2006(8 )JT282, 2006 AIR 3056,2006 (5 ) Suppl.SCR643,2006(7 ) SCC442 ,2006(80 ) SCALE604 ,

The prosecution thus succeeded in proving that these appellants have committed series of murders. [654-c-e] 1.2. It is true that the evidence of the approver is always to be viewed with suspicion especially when it is seriously suspected that he is suppressing some material facts. Here the approver's evidence was not fully accepted by the High Court. High Court was of the view that he had suppressed some material facts. The observation made by the High Court was justified. The tenor of the evidence given by the approver is to the effect that he was only a silent spectator and all these heinous crimes were committed by the appellants and their mother. It is difficult to believe that these women alone had committed all the crimes unless there is strong support from the approver. [654-f-g] 1.3. The approver was given pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter he was examined as a witness for prosecution under Section 308 of the Cr.P.C. The Code prescribes a procedure for prosecuting the approver who gave false evidence or wilfully suppressed anything. [655-a-d] 1.4. In the instant case, the approver was present when many of the murders had taken place and it is quite possible that he also must have been an active participant and the High Court was justified in saying that the approver had not given full details of the crimes. The approver was moving with the two appellants for a long period and despite the repeated criminal acts committed by them, the approver did not inform the police or any authorities. Some of the children kidnapped by the appellants were in the custody of the appellants and the approver, and later their bodies were found. The post mortem examination showed that the child was subjected to some unnatural offence. The approver himself had admitted that he had bribed the police many times and saved the appellants from the clutches of law. Despite all these startling revelations, the approver could not be proceeded against and the Public Prosecutor had not taken any step to proceed against him. Under such circumstances, the court itself has inherent powers to proceed against the approver in case he is wilfully suppressing material facts or is giving false evidence. [655-d-g] 2.1. The two appellants kidnapped several children and committed their murder in the most dastardly manner. In some cases, even the body could not be found. The High Court felt that the five cases of murders have been proved against these appellants. The murder committed by the appellants are proved by satisfactory evidence. The approver's evidence is fully corroborated by other items of evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the Court of Session and confirmed by the High Court. [655-g-h; 656-a] 3. The appellants have been awarded capital punishment for committing these murders and their sentence was confirmed by the High Court. Going by the details of the case, there are no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellants, except for the fact that they are women. Further, the nature of the crime and the systematic way in which each child was kidnapped and killed amply demonstrates the depravity of the mind of the appellants. These appellants indulged in criminal activities for a very long period and very cleverly executed their plans and continued it till they were caught by the police. The appellants had been a menace to the society and the people in the locality were completely horrified and could not send their children even to schools. The appellants had not been committing these crimes under any compulsion but they took it very casually and killed all these children, least bothering about their lives or agony of their parents. Having carefully considered the whole aspects of the case and also being alive to the new trends in the sentencing system in criminology, the Court does not think that these appellants are likely to be reformed. The conviction and the death penalty imposed on them are confirmed. [656-b-e] Prem Kishan Sharma, Nitesh Kr. Singh and Aparna Bhat for the Appellants. A.P.