0% found this document useful (0 votes)
165 views8 pages

Ipc Case Analysis

This case analyzes the murder of Raji Ram and others by the appellant Surja Ram in Rajasthan, India. Surja Ram killed his brother Raji Ram, his two young sons, his elderly aunt, and attempted to kill his brother's wife and daughter while they slept. The main issues were whether this constituted one of the "rarest of rare cases" warranting the death penalty under Indian law. The appellant argued the crimes were not cruel or barbaric enough, while the respondent argued the extreme brutality against helpless victims warranted the death penalty. The Supreme Court of India upheld the death penalty, finding the offenses qualified as one of the rarest of rare cases justifying capital punishment.

Uploaded by

Alister K
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
165 views8 pages

Ipc Case Analysis

This case analyzes the murder of Raji Ram and others by the appellant Surja Ram in Rajasthan, India. Surja Ram killed his brother Raji Ram, his two young sons, his elderly aunt, and attempted to kill his brother's wife and daughter while they slept. The main issues were whether this constituted one of the "rarest of rare cases" warranting the death penalty under Indian law. The appellant argued the crimes were not cruel or barbaric enough, while the respondent argued the extreme brutality against helpless victims warranted the death penalty. The Supreme Court of India upheld the death penalty, finding the offenses qualified as one of the rarest of rare cases justifying capital punishment.

Uploaded by

Alister K
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

CCE COMPONENT- I

Surja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

CMR UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES
2022-2023

Name of the Teacher: Mrs. Vidya Selvamony


Name of the Student: Alister K
Date: 10/04/2023
Sem/Program: 2nd Semester, LL.B
Course Name: Law of Crimes 1
Name of the case: Surja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
Case number: Clr.A. No.-001727-001727/ 1996
Parties : Petitioner: Surja Ram
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Bench : Ray, G.N. (J)
Nanavati G.T. (J)
Citation : (1996) 6 SCC 271
Judgment Date: 25, September, 1996
Court : Supreme Court of India
Act : Section 302, 307, 450 of Indian Penal Code.

INTRODUCTION TO THE POINT OF LAW


In this case, Section 302, Section 307, Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code were opted. The
Indian Penal Code's Section 302 addresses how a murderer who is found guilty will be punished.
Under this clause, the defendant will be tried. If the accused is found guilty of the offense at trial,
he is sentenced in accordance with Section 302's guidelines. According to this Section, a
murderer will be sentenced to either life in prison or the death penalty in addition to a fine,
depending on how heinous the offense was. In murder cases, the accused's intention and
motivation are crucial considerations. Section 307 of Indian Penal Code defines attempt to
murder, The crime of attempted murder is almost as serious as the offense of murder, but there is
only one difference between the two: murder occurs when the accused intentionally causes the
victim's death, whereas attempted murder refers to an unsuccessful attempt to do so. Section 450
of the Indian Penal Code defines House-trespass in order to commit an offense punishable
with imprisonment for life.

FACTS OF THE CASE


● The accused appellant, his two brothers Dalip Ram and Raji Ram, who had since
passed away, all resided in the same Anata compound in their respective residential
units. The deceased Raji Ram and Dalip Ram used to live on the northern and
southern sides of the compound, respectively, while the accused appellant used to live
in the center of the same enclosure. The accused's brothers and dad both lived in
Punjab. Joint property had been divided between the brothers. In such a division, the
deceased Raji Ram received 14 killa of land, while the accused and Dalip Ram each
received 13 killa.

● A land issue existed between the brothers about six to seven months before the
murder occurred. The accused wanted to build a wire fence in the compound about
five or six days before the incident, but Raji Ram objected.

● The deceased's other brother, Dalip Ram, and his wife were both sound asleep in their
courtyard. The exterior room of Raji Ram's housing unit was where he and his two
boys, Ramesh and Naresh, were sleeping. In their courtyard, Raji Ram's wife Phoola
Devi, their child Sudesh, and Niko Pai, the sister of Raji Ram's father, were all sound
asleep. The accused’s wife Imarti was sound asleep in Surja Ram's courtyard.

● After finishing his lunch, the appellant walked out of the house. Dalip Ram heard
Sudesh crying at around 2:30 in the morning. When he came out, he saw that their
accuser, Surja Ram, was standing there and striking Sudesh with a kassi.

● It has been established that Sudesh fell in the courtyard and suffered major damage to
her neck. Niko and Phoola were also discovered laying severely hurt. However,
Phoola was found gasping for air and Niko was already dead. When Dalip Ram
entered the room, he discovered Raji Ram and his son Naresh lying dead, along with
Ramesh, the other son, who was still alive but in grave condition.
ISSUES
In this case, the main concern was that:
● Whether the "the rarest of the rare cases" standard established in the case of Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab, which was cited for imposing the death sentence in an
Indian murder case, might be used to impose the death penalty on Macchi Singh and
other offenders.
● What standard procedures should be used to determine the "rarest of rare cases"
criteria for inflicting the death penalty?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:


● The learned attorney for the accused-appellant has argued that even though the
appellant killed his own brother, his two young sons, and his Bua while they were
asleep, attempted to kill his brother's wife, and killed his brother's daughter, he did not
act cruelly or barbarically and did not torture any of them prior to the murder or
attempted murder.
● Although it is regrettable that the appellant killed his brother, his two young sons, the
elderly aunt, and tried to kill his brother's wife and daughter, the learned counsel has
argued that it should be remembered that the appellant felt deeply hurt by his brother
Raji Ram's actions because of a disagreement with him regarding a land matter.
● The knowledgeable attorney for the appellant has further argued that once life ends, it
cannot be brought back. Therefore, it is very important to give a very cautious and
serious thought to whether or not such a severe penalty as death, which will end the
accused's life, should be awarded in a case.
● The experienced attorney has further argued that while the number of victims is an
important factor in determining the seriousness of a crime, it is not the only factor in
determining whether to impose the death penalty as the harshest penalty for murder.
Unless the accused's crime can be categorically classified as one of the rarest of rare
cases, the death penalty should not be imposed as the harshest penalty.
● He has consequently argued that the death penalty should be abolished and the
punishment should be converted to a life sentence.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

