IMPORTANT POINT
Although it is a case of Triple murder and assault on young children without any provocation but still it does not fall in the category of rare of the rarest cases to award extreme penalty of death. Life imprisonment and enhanced fine and increase of sentence in default of payment of fine on each count will meet ends of justice.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 326, 324 and 450-Offences under-Triple murder and causing injuries to innocent children by committing house trespass-Appellant was awarded death penalty by trial Court-High Court converted into life imprisonment-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Question of award of sentence-Whether it may be maintained as imprisonment for life and fine or respondent be sentenced to death as ordered by trial Court? (The former) (Cr.P.C. 1973-Section 357(3)-Order to pay compensation)-Appeal dismissed with modification-Case law discussed.
       Held : It is no doubt true that the incident is ghastly and deserves all condemnation, but looking to the principle laid down in numerous decisions of this Court, referred to above the case would not fall in the category of rare of the rarest cases to award extreme penalty of death. The view taken by the High Court does not call for any interference in this appeal. (Para 7)
       Held also : There cannot be any presumption about release or non-release of a prisoner. It would not be a valid consideration to inflict the extreme penalty. (Para 8)
       Held further : The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the surviving victim namely the daughter of Jagjit Singh may be awarded some compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 9)
       In the present case sentence of fine has also been imposed, as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. Out of the fine, a sum of Rs.1000/- each had been ordered to be given to the three injured persons namely Dalip Singh, Amarjit Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur. The balance amount is to go to the legal heirs of Jagjit Singh. We had heard the learned counsels for both parties on this aspect. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Gurmeet Kaur lost both her parents as well as her brother in the incident and now she is alone and would have become of marriageable age or may have to start some work of her own. She would need some money. In case she cannot be compensated, the amount of fine may be enhanced to some extent. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted that out of seven acres of land belonging to his father, same has been divided into three equal shares and some of it is also under mortgage and he has got two daughters and a son and his wife. He has also submitted that whenever respondent was released on parole he met Gurmeet Kaur and his wife also keeps on going to meet her. Their relations are normal and cordial. If that is so, nothing better can be thought of in the prevailing circumstances. However, we are not considering for awarding any compensation to Gurmeet Kaur under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. but the amount of fine imposed, can in any case be reasonably enhanced. Therefore, while declining to impose penalty of death in place of imprisonment of life on respondent-Gurmej Singh as prayed on behalf of the appellant-the State of Punjab and dismissing their appeal and upholding sentence of life imprisonment on all three counts under Section 302 IPC, enhance the amount of fine from Rs. 5000/- to Rs.20000/- on each count. Besides the amount payable as per the directions of the Trial Court, the enhanced amount of fine shall also be paid to Gurmeet Kaur, daughter of Jagjit Singh. We also modify sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and enhance it to two years rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine on each count. (Paras 10 & 11)
       Held finally : Subject to the modifications indicated in the preceding paragraph, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-This appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab High Court, declining to accept the reference for confirmation of death sentence, as awarded against the respondent-Gurmej Singh by the Court of Sessions. The appeal, preferred by the accused Gurmej Singh against his conviction, was however, dismissed upholding his conviction. The sentence, thus was commuted from one of death to imprisonment for life. The question, therefore, is confined to the award of the sentence whether it may be maintained as imprisonment for life or the respondent be sentenced to death as ordered by the Trial Court.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the accused respondent-Gurmej Singh is brother of the deceased Jagjit Singh. It is said that while in Dubai, Gurmej Singh had been sending money to his brother Jagjit Singh. Gurmej Singh had also been running business of dairy farming in the village and used to give his land on contract basis. Jagjit Singh has been living in the village.

3. The prosecution case about the occurrence is that on November 1, 1993, at about 11.00 p.m. Gurmej Singh assaulted his brother Jagjit Singh at their house in village Manuke, as well as wife of his brother Charanjit Kaur, their son Swaranjit Singh, daughter Gurmeet Kaur and Amarjit Kaur daughter of the sister of Charanjit Kaur. PW-5 Dalip Singh, who is father-in-law of the deceased Jagjit Singh and father of Charanjit Kaur, happened to be staying there on that day at the house of Jagjit Singh. He got up on hearing the commotion and asked Gurmej Singh not to assault, upon which Gurmej Singh assaulted Dalip Singh as well. It is further said that since the handle of the kirpan got broken, Gurmej Singh picked up a dah and continued the assault with the said dah. The witnesses raised alarm and other people arrived at the spot. As a result of the assault three persons died viz. Jagjit Singh, his wife Charanjit Kaur and Swaranjit Singh, their son. Dalip Singh, Gurmeet Kaur- minor daughter of Jagjit Singh and Amarjeet Kaur- daughter of sister of Charanjit Kaur, received injuries. Thereafter, report was lodged by PW-5 Dalip Singh the complainant and after usual investigation, respondent-Gurmej Singh and his wife both were charge-sheeted. After the trial, respondent-Gurmej Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC on three counts for the three murders and sentenced to death on each count with a fine of Rs. 5000/- also on each count, in default of payment of fine, to go rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The other sentences which have been awarded, are as follows :

1. Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to Gurmeet Kaur Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

2. Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to Amarjit Kaur. Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

3. Under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Gurmeet Kaur. Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

4. Under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Amarjit Kaur. Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

5. Under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Dalip Singh Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

6. Under Section 450 of the I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 755

Cases Referred (6)