- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sonu Sardar v. State Of Chhattisgarh .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 26 November 2004, Shamim Akhtar—a scrap dealer from Village Cher, District Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh—sold scrap in Raipur and returned home with ₹1,70,000 in cash. That evening the appellant, Sonu Sardar, along with Ajay Singh @ Fotu and three unidentified accomplices, first visited Shamim’s shop to sell scrap and later returned around 7 p.m. to Shamim’s residence. After forcing their way inside, they demanded money, restrained Shamim and his driver Asgar Ali at knifepoint, and terrorised the family. Shamim’s daughter, ten-year-old Shabana, escaped and spent the night at a neighbour’s house. At dawn, Shabana, accompanied by the neighbours, discovered the bodies of Shamim, his wife Ruksana Bibi, their children Yakub (7) and Kumari Rana (9), and the driver Asgar Ali. Substantial cash was missing.
The police registered an FIR, conducted an investigation that included seizure of a blood-stained T-shirt and turban belonging to the appellant, an axe, a rod and a knife, and organised a Test Identification Parade in which Shabana identified the appellant and Ajay Singh. Following completion of investigation, Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2006 was held before the Sessions Judge, Koriya, Baikunthpur. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (dacoity with murder) and sentenced him to death, finding the case to fall within the “rarest of rare” category. The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Reference No. 1/2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 240/2008, confirmed both conviction and sentence. The present judgment decides the appellant’s further appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the conviction of the appellant, which rests substantially on the identification evidence of a ten-year-old eyewitness (PW 1 Shabana) and corroborative forensic/material evidence, is sustainable in law.
- Whether the facts and circumstances satisfy the “rarest of rare” standard so as to justify the death penalty under Section 396 IPC, or whether the sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The conviction is based almost exclusively on the testimony of a minor child witness whose capacity to make a reliable identification is doubtful.
- The appellant’s name does not appear in the FIR, which was lodged on the information supplied by the same witness, undermining her reliability.
- Relying on Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 3 SCC 685, the defence argued that where the individual role of the accused is uncertain, imposition of the death penalty is unwarranted and life imprisonment should be substituted.
- The trial court failed to furnish sufficiently elaborate reasons for awarding the death sentence, allegedly contravening the mandate of Section 354(3) CrPC.
State’s Arguments
- The testimony of PW 1 is consistent, stood firm in cross-examination, and is corroborated by PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4, all of whom heard her state immediately after the incident that one assailant was a “Sardar”.
- PW 1 had prior familiarity with the appellant, who had visited the family’s shop 5–6 times, strengthening her ability to identify him.
- Recovery of a blood-stained axe and iron rod pursuant to the appellant’s statement, as well as blood-stained clothing seized from him, corroborate his active participation.
- Citing Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand (2004) 2 SCC 338, Atbir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1 and similar authorities, the State contended that the brutality of murdering five persons, including two children, meets the threshold for capital punishment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 3 SCC 685 | Death sentence should not be imposed where the specific role of the accused in causing fatal injuries is unclear. | Distinguished: the Supreme Court held the appellant’s lead role was clearly established; therefore, the mitigating rationale in Ramesh did not apply. |
| Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand (2004) 2 SCC 338 | Punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. | Cited by State; the Court accepted that the multiple brutal murders warranted proportionate punishment in the form of death. |
| Atbir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1 | Preventing escape of victims and committing multiple murders inside a house are aggravating factors justifying capital punishment. | Relied upon to characterise the appellant’s conduct—bolting the door and murdering five persons—as an aggravating circumstance. |
| Sunder Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 10 SCC 611 | Premeditated, cold-blooded multiple murders motivated by greed constitute “rarest of rare” cases meriting death penalty. | Used as an analogous precedent; the Court found the present facts “no different” and adopted the same reasoning to affirm death sentence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first assessed the reliability of PW 1’s identification. It observed that:
- PW 1 had prior acquaintance with the appellant through repeated business dealings and identified him in a properly conducted Test Identification Parade involving ten persons.
- Her immediate post-incident statements to PW 2 and PW 4 describing one offender as a “Sardar” lent spontaneous corroboration.
- Physical evidence—blood-stained turban and T-shirt of the appellant, and recovery of an axe and iron rod with human blood pursuant to his disclosure—corroborated her testimony.