● However, the learned counsel for the State disagreed with the appellant's arguments
that the crime committed by the accused did not qualify as one of the rarest of rare
circumstances for whom the death penalty is appropriate.
● Even if it is assumed that the appellant felt wronged as a result of this debate and
became outraged, the murders were not committed right away, when the accused
might have lost his or her normal state of mind.
● It is clear that the accused did not commit the alleged crime as a result of a serious
provocation or an emotional breakdown; rather, because he was determined to kill off
his brother's entire family, he chose the dead of night, when they were all fast asleep
and completely defenseless, as the most suitable time to carry out the heinous
murders.
● The defense attorney for the State has further argued that even if the accused had
reason to feel resentful towards his brother—despite the fact that there was no such
dispute at the time—because of a land dispute or because the brother had resisted
efforts to build a fence around their apartment complex, there was no justification for
the accused to kill the two innocent, young sons of his brother who were asleep at the
time of the murder.
● The learned attorney has argued that the killing of helpless innocent people with such
extreme brutality is bound to shock the conscience of the community, and that the cry
of the community for justice and a fair punishment for the criminal cannot be met by
showing any sympathy for the accused when there is no real mitigating circumstance
in his or her favour. As a result, he has argued that there is no need to interfere with
the accused's death sentence.

JUDGEMENT
The judges believe that given the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused's offence
qualifies as one of the rarest of the rare, making the death penalty the most appropriate
punishment. The judges conclude that there is no justification for altering the appellant's
death sentence, which has been upheld by the High Court. Both the jail petition and this
appeal are dismissed.
ANALYSIS
In the world we live in today, crime rates are steadily rising. There have been more
homicides, kidnappings, rapes, terrorist attacks, and incidents involving child abuse. The
World Population Review of 2022 estimates that India has an overall crime rate of 44.43.
Laws and punishments to discourage and prevent crime must be implemented right away in
such a situation. One of the major tenets of modern civilization, punishment is the use of
coercion to uphold the law of the state. To keep law and order in society, the state must
punish violators. Executing a person who has been found guilty of murder and sentenced to
death by a court of law constitutes capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty.
Executions carried out extrajudicially without a legal process should be distinguished from
capital punishment. The terms death sentence and capital punishment are commonly
interchanged due to the possibility of commutation to life in prison. However, execution is
not always the outcome of the penalty being applied. (even when it is sustained on appeal).
The harshest form of punishment is referred to as "Capital Punishment." The harshness of the
punishment was entirely up to the monarch of the state because there was no formal law or
code that supervised these offenses in the past. Modern views of punishment developed over
time, and the state was granted the authority to uphold law and order as well as voluntary
control over our rights. The penalties might be anything from fines and jail time to the death
penalty and life in prison. The "death penalty," usually referred to as "capital punishment," is
currently the toughest or most severe punishment. The goal of the death sentence is to
prevent people from acting in a certain way by making them fearful of the repercussions.
This penalty is imposed for serious and traumatic crimes against society as a whole,
including murder, rape, rape in conjunction with murder, etc. When a crime is so heinous
that it has the potential to terrorize society as a whole, the death penalty is applied, however
not all of the crimes listed above necessarily call for the death sentence. Only offenses that
meet the criteria for the "rarest of rare doctrine" are subject to the death penalty.

In this case, Surja Ram’s intention to kill his brother, his two minor sons and his bua is very
narrow since there is no sense of humane character. The Court responds to the public's
demand for justice against the criminal by imposing the proper punishment. Justice requires
that courts administer punishment that is appropriate for the crime committed in order to
reflect the general public's disgust with the wrongdoing. The rights of the victim of the crime
and the society must also be taken into consideration by the court when determining the
proper punishment to impose. The characteristics and gravity of the offense, but not the
offender, which are relevant for determining the right sentence in a criminal prosecution. If
the proper punishment is not given for a crime that has been committed not only against the
specific victim but also against the society to which the offender and victim belong, the court
will have failed in its responsibility. The punishment for a crime must not only be
appropriate and consistent with the atrocity and brutality of the crime's commission, the
gravity of the crime warranting the public's disgust, and the society's call for justice against
the offender, but it also must not be irrelevant. It is true that the appellant has never before
been found guilty of another crime. Such a fact barely qualifies as a mitigating circumstance
in the appellant's favor that would overcome all the aggravating factors and the context in
which the murders were committed. Reformist and dissuasive philosophies of punishment
combine to create the basis of Indian criminal law. Applying penalties to discourage
offenders is necessary, but the offender must also be given the chance to change. The courts
are required to present a thorough reason for their decision when the death penalty is applied.
And in this case the court has fully analyzed and given the judgment imposing the death
penalty with proper reasoning.
Given that it is apparent that the reformative theory of punishment has failed horribly in
India and that the rate of wrongdoing has increased, it is vital to instill the dread of death in
the minds of criminals in order to enhance the environment for the general public.

CONCLUSION
The use of the death penalty is acknowledged as a kind of retributive and preventive
punishment as well as an effective deterrent in society. Many claim that it infringes on
fundamental rights and is ineffective as a deterrent. In the Indian context, it is possible to
argue that some acts are so heinous and dreadful in character that no punishment less than
the death penalty can be thought of as fair or right.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy