The Allahabad High Court has confirmed the death penalty awarded to a man who murdered his wife and children in 2009.
The Division Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeals filed by Sarvan.
Two accused, namely, Sarvan and Smt Suman, were tried by the Special Judge, CBI /Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial arising out of Case under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.
The order dated 29.08.2017, the Special Judge, CBI Court /Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicted and sentenced accused, Sarvan and Smt Suman, in the manner as stated hereinbelow :-
“Accused Sarvan
I. Under Section 323 IPC to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment;
II. Under Section 201 IPC to undergo four years’ RI and a fine of Rs 2000. In default of payment of fine to undergo additional one month’s imprisonment; and
III. Under section 302 IPC to be hanged to death till he is dead and fine of Rs 5000. In default of payment of fine to undergo additional five months’ imprisonment.
Accused Smt Suman
I. Under section 201 IPC to undergo four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000. In default of payment of fine to undergo additional one month’s imprisonment”.
The informant, Kolai, was a resident of Village Gaura, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. He lived in front of the house of Sarvan. It has been alleged by informant Kolai that a gossip/talk spread throughout the village that Sarvan (convict/appellant) had an illicit relationship with his bhabhi (sister-in-law) Suman, on account of which, there was a lot of quarrel between Sarvan (convict/appellant) and his wife Smt. Santoshi (deceased). Often this quarrel escalated and Sarvan would beat his wife.
Smt Madhuri (informant’s wife) would usually intervene in such a situation to protect Santoshi, because of which, Sarvan remained angry with Madhuri. In the morning of 25.04.2009, at 06:30 a.m, an altercation took place between Sarvan and his wife.
Sarvan was heard shouting at his wife Santoshi that he would not leave her and her children alive and she was screaming to be saved.
On hearing the screams, Madhuri ran to save her. Then, Sarvan came out of his house armed with a blood-stained axe, telling Madhuri that he had put Santoshi and three children in their place and you intervened a lot. He then assaulted Madhuri with the same axe many times, she sustained injuries and fell on the dirt road and succumbed to her injuries on the spot. When Rajendra (informant’s son) and Sangeeta (informant’s daughter) ran to save their mother, Sarvan also assaulted and injured them.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in usual manner where the convicts/appellants were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 201 IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of denial.
The Challenging the judgment dated 29.08.2017 passed by the trial Court, Manjusha Kapil, Counsel for the convicts/appellants has argued that :-
I. The entire case against the convicts/appellants is fabricated one and has been framed at the instance of Kolai.
II. The convict/appellant Sarvan, in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in clear terms has stated that informant Kolai and his family members had killed his wife and children, because of which in retaliation, he got angry and killed the wife of the informant and his son.
III. She stated that it is settled law that if the prosecution admits the statement under Section 313 CrPC then it has to be considered as a whole and it is not permissible under law to accept only one part of this statement, which supports the prosecution and to exclude the remaining part. In the instant case, the trial Court has only considered one part of this statement but erred in not considering the whole statement of convict/appellant Sarvan recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
IV. The dispute amongst the informant Kolai and the convict/appellant Sarvan was due to flow of drainage from the house of informant to the house of the convict/appellant Sarvan. She argued that the entire case as presented by the prosecution is concocted and false as actual facts are that on the date of the incident, convict/ appellant Sarvan went to purchase salt and upon returning therefrom, he saw that informant Kolai, his sons Guddu, Nanha as well as his wife and his daughter were running from his (Sarvan’s) house with hasiya, axe etc.
V. The convict/appellant Sarvan has no motive to commit the murder of his wife and children. She argued that even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that on account of illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, the convict/ appellant Sarvan had killed his wife, even then, there is no motive for him to commit the murder of his own minor children as the convict/appellant Sarvan was not mental nor did the trial Court find the same. Thus, the findings of the trial Court in this regard is perverse and is liable to be rejected.
Vimal Srivastava, Government Advocate, ably assisted by Pankaj Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate, for the State opposed the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the convicts/appellants and argued that :-
Sarvan had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, which was objected to by the wife of Sarvan, upon which some quarrel took place between Sarvan and his wife (deceased Santoshi) and sometimes Sarvan had also assaulted his wife. The wife of informant Kolai, Madhuri, used to intervene and settle the issue but Sarvan disliked it. These facts have been proved by the prosecution.
