NDLI: Ramesh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Double murder Death Sentence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860- ss. 120-B, 457, 302, 379, 404, 201,414 and s. 34 - Double murder - RL and his wife were engaged in the business of money lending by pledging gold and silver ornaments - Robbery committed at the house-cum- shop of RL - RL and his wife found dead in the pool of blood- Four accused arrested - Trial court convicted A 1 to A 3 u/ ss. 120·8, 457, 302, 379, 404 and 201 -A 1 awarded death sentence whereas A2 and A3 sentenced to life imprisonment . Accused convicted on other counts also - A 4 convicted u/ ss. 201, 404 and 414 - High Court upheld the order passed by the trial court- On appeal by A 1 to A 3, held: A 3 found in possession of huge haul of gold weighing one kilo and cash immediately after theft - Ornaments recovered from A 2 and A 1 - There was en effort to melt the ornaments - Recovery of clothes and shoes of accused stained with human blood . Recovery of blood stained murder weapon at the instance of A 3 - Weapon was stained with human blood of blood group A which was the blood group of deceased - Clothes of deceased found stained with his own blood of blood group A. No explanation -offered by accused of this highly incriminating circumstance - Theft of the articles, ornaments more particularly, the melting apparatus machine and Katordan and tiffin on which the name of the deceased was engraved fully established - Identification of the property also established - Investigation not tainted - Though police was not able to recover ornaments in one go, but merely because recoveries were made from the same place which was already visited by the police, would not dispel the evidence of discovery and recovery - A4 was receiver of stolen property and had helped in melting of some of the gold items with the machines removed from the house of deceased - Conviction of A 1 to A3 upheld, however, no evidence as to who was the actual author of the injuries on the deceased though all the three were participants of the crime - Thus, death sentence awarded to A 3 modified to life imprisonment and life imprisonment imposed on A 1 and A2 upheld - Sentence/ Sentencing.Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Award of Commission of double murder - Award of death sentence to A 3 by courts below - On appeal held: Though it was a double murder, but it could not be said to be brutal, grotesque and diabolical - Crime could not be said to be of enormous proportion - A 3 was not in a dominating position - It was a murder of gains - Case was purely based on circumstantial evidence - No definite evidence about the acts on the part of each of the accused - Difficult to say that A 3 alone was author of injuries on the deceased - A 3 was young and this was his first proved offence - It could not be said that there was no possibility of reformation of A 3 - It was not established that alternative punishment of life imprisonment would be futile and would serve no purpose - Also, it could not be established that hairs in the hands of the deceased belonged to A 3 - A 3 languishing in death cell for more than 6 years - Thus, death sentence is modified to life imprisonment.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 148
Petitioner	Ramesh
Respondent	State Of Rajasthan
SCR	[2011] 4 S.C.R. 585
Judgement Date	2011-02-22
Case Number	1236

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ramesh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Please Log-in to view this content

Gopal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Manoj Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Ram Deo Prasad Vs. State of Bihar

Guiram Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal

Nirmal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Subhasish Mondal @ Bijoy Vs. State of West Bengal

Bablu @ Mubarik Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Gopal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Manoj Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Ram Deo Prasad Vs. State of Bihar

Guiram Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal

Nirmal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Subhasish Mondal @ Bijoy Vs. State of West Bengal

Bablu @ Mubarik Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Vs. State of Rajasthan