is indispensable. It is imperative that justice is secured after providing the appellant with the legal practitioner if he does not engage a lawyer of his choice. - the matter requires to be remanded for a de novo trial. The Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed with the trial of the appellant in Sessions Case No. 122 of 1998 from the stage of prosecution evidence and shall further ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than three months from the date of communication of this order.In "legal issues" whether or not the social consequences of a culpable act and its impact on other people can be a relevant consideration for giving a heavier punishment, of course, within the limits fixed by the law.= Punishment should acknowledge the sanctity of human life. We fully agree. 22. From the above, one may conclude that: 1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales – most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence. 2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint. 3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it. 5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer

suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor. - One of them happened to be accused No.25 who was the supplier of the illicit liquor to the appellant and from him the appellant had received the fatal supply that led to the death of Yohannan and sickness of a number of others. The trial court had convicted accused no.25 under Section 57A(2)(ii) of the Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. fifty thousand with the default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of rupees fifty thousand with the default sentence of imprisonment for six months under Section 57A(2)(i) of the Act. He was also convicted under Sections 57A(2)(iii), 55(a)(i) and 58 of the Act. The High Court had maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. This Court, however, by its judgment and order dated April 4, 2011 in Chandran v. State of Kerala[12], maintained the conviction of accused no.25 under the various provisions as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. However, it accepted the plea made on behalf of accused no.25 to reduce his sentence from a life term to ten years imprisonment. Since this Court has deemed fit to reduce the sentence given to accused no.25 from a life term to ten years rigorous imprisonment, we feel that it will not be fair not to give the same concession to the appellant (accused no.41) who was the last and weakest link in the chain. We, accordingly, reduce his sentence from five years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment, being the minimum under Section 57A (2) (ii) of the Act. The fines imposed by the courts below for the different offences remain unaltered. 24. In the result, the appeals are dismissed, subject to modification and reduction in sentence, as noted above. 25. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He will be taken into custody to serve his remainder sentence.In "legal issues"