Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1935 OF 2011

MOHAMMAD BIN BEERANKUTTI              APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA                     RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and  

order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in  

Criminal appeal No. 569/2009 with Criminal Referred Case  

No. 03 of 2009 dated 06.09.2010. By the impugned judgment  

and order, the High Court while answering the reference has  

confirmed the conviction and death sentence passed by the  

Sessions  Judge,  Chikmagalur  in  Sessions  Case  No.  127  of  

2007.

2. The facts in extenso need not be noticed by us as  

the  same  have  been  comprehensively  noted  by  the  courts  

below.  The  background  of  the  facts  goes  to  explain  the  

genesis of the incident that took place on 18.06.2007, when  

Vyjananthi (“the deceased” for short) was standing alone  

waiting for the bus near the Kadur check post in order to  

go  to  Chikmagalur.  On  the  day  of  the  incident,  the  

appellant-  Mohammad  Bin  Beerankutti,  the  driver  of  the  

1

Page 2

taxi, with an ulterior motive to rob the deceased of her  

gold ornaments and other belongings induced the deceased to  

board the taxi for her journey to Chikmagalur. On the way  

to  Chikmagalur,  the  appellant  with  the  said  motive  had  

deliberately  stopped  the  vehicle,  and  after  killing  the  

deceased  committed  robbery.  Subsequently,  to  screen  the  

offence  and  cause  disappearance  of  the  evidence  the  

appellant had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the  

valley of Charmadi Ghat. The FIR was registered pursuant to  

the missing complaint lodged by PW-2, the daughter of the  

deceased.

3. After  completion  of  the  investigation,  the  

investigating  agency  had  filed  a  charge-sheet  for  the  

offence punishable under Sections 376, 392, 302 and 201 of  

the Indian Penal Code(“the IPC” for short). The appellant  

denied the charge framed under the aforesaid sections and  

pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the trial had commenced  

against the accused person.

4. The Trial Court after perusing the circumstantial  

evidence  on  record  and  after  noting  the  chain  of  

circumstances  in  establishing  the  offence  against  the  

appellant  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  chain  of  

circumstances had definite link, commencing from the event  

2

Page 3

of the missing of the deceased along with her belongings  

after boarding the taxi and, thereafter, the recovery of  

the dead body of the deceased and the other recoveries made  

on the basis of the information furnished by the appellant.  

The  Trial  Court,  therefore,  placing  reliance  on  the  

aforesaid evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant to  

death under Section 302 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for  

one year for the offence punishable under section 392 of  

IPC and further sentence for three years under section 201  

of IPC.

5. Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  conviction  and  

sentence  passed  by  the  Trial  Court,  the  appellant  has  

appealed before the High Court.  The High Court  vide its  

judgment  and  order  has  confirmed  the  death  sentence  so  

passed  by  the  Trial  Court  being  of  the  view  that  the  

heinous  crime  committed  by  the  appellant  falls  into  the  

category of rarest of rare cases. It is the correctness or  

otherwise of the judgment and order passed by the Courts  

below which is called in question by the appellant in this  

appeal.

6. This  Court,  while  issuing  notice,  had  confined  

this appeal only to the question of sentence. Therefore,  

the interference with the judgment and order of conviction  

and sentence passed by the courts below is not called for,  

3

Page 4

except the sentencing part of it. The only question that  

requires our consideration is whether the case would fall  

with  the  realm  of  the  rarest  of  the  rare  case  for  the  

purpose of sustaining the death sentence.  

7. With the assistance of Ms. Jyotika Kalra and Mr.  

V.N.  Raghupathy,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

parties, we have carefully perused the reasoning and the  

conclusion  reached  by  the  Courts  below  for  passing  the  

sentence of death penalty against the appellant.

8. The facts in the present case in the light of  

circumstantial evidence on record are that, the appellant  

with the motive to rob the gold ornaments of the deceased  

and in the pretext of taking her to Chikmagalur, actuated  

her  to  board  the  taxi  and  thereafter  robbed  her  gold  

jewelleries and other valuables after killing her.  Though  

it  cannot  be  disputed  that  the  appellant  driven  by  the  

avarice of monetary benefit committed the offence but in  

the absence of the manner of commission of the crime on  

record,  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  the  aforementioned  

characteristics of crime is an instance of what is called a  

diabolical  murder  so  as  to  arouse  intense  and  extreme  

indignation of the community.  

9. Insofar  as  the  conviction  solely  based  on  

4

Page 5

circumstantial evidence is concerned, the chain of events  

leading to the commission of crime should unerringly point  

towards  the  guilt  of  the  accused  but  if  the  available  

evidence on record leads to  uncertainty in the manner of  

the  commission  of  crime  then  it  requires  circumspection  

while  deciding  the  maximum  penalty  for  murder.  In  the  

instant case, the dead body of the deceased was recovered  

in a decomposed state and the manner of the commission of  

crime as to the injuries caused is not specifically stated  

in the post-mortem of the deceased, it cannot be said that  

the act committed had an element of brutality and was such  

a dastardly act so as to come to the only conclusion of  

death sentence foreclosing the alternative option of life  

imprisonment. The ambit of the rarest of the rare dictum as  

observed in the case of Ram Singh     v.     Sonia and Ors., {  2007    

3 SCC 1}; is where the case is considered to be one of the  

rarest of the rare case and imposition of death penalty is  

upheld after the  accused had not only put an end to the  

life  of  her  step  brother  and  his  whole  family  which  

included three tiny tots of 45 days, 2 - 1/2 years and 4  

years but also her own father, mother and sister in a very  

grotesque manner so as to deprive her father from giving  

the property to her step brother and his family. The fact  

that murders were committed in such a ghastly manner while  

the  victims  were  sleeping,  without  any  provocation  

5

Page 6

whatsoever  from  the  victims'  side  indicated  the  cold-

blooded  and  premeditated  approach  of  the  accused  to  

cause death of the victims.  

10. Taking a holistic view of the entire case, we are  

of the considered opinion that the present case does not  

fit into the parameters of the 'rarest of rare cases' and  

since the manner of commission of crime is not available on  

record, the nature of offence cannot be said to be brutal  

to the extent that life imprisonment as a punishment is  

futile  and  the  sentencing  aim  of  reformation  is  

unachievable.   Therefore,  while  allowing  this  appeal  in  

part, we modify the sentence to life imprisonment, which  

means, upto the end of life without any remissions by the  

State Government.          

Ordered accordingly.  

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 29, 2013.

6