- Forensic reports (Ext. P-61) confirmed human blood on those items and on the deceased, linking the appellant to the crime scene.
Weighing this corpus of evidence, the Court concluded that the conviction did not rest solely on a child witness but on a “clinching chain” of oral, documentary and scientific proof establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Turning to sentence, the Court reviewed the special reasons recorded by the trial court under Section 354(3) CrPC, which highlighted the premeditated nature of the crime, the brutality inflicted on helpless victims—including two children—and the absence of any provocation. Finding no mitigating circumstances, and noting the appellant’s “lead role” in demanding money and orchestrating the violence, the Court held that the case typifies the “rarest of rare” doctrine. It distinguished Ramesh on the facts and found stronger parity with Sunder Singh and Atbir. Consequently, the Court affirmed the capital sentence.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed; Conviction and Death Sentence under Section 396 IPC Affirmed.
Immediate Effect: The appellant’s conviction stands final and the sentence of death, having passed the confirmation process, remains executable subject to any further clemency petition.
Broader Implications: While the judgment applies settled principles governing child-witness credibility and capital sentencing, it underscores that multiple homicides committed with premeditation for pecuniary gain will ordinarily attract the death penalty, especially where corroborative forensic evidence exists. No new doctrinal departure was announced, but the decision reinforces the stringency with which courts evaluate “rarest of rare” circumstances.
A.K Patnaik, J.— These are appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2008 confirming the conviction of the appellant and the death penalty imposed on him under Section 396 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).
2. The prosecution case very briefly is that on 26-11-2004, Shamim Akhtar (for short “Shamim”), a scrap dealer and a resident of Village Cher, District Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh, had gone to Raipur for selling scrap. He sold the scrap and received cash of Rs 1,70,000 and returned to his house with the cash. His wife, Ruksana Bibi, kept the cash in different places of her house, which was to be deposited in the bank the next day. At about 6.00 p.m on 26-11-2004, Sonu Sardar, the appellant herein and Ajay Singh alias Fotu along with three other persons came with scrap to the shop of Shamim and left after selling the scrap for Rs 480. The appellant and Ajay Singh and three other persons, however, returned at about 7.00 p.m on the same day and knocked on the door of the house of Shamim. When the door was opened, the appellant and Ajay Singh and three other persons demanded money from Shamim. One of these five persons then bolted the door from inside and two other persons caught hold of Asgar Ali, driver of Shamim, and one of them caught hold of Shamim. They kept a knife on the neck of Shamim and compelled him to give cash which he was having in his pocket.
3. Shabana Khatun (for short “Shabana”), the daughter of Shamim, who was present inside, tried to fight but an attempt was made by the appellant and his people to assault her and she somehow escaped through the back door and went to the house of Ramlal, a kilometre away from the house of Shamim. Shabana told Ramlal about the incident at her house and when Ramlal wanted to go to their house, Shabana asked him not to go because she was afraid that Sonu Sardar and others may kill him.
4. That night Shabana stayed at the house of Ramlal and next morning at about 4-5 a.m, Shabana, Ramlal and his wife Dhanpatbai came to the house of Shamim and found that Yakut and Asna, 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter of Shamim, were crying near the dead bodies of Shamim, Ruksana Bibi, Yakub and Kumari Rana, 7-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter of Shamim. Shabana then went to Baikunthpur and narrated the incident to her uncle, Nasim Akhtar, who reported the matter to the police. The police reached the spot and the FIR was lodged. The dead bodies were sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Baikunthpur, and a team led by Dr Ashok Kumar carried out the post-mortem.
5. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded statements of several persons under Section 161 CrPC. The appellant and his co-accused, Ajay and Chhoti Bai, were arrested but the other persons absconded after commission of crime. Bloodstained T-shirt and turban of the appellant and an axe with broken handle, a rod and a knife were seized. Test identification parade was carried out on 1-12-2004 in which Shabana identified the appellant as well as Ajay as two of the five persons who had come to the house of Shamim on 26-11-2004 and were demanding money. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2006 was conducted by the Sessions Judge, Koriya, Baikunthpur (Chhattisgarh).
6. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 38 witnesses. Shabana was examined as PW 1, Ramlal was examined as PW 2, Nasim Akhtar was examined as PW 3 and Dhanpatbai was examined as PW 4. Dr Ashok Kumar was examined as PW 36 and the investigating officer was examined as PW 37. A large number of documents and the seized articles were also exhibited.
7. The trial court recorded the statements of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments, the trial court held that it was clear from the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 that the appellant had committed the dacoity at the house of Shamim between 7.00 p.m of 26-11-2004 and 4.00 a.m of 27-11-2004 and thereafter committed murder of Shamim, Asgar, Ruksana Bibi, Yakub and Kumari Rana with rod, knife and axe and that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant under Section 396 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. After hearing the counsel for the parties on the question of sentence, the trial court also held that the case falls in the category of the rarest of rare cases and imposed the sentence of death on the appellant. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 396 IPC, and also the sentence of death.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been convicted on the sole testimony of Shabana (PW 1), a ten-year-old child who could not have identified the appellant as one of the five persons who committed the dacoity and murder on the night of 26-11-2004. She submitted that it is on the information received from PW 1 that PW 3 had lodged the FIR, but in the FIR the appellant has not been named. She argued that had PW 1 known the appellant, she would have told PW 3 the name of the appellant and PW 3 would have mentioned the name of the appellant in the FIR. She submitted that it will therefore not be safe for this Court to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
9. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that although PW 1 is a minor, her evidence was reliable and she had stood the test of cross-examination. He further submitted that PW 1 narrated the incident not only to PW 3, but also to PW 2 and PW 4 and the evidence of PW 2 and PW 4 would show that PW 1 had clearly mentioned that out of the five persons, who had committed the dacoity and murder on the night of 26-11-2004, there was a Sardar. He further submitted that PW 1 has also stated in her evidence that the appellant had gone to her father's shop 5 to 6 times before 26-11-2004 to sell scrap and hence she could identify him as one of the five persons who had committed the dacoity and murder on the night of 26-11-2004. Moreover, at the time of the test identification parade conducted by the Magistrate (PW 11), PW 1 identified the appellant as one of the five persons, who had come to the house of Shamim on 26-11-2004 and were demanding money. He submitted that the evidence of PW 1 that the appellant participated in the dacoity and murder on 26-11-2004 is corroborated by the recovery of the iron rod and axe on the statement of the appellant and by the fact that the seized T-shirt and turban of the appellant were bloodstained.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that during investigation a test identification parade was carried out on 1-12-2004 and out of the ten persons who were presented, the appellant and Ajay Singh alias Fotu were identified by PW 1 as the two persons, who were amongst the five persons who had come to the house of Shamim and were demanding money from him. From the evidence of PW 2 as well as the evidence of PW 4, we find that PW 1, soon after she escaped from the house of Shamim, has mentioned that one of the five persons who had gone to the house of Shamim was a Sardar. In her cross-examination, PW 1 has stated that she knew the appellant as he had come to their house for selling scrap. Moreover, the broken axe with broken handle and iron rod (Ext. P-24) were recovered pursuant to the statement of the appellant (Ext. P-16).
11. PW 36, Dr Ashok Kumar, after narrating the injuries on the dead bodies of Shamim, Asgar Ali, Ruksana Bibi, Yakub and Kumari Rana, has opined that the death has been on account of shock as a result of fatal injuries. The injuries described by him are not only incised wounds but multiple fractures of temporal and parietal bones and on the head which could have been caused by the axe and the iron rod. The report of the forensic science laboratory (Ext. P-61) confirms presence of human blood on the clothes of the deceased persons, axe and iron rod (Ext. P-24) as well as the turban and T-shirt of the appellant (Ext. P-37) which had been seized.
12. Thus, the conviction of the appellant is not only based on the oral testimony of PW 1, but also the evidence of PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 36, the seized articles and also the report of the forensic science laboratory. It is further established from the evidence of PW 1 and the panchnama of the house of Shamim made on 28-11-2004 that only cash of Rs 65,760 was available and the remaining cash out of Rs 1,70,000 was missing. The prosecution has, in our considered opinion, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant participated in the offence of dacoity and murder and has been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 396 IPC.
