NDLI: Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Case based on circumstantial evidence IPC Murder of three minor children
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 364 – Murder of three minor children – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution case was that the complainant lodged missing report of his three minor children aged about 8 years, 6 years and 4 years respectively – During search, PW-8 stated that he saw the minor children along with the appellant near their school – Appellant was not found in his house and was missing even from the village – Thereafter appellant was contacted on his mobile and he told that he was 60 Kms away – Police traced the location of mobile and found him in the house of PW-13 – At the instance of appellant, dead bodies along with the school bags were recovered – Conviction by courts below – Held: Prosecution was able to prove beyond doubt that all the three minors went to the school in the morning and thereafter they left for the home at about 11.30 hours – That, thereafter, at about 12.00 hours, the appellant was seen with all the three minor children – There was a prior enmity between the appellant and the complainant father of the deceased minor children as the wife of the accused had eloped with the brother of the complainant-father and the children of the accused were without their mother – Immediately after his arrest, the dead bodies were recovered/found along with the school bags etc. from the place shown by the accused himself – The phone-calls made to the accused was established and proved by the prosecution by examining the Investigating Officer and by producing the call details from the mobile company – These chain of events led to the conclusion that the accused first kidnapped the three minor children and thereafter killed all of them – No interference with the order of conviction called for.Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Conviction and death sentence for murder of three minor children – For deciding on the issue of sentence, the aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances must be located and the right balance must be adopted – In the instant case, the mitigating factors/circumstances were that the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance – Appellant was emotionally disturbed due to the elopement of his wife with the uncle of the deceased and that his children were suffering in absence of their mother; there were no criminal antecedents; at the time of commission of the offence the appellant was 28 years of age and his conduct in prison was reported to be good; he belonged to a poor family and was the only son of his parents, and his aged mother was taking care of his daughters – On the other hand, the only aggravating circumstance pointed out by the State was the manner in which the incident took place and three minors were brutally killed – Except this, no other aggravating circumstances were pointed out on behalf of the State – Therefore, striking the balance between aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the mental condition of the appellant at the time of the commission of the offence, the mitigating circumstances are in favour of the accused to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment – Thus, the death sentence converted into the life imprisonment – It is directed that the life means till the end of the life with the further observation and direction that there shall not be any remission till the accused completes 25 years of imprisonment.Evidence: Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence – Held: The minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the minor lacuna in the investigation led by the police cannot be a reason for discarding the entire prosecution case, if the evidence is otherwise sufficient and inspiring to bring home the guilt of the accused.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.235(2) – Object and purpose – Held: The object and purpose of s.235(2) is that the accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence to be imposed on him – Sub-section (2) of s.235 satisfies a dual purpose; it satisfies the rule of natural justice by affording to the accused an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence and at the same time helps the court to choose the sentence to be awarded – There is no absolute proposition of law that in no case there can be conviction and sentence on the same day or that if the sentence is awarded on the very same day on which the conviction was recorded, the sentencing would be vitiated.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 275
Petitioner	Manoj Suryavanshi
Respondent	State Of Chhattisgarh
SCR	[2020] 4 S.C.R. 1
Judgement Date	2020-03-05
Case Number	388

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

Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Please Log-in to view this content

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Smt. Chintambaramma & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Rambraksh @ Jalim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Balkar Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Smt. Chintambaramma & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Rambraksh @ Jalim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Balkar Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh