Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ragho Mani vs State Of U.P.

Supreme Court4 August 1975P.N. Bhagwati · R.S. Sarkaria · Y.V. Chandrachud

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where two persons are jointly convicted of murder but one has a stronger and more direct motive for the crime than the other, has made specific threats to kill the victim, and has inflicted the fatal injury on a vital part of the body from close range causing extensive damage, that person may be sentenced to death while the other is sentenced to life imprisonment, notwithstanding that both are equally guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

JUDGMENT
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.

1. The appellant Ragho Mani and one Nanhey were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda on the charge that on the night between 26th and 27th June, 1972, they committed the murder of one Raj Mani. The learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Section 302 of the Penal Code, The appellant was sentenced to death whereas Nanhey was sentenced to imprisonment for life. In appeal the High Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court, but the leave is restricted to the question of sentence only.

2. The ease of the prosecution briefly, is that when the deceased Raj Mani was sleeping in his court-yard, two unknown persons fired shots at him. In order to save himself. Raj Mani started running away but he was overpowered. Thereafter the appellant and Nanhey fired shots at him from a close range. Injury No. 1 which had caused extensive damage to the face and the brain of Raj Mani is attributed to the appellant while injury No. 6 which was found on the abdomen is stated to have been caused by Nanhey.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the appellant is a young man of 28 years of age: that he is no more guilty than Nan hey and if Nanhey was sentenced to imprisonment for life there is no reason why he should be sentenced to death and thirdly, that almost two years have elapsed since the Sessions Court gave its judgment and therefore the sentence of death should be reduced to that of imprisonment for life. We find it impossible to accept this contention. It is the appellant, more than Nanhey, who had a strong and direct motive for committing the crime. Then again it is the appellant who had given the threat to Raj Mani that he will kill him. Lastly, the appellant fired a shot at Raj Mani from a very close range on a vital part of the body like the head. The appellant almost pumped a shot into Raj Mani's face and head. The evidence shows that the shot caused extensive damage to the brain and the face leading to Raj Mani's death. 4. We, therefore, confirm the sentence of death imposed on the appellant and dismiss the appeal.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free