2010 (8) TMI 1091 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeals Denied, Death Sentences Upheld for Fatal Bus Fire; Official Accountability Emphasized

The court dismissed the appeals of A-2, A-3, and A-4, upholding their death sentences for setting a bus on fire resulting in fatalities. The sentences of ... Imposition of Death Sentence - HELD THAT:- we would like to take note of the fact that this crime occurred right in the middle of a busy city. Innocent girls trapped in a burning bus were shouting for help and only the male students from their University came to their rescue and succeeded in saving some of them. There were large number of people including the shopkeepers, media persons and on-duty police personnel, present at the place of the 'Rasta Roko Andolan', which was very close to the place of the occurrence of the crime, and none of them considered it proper to help in their rescue. In order to succeed in their mission, Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran(A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) went to the extent of sprinkling petrol in a bus full of girl students and setting it on fire with the students still inside the bus. They were fully aware that the girls might not be able to escape, when they set the bus on fire. As it happened, some of the girls did not escape the burning bus. No provocation had been offered by any of the girls. Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran(A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) did not pay any heed to the pleas made by Dr. Latha (PW1) and Akila (PW2), the teacher, to spare the girls. As a consequence of the actions of Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4), three girls stood to death and about 20 girls received burn injuries on several parts of their bodies. There can be absolutely no justification for the commission of such a brutal offence. Causing the death of three innocent young girls and causing burn injuries to another twenty is an act that shows the highest degree of depravity and brutality on the part of Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4). Thus, the manner of the commission of the offence in the present case is extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel. It is shocking to the collective conscience of society. We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the punishment of death sentence awarded to Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) by the courts below. Their appeals are liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, all the appeals are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Charges under Section 188 IPC.2. Clubbing of two crimes (Crime Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000).3. Test Identification Parade.4. Defective investigation and inquest report.5. Arrest of A-4.6. Evidence of hostile witnesses.7. Death sentence and its justification.Detailed Analysis:1. Charges under Section 188 IPC:The court examined Section 195 Cr.PC, which bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned. The court concluded that no such complaint was filed in this case, rendering the charge under Section 188 IPC invalid. However, the absence of this complaint did not invalidate the entire prosecution case, as there was ample evidence of a prohibitory order being violated and a 'Rasta Roko Andolan' taking place.2. Clubbing of Two Crimes:The court found merit in clubbing Crime Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000, as both incidents were parts of the same sequence of events. The damage to public transport vehicles and the burning of the University bus were considered part of one incident, justifying a consolidated charge sheet.3. Test Identification Parade:The court emphasized that Test Identification Parades are primarily meant for investigation purposes and corroboration of evidence. It noted that the accused were identified by witnesses both in the parade and in court. The court dismissed objections regarding the haste in conducting the parade, finding no evidence of irregularity. The identification by witnesses was deemed reliable and corroborated by the testimony of the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the parade.4. Defective Investigation and Inquest Report:The court acknowledged irregularities in the initial investigation due to the charged atmosphere but held that these did not vitiate the prosecution's case. It emphasized that defective investigation alone cannot be grounds for acquittal if the evidence is otherwise reliable.5. Arrest of A-4:The court found the evidence regarding the arrest of C. Muniappan (A-4) credible. The arrest was corroborated by police witnesses, and there was no effective cross-examination to discredit this evidence.6. Evidence of Hostile Witnesses:The court reiterated that the testimony of hostile witnesses is not to be entirely disregarded but should be scrutinized for reliability. Portions of their testimony consistent with the prosecution's case can be used. The court found that the hostile witnesses' evidence had been appropriately considered by the lower courts.7. Death Sentence:The court applied the guidelines from Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh cases, emphasizing the need for the death penalty in cases of extreme culpability and brutality. The court found that the actions of Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A-2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A-3), and C. Muniappan (A-4) in setting the bus on fire, resulting in the death of three students and injuries to others, met the criteria for the 'rarest of rare' cases. The court upheld the death sentence for these three appellants, citing the brutal and unprovoked nature of the crime.Conclusion:The appeals of Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A-2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A-3), and C. Muniappan (A-4) were dismissed, and their death sentences were confirmed. The sentences of other appellants were reduced to time already served, considering the long duration since the incident and their partial sentences already served. The court criticized the inaction of public officials and common citizens during the incident, highlighting the failure to prevent the deaths and injuries.