From the discussion of the prosecution evidence as above, the Court found that:-
(i) The first information report is prompt having been lodged within one hour of the incident-in-question;
(ii) The informant lodged the First Information Report by giving a written report. The said report contains a graphic description of the convict/ appellant Sarvan with weapon in his hand and the manner in which the six deceased were murdered and one got injured as also the place of occurrence.
(iii) The medical evidence fully corroborates with the evidence of eye witnesses with regard to the ante-mortem injuries sustained by six deceased persons.
The Court further found that the prosecution has proved its version beyond all reasonable doubts. The convicts/ appellants, on the other hand, though took a plea that their act to assault informant’s wife and his son was in retaliation but has utterly failed to discharge the initial burden laid on it to probalise its story or create dent or doubt on the prosecution story. The presence of convicts/ appellants at the scene of occurrence is neither disputed nor can be doubted from any of the circumstances brought before the Court. It is proved by the prosecution that convict/ appellant Sarvan in a premeditated manner armed with axe caused death of six persons and injured one person by inflicting fatal injuries in a manner that the deceased could not escape the attack. The prosecution has also proved the fact that it was Suman who, with an intention of saving the convict/appellant Sarvan from legal punishment, concealed the weapon of assault axe and on the pointing out of both the convicts/appellants, Sarvan and Suman, weapon of assault axe was recovered. In this regard, no infirmity is, therefore, found in the decision of the trial court. The conviction of each of the convicts/appellants is hereby upheld.
Coming to the aggravating circumstances, the Court also found that convict/appellant Sarvan had committed murder of not only his wife but also his three minor children and two of his neighbours. Postmortem reports disclose brutal, grotesque, diabolical murder, which clearly reflects the mindset of convict/appellant Sarvan.
“The present incident was committed when convict/appellant Sarvan had an illicit relationship with his bhabhi (sister-in-law). The manner in which offence was committed and also the magnitude of crime, in our view, places the matter in the category of anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of crime. We concur with the finding of Trial Court that six persons were murdered by convict/appellant Sarvan in most brutal, grotesque, diabolical and dastardly manner arousing indignation and abhorrence of society which calls for an exemplary punishment. Three minor children including their mother and two of his neighbours have been murdered by convict/appellant Sarvan when they were helpless and nothing is on record to show that they aggravated the situation so as to arise sudden and grave passion on the part of convict/appellant Sarvan to commit such dastardly crime. Convict/ appellant Sarvan has also not shown any remorse or repentance at any point of time, inasmuch as, he attempted to hide the weapon in the house of his bhabhi (appellant Suman). In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, we find no remorse on the part of convict/appellant Sarvan rather he admitted his guilt that he had an illicit relationship with his bhabhi (sister-in-law) and his wife objected to this, on account of which, scuffle often took place between them and his neighbour Madhuri used to intervene between them, upon which he remained unhappy with her. The above conduct, attitude and manner in which murder of four persons of his family and two persons of his neighbours was committed by convict/appellant Sarvan shows that convict/appellant Sarvan is a menace to the Society and if he is not awarded death penalty, others members of the Society may not be safe. He slayed six lives to quench his thirst. The entire incident is extremely revolting and shocks the collective conscience of the community. Murders were committed in gruesome, merciless and brutal manner,” the Court observed while dismissing the appeals.
In the circumstances, the court of the view that death punishment imposed upon convict/appellant Sarvan for the offence under Sections 302, 323 and 201 IPC is liable to be confirmed. Capital Case is liable to be allowed and accepted to the extent of confirmation of death penalty.
“The reference made by the trial Court under Section 366 (1) CrPC for confirmation of death punishment awarded to convict/appellant, Sarvan, for the offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby accepted and death punishment awarded to convict/appellant Sarvan in the case is hereby confirmed.
It transpires that the convict/appellant Suman was on bail granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court order dated 20.12.2017. The convict/appellant Suman shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail. She shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.08.2017.
The Convict/appellant Sarvan is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.08.2017.
However, as provided under Section 415 CrPC execution of sentence of death shall stand postponed until the period allowed for preferring such appeal has expired and if an appeal is preferred within that period, until such appeal is disposed of. It is also clarified that death punishment shall only be executed in accordance with law complying with all guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court time and again,” the order reads.