Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 423 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar Choudhary v. State of Bihar

2013-03-22

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, V.N.SINHA

body2013
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. Appellant is the brother and brother-in-law of the two deceased, namely, Kalpana Jha and Rabindra Nath Jha respectively. He has filed this appeal praying, inter alia, to enhance the sentence awarded under order dated 13.2.2013 from life imprisonment to capital punishment, as according to the appellant, the manner in which the two deceased have been done to death by Respondent nos. 2 to 5 at the instance of the informant, Jai Shankar Jha and his son Prabhash Jha is so cruel that the case comes within the category of the rare of the rarest case and respondents deserve punishment of hanging until death. 3. To appreciate the aforesaid submission, one has to look into the prosecution case on the basis of which the conviction has been recorded. 4. It appears, the deceased, Rabindra Nath Jha had granted loan to Prabhash Jha for establishing brick-kiln. The loan account was maintained by his wife, Kalpana Jha in Hari Om Diary. The Informant and his son with evil design, not to pay back the loan, decided to obtain Hari Om diary from the two deceased and for such purpose engaged the respondents and instructed them to forcibly obtain Hari Om Diary from the two deceased. The informant and his son also instructed the respondents that in the event diary is not handed over by the two deceased then to kill them. In order to forcibly obtain the diary on the date of occurrence, respondents entered into the house of the two deceased and confined the wife in one room and thereafter took the husband to another room asking him to hand over the diary. On refusal of the husband to hand over the diary, he was done to death by the respondents. Soon thereafter, the other deceased i.e. the wife was also brought to the same room and asked by the respondents to hand over the diary, failing which she will also meet the same fate, which her husband has already met. 5. Aforesaid prosecution case has been found true by the court below and four respondents have been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 6. 5. Aforesaid prosecution case has been found true by the court below and four respondents have been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that as the contract killers not only killed the two deceased, but before killing them confined the two deceased in separate rooms for procuring the diary, the case comes within the category of rare of the rarest case. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, we regret not to accept the aforesaid submission, as in our view the case is a double murder of husband and wife, may be in unusual and cruel circumstances, but thereby the incident does not fall within the category of rare of the rarest case. Every murder is unusual and cruel. The appeal is dismissed. 8. Having dismissed the appeal, we grant liberty to the informant that he should be heard in the appeal filed by the accused persons against their conviction so as to persuade the Court to maintain or enhance the sentence from life imprisonment to the imprisonment for the whole life.