1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder committed within a jail facility using a sharp-edged weapon. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 784
1997(4) Supreme 307
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Krishan -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1997
Decided on 1-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Satyapal Khushal Chand, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Prem Malhotra, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Felonious propensity of an offender is a factor which requires consideration while dealing with question of imposition of sentence of death but that cannot be made the sole basis for such sentence.
Felonious propensity of an offender is a factor which requires consideration while dealing with question of imposition of sentence of death but that cannot be made the sole basis for such sentence.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Sentence-Appellant, a life convict, committed murder of an undertrial, his brother-in-law by inflicting two blows with kassi on his head-Concurrent findings of Courts below based on cogent and convincing reasons-Courts below awarded death sentence-Felonious propensity of offender though was a factor required to be considered but could not be the sole basis-Other factors like motive, manner and magnitude were to be taken into consideration-This was not one of the rarest of rare cases for death sentence-Sentence reduced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-.
Held : Coming now to the sentence we find that the principal reason which weighed with the Courts below to hold that the extreme penalty of death was called for, was that earlier the appellant had committed a murder for which he was serving the sentence of life imprisonment at the material time and that he committed another murder while he was released on parole. Undoubtedly, felonious propensity of an offender is a factor which requires consideration while dealing with the question of imposition of the sentence of death but that cannot be made the sole basis for such sentence as all other factors relating to the commission of the crime including motive, manner and magnitude have also to be taken into consideration. Taking an overall view of the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case we do not feel that this is one of the rarest of the rare cases where the appellant should be sentenced to death. We, therefore, commute the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant for his conviction under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life, but maintain the sentence of fine of Rs. 5000/- and the sentence to be undergone in default of payment thereof. (Para 10)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claimed false implication and asserted he was attempting to provide medical aid to the victim rather than attacking him. (Para 7 )
3. Ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports and prompt FIR registration justifies the concurrent findings of the lower courts. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Felonious propensity of an offender is a relevant factor in sentencing but cannot be the sole basis for imposing the death penalty. (Para 10 )
5. Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment; fine maintained. (Para 10 )
6. Can a prior history of murder be the sole basis for imposing a death sentence?
No. While felonious propensity is a factor for consideration, it cannot be the sole basis for a death sentence. The court must evaluate the motive, manner, and magnitude of the crime to determine if it falls within the rarest of rare cases. (Para 10 )
7. What constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for murder?
A conviction is sustained when the ocular version of natural, probable, and independent witnesses is amply corroborated by medical evidence and a promptly lodged First Information Report. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER
Consequent upon dismissal of his appeal by the High Court Krishan, the appellant herein, stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death for committing the murder of Ranbir, his brother-in-law, on October 23, 1994 inside District Jail, Sonepat, where the former was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life and the latter was an under-trial prisoner.
2. According to the prosecution case on the fateful day at or about 10.45 A.M. when the deceased was getting himself shaved by Ram Phal (P.W. 3), who is a barber by profession and at the material time was serving a sentence, in Barrack No. 3 of the Jail, the appellant came there with kassi (spade) in his hand and inflicted two successive blows on the head of Ranbir, with whom he had a property dispute as a result of which he fell down and started bleeding profusely. Ram Phal raised an alarm which attracted the attention of Head Constable Some Nath, who was on duty nearby. Ram Phal and Som Nath chased the appellant who had fled away in the meantime with the kassi, and nabbed him with great difficulty. They snatched the kassi from him and put him inside Barrack No. 4. They then went to Shri Ashok Kumar (PW 4), Assistant Superintendent of the Jail and narrated the incident and also handed over the kassi to him. Shri Ashok Kumar then arranged a vehicle to shift Ranbir to the General Hospital, Sonepat. There Ranbir was examined by Dr. R.R. Mittal, (PW1) and he found the following :
"1. Incised would in front of the left pinna extending upto mid-line of vault of skull which was 12 x 1 cms. x bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present and brain matter was coming out of the injury and
2. Incised wound on the skull from its middle to parieto-temporal region measuring 10 x 1 cms x bone deep with fresh bleeding. Brain matter was coming out of the injury. X-ray was advised in respect of skull and surgical opinion was sought.
3. According to the doctor, both the aforesaid injuries could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like kassi. The doctor sent a ruqa (Ext. PB) to In-charge, Police Post General Hospital, Sonepat, at 12 noon.
4. On receipt of a telephonic message from the city Police Station, S.I. Ami Singh (PW 8), who was then posted as In-charge Police Post, Gohama Road, Sonepat, first went to General Hospital, Sonepat, where he came to learn that Ranbir Singh had since been referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Thereafter, he came to District Jail, Sonepat, where Chander Singh (PW 7), made a statement (Ext. PG) regarding the incident. He forwarded the said statement for registration of a case and took up investigation. Thereafter, S.I. Ami Singh recorded the statements of Ram Phal, Som Nath and Ashok Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He took possession of the kassi (Ext. P1) from Ashok Kumar and seized some blood stained earth from the place of incident. He also prepared a rough site plan (Ext. P1).
5. In the night intervening 26/27th of October, 1994 the Investigation Officer received a message from Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak that Ranbir Singh had since died. On receipt of this message, S.I. Ami Singh reached there along with H.C. Dhera Singh and Constable Suresh Kumar and conducted inquest proceedings (Ext. PX). He then sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. A.P. Sharma (PW 10) in Civil Hospital, Rohtak and he noted two stitched wounds on his person corresponding to the medico-legal report. According to the doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The appellant who was already lodged in District Jail, Sonepat as a convict in some other murder case was put under arrest by S.I. Ami Singh. On 23.10.1994, S.I. Ami Singh had deposited the Kassi Ext. P.1 duly sealed in a packet and another packet containing blood stained earth with the Moharrir Malkhana Randhir Singh and on 16.11.1994 the said Head Constable Randhir Singh handed over the same du