13. On the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court has held in Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 3 SCC 685 that before awarding the death sentence, the trial court was expected to give elaborate reasons. She submitted that the reasons given by the trial court for awarding death sentence on the appellant were not elaborate.
14. The learned counsel submitted that in Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 3 SCC 685 this Court did not find clear evidence as to which of the three persons who participated in the crime was the actual author of the injuries on Ramlal and Shanti Devi and held that as it is difficult to say that Ramesh alone was the author of the injuries on Ramlal as well as Shanti Devi, death sentence awarded to Ramesh should be modified to life imprisonment. She submitted that in the present case also five persons have committed the offence under Section 396 IPC, and as the actual role of the appellant in the offence is not known the death sentence should be modified to life imprisonment.
15. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant has participated in the offence under Section 396 IPC, and as many as five innocent persons, including two children, have lost their lives and the trial court has given sufficient reasons for awarding death sentence to the appellant. He cited the decision of this Court in Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand (2004) 2 SCC 338 for the proposition that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed by the accused. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, since the crime was heinous in nature and resulted in the death of five persons, death sentence would be proportionate to the crime committed by the appellant.
16. The learned counsel also relied on Atbir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1 in which this Court held that preventing persons in the house to escape and committing brutal murder of as many as three persons inside the house are aggravating circumstances warranting imposition of death sentence on the accused. He submitted that in the present case also, as the appellant had closed and bolted the door to prevent the escape of any person from the house, and had then brutally murdered as many as five persons, death sentence should be imposed on the appellant.
17. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the trial court has recorded the following special reasons under Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for awarding the death sentence on the appellant:
(i) The crime was premeditated.
(ii) The crime has struck fear and terror in the public mind.
(iii) Helpless and defenceless women and two minor children aged eight and four years besides two adult men were murdered.
(iv) Asgar Ali, the driver of Shamim, who had only stopped in the house for his food, was also not spared.
(v) Taking advantage of earlier business relations with Shamim, the appellant made a friendly entry and committed the murders.
(vi) The intention was to kill all members of the family though surprisingly a six-month-old baby and a four-year-old child remained alive.
(vii) The five murders were brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly, which indicated the criminality of the perpetrators of the crime.
(viii) No physical or financial harm appears to have been caused by the deceased to the accused.
18. As against these aggravating circumstances, the trial court did not find any mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant to avoid the death penalty. This is, therefore, not one of those cases in which the trial court has not recorded elaborate reasons for awarding death sentence to the appellant as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.
19. Regarding the role of the appellant in the commission of the offence of dacoity and murder, we have already found that the turban and T-shirt of the appellant, which were seized and sent for examination to the forensic science laboratory, had presence of human blood. We have also found that the axe and the iron rod, which were recovered pursuant to the statement of the appellant, had also bloodstains. We have also found from the evidence of PW 1 that when her mother was cooking food and came out on hearing the commotion, the appellant was demanding money from her father and her father gave to the appellant all the money which he was having in his pocket.
20. There is, therefore, clear and definite evidence in this case to show that the appellant not only participated in the crime, but also played the lead role in the offence under Section 396 IPC. This is, therefore, not a case where it can be held that the role of the appellant was not such as to warrant death sentence under Section 396 IPC.
21. In a recent judgment in Sunder Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 10 SCC 611 this Court found that the accused had poured petrol in the room and set it to fire and closed the door of the room when all the members of the family were having their food inside the room and, as a result, five members of the family lost their lives and the sixth member of the family, a helpless lady, survived. This Court held that the accused had committed the crime with premeditation and in a cold-blooded manner without any immediate provocation from the deceased and all this was done on account of enmity going on in respect of the family lands and this was one of those rarest of rare cases in which death sentence should be imposed.
22. The facts in the present case are no different. Five members of a family including two minor children and the driver were ruthlessly killed by the use of a knife, an axe and an iron rod and with the help of four others. The crime was obviously committed after premeditation with absolutely no consideration for human lives and for money. Even though the appellant is young, his criminal propensities are beyond reform and he is a menace to the society. The trial court and the High Court were therefore right in coming to the conclusion that this is one of those rarest of rare cases in which death sentence is the appropriate punishment.
23. In the result, we find no merit in these appeals and we sustain the conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence of death under Section 396 IPC, and dismiss the appeals.
Alert