2001(4) Supreme 536
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Subhash Chander -Appellant
versus
Krishan Lal & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 812-814 of 1999
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 815-16, 819-20, 817-18, 821-22, 980, 1017/99, Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2001
Decided on 29-3-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ranjit Kumar, U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocates, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sushil Kr. Jain, A.P. Jain, Ms. Anjali Doshi, A. Mishra, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Doongar Singh, V.J. Francis, P.I. Jose, Jenis Francis, A. Radhakrishnan, K.K. Mohan, Javed Mohmud Rao, A.V. Palli, Rekha Palli, Atul Sharma, Advocates.
Held : There is no denial of the fact that the accused convict-appellants, who were earlier involved in the murder of Om Prakash, son of Bhagwan Ram left no stone unturned to eliminate the whole family of said Bhagwan Ram including three eye-witnesses in that case, namely Bhagwan Ram, Sunder Ram and Subhash Chander. It is also established that the aforesaid accused persons attacked the deceased and the injured at the dead hour of the night when they were sleeping being incapable of defending themselves. The means adopted in execution of the evil designs speak of the mental condition of the accused persons whom the trial Court found to have been involved in the commission of a crime termed by it as rarest of the rare cases. The High Court, while commuting the death sentences, appears to have completely ignored various pronouncements of this court dealing with the yardsticks to be adopted while awarding the death sentence. Merely because 8 persons, convicted by the trial Court, were acquitted, by itself cannot be termed to be a justified ground for commuting the death sentence. However, as the High Court, presumably on general conspectus and upon consideration of facts of the case, found that accused persons should not be awarded with death sentence, we feel that for interfering with the discretion of the Court, further exceptional grounds are required to be made out. When two views are possible about the quantum of sentence, a view which favours the grant of life in comparison to death is generally accepted. But for the exercise of the powers by the High Court in commuting the death sentence we had some reservations about the sentence awarded vide the impugned judgment but in view of the exercise of discretion in commuting the death sentence we are not inclined to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused persons specially Vishnu (A-6), Banwari (A-7), Prithvi (A-8). (Para 17)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 57, 302/149-Conviction for murder of one family members-Sentence-Old enmity-Apprehension expressed that if desperate A-1 is not awarded death sentence, he is likely to eliminate remaining family members of deceased as is evident from his past conduct and behaviour-Submission made on behalf of A-1 that if sentenced to life imprisonment, he would never claim his premature release or commutation of his sentence on any ground-Whether admissible?-(Yes)-Held, for A-1, imprisonment for life shall be imprisonment in prison for the rest of his life-He shall not be entitled to any commutation or premature release under Section 401 Cr.P.C., Prisoners Act, Jail Manual or any other statute and the Rules made for purposes of grant of commutation and remissions. (Paras 22 and 23)
ORDER
Sethi, J.-Legends reveal and the people believe that in the ancient Indian society Bhagwan Krishna took birth to reprieve the suffering humanity from the terror let loose by the demon named Kansa. The birth of Lord Krishna, Janmasthami, is celebrated every year to commemorate the birth of truth for elimination of repression and atrocities. Ironically, thousands of years thereafter, on the day of Janmasthami in the year 1992, the accused, unfortunately named Krishna, along with others, became a devil and like vultures, pounced upon the family of Bhagwan Ram, the deceased. After committing a ghastly crime, the accused persons left the scene of occurrence, satisfied with their design of killing the whole of the family. To their misfortune, two of the injured survived who appeared against the accused as PWs 2 and 3. The deceased included Bhagwan Ram, his son Sunder Ram, and Chando Devi, his mother. Spree of killing was resorted to, for eliminating the prosecution witnesses against some of the accused persons who earlier, on 25th June, 1987, had committed the crime of murder of Om Prakash, another son of Bhagwan Ram.
2. Apparently with police connivance, the charge-sheet was filed against accused Krishan Lal and four others, namely, Bikar Singh, Mangu Singh, Major Singh and Om Prakash, the later four being not even named in the FIR or in the statements of PWs 2 and 3, recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was only on the judicial intervention that ultimately charge-sheet was filed against 12 persons including the convicted appellants. The trial Court concluded that offences under Sections 302, 307, 148, 450 read with Sections 149, 120-B and Section 307 read with Sections 149 and 120-B IPC had been proved against the accused persons, namely, Krishan Lal (A-1), Bikar Singh (A-2), Mangu Singh (A-3), Major Singh (A-4), Vishnu (A-6), Banwari (A-7), Prithvi (A-8), Brij Lal (A-9), Dhokal (A-10), Bhagirath (A-11) and Het Ram (A-12). One of the accused persons, namely, Om Prakash (A-5) was, however, acquitted. Upon conviction, the trial Court awarded death sentence to all the accused persons who were convicted under Section 302 read With Sections 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. All the convicted persons were also sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the commission of the offence under Section 307 read with Sections 149 and 120B IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 450 of the IPC. They were further sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 148 and 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. It was further directed that after recovery of fine, the full amount be paid as compensation to injured Subhash Chander (PW 2). Reference was made to the High Court for confirmation of the capital sentence awarded to the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved all the convicted persons filed appeals in the High Court. The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of Om Prakash, accused.
3. All the four appeals filed by the convicted persons and the reference arising out of the judgment of the trial Court were disposed of by a common judgment now impugned in these appeals. The High Court upheld the conviction of convicts, namely, Krishan Lal (A-1), Vishu (A-6), Banwari (A-7) and Prithvi (A-8) but commuted the death sentence to the imprisonment for life. Their appeals against the sentences in relation to other offences were rejected.
4. Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, Subhash Chander, (PW 2) has filed two sets of appeals bearing Nos. 812-814 of 1999 and 815-816 of 1999 praying for setting aside the order of acquittal and awarding of death sentence to the convicted persons as was done by the trial Court. The four convicted
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.