Back
2002(6) Supreme 550
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Ruli Ram & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 887-888 of 2001
Decided on 17-9-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Prem Malhotra and Rishi Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : J.P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda and Sunder Khatri, Advocates.
Held : The plea of the learned counsel for the State that Section 304 Part II applies only when exceptions to Section 300 cover a case is misconceived. The decision in Harendra Mandal s case (supra) was rendered in a different context and observations in the same case cannot be read out of context. That was a case where death itself had not been caused and therefore, question of applying Section 304 IPC did not arise. Coming back to the factual position as noted by the courts below the conclusions rendered by the trial judge appear to be sound. He had noted several factors to conclude that the intention was not to commit murder, but to create some disturbances at the polling station in order to divert attention of the crowd collected, so that the booth capturing would be facilitated. No injuries were caused to the deceased before they were thrown in the pond, and there was no attempt to even strangulate them. However, the accused-appellants could be attributed the knowledge that the natural and proper consequences of their acts was likely to cause death. The High Court did not indicate any basis to hold that the case was covered by Section 302 IPC. There was only a casual observation that the murders were committed intentionally because relatives of the deceased did not agree to vote in favour of the accused-appellant s candidate. There is absolutely no discussion to fortify the conclusion. The inevitable result is that the proper provision to be applied is Section 304 Part II IPC. Coming to the question of sentence, we do not find any substance in the plea of accused-appellants that this is not a case where the maximum sentence was warranted. Two innocent children who were not even voters became victims of political differences of elders. Political rivalry and differences cannot extend to taking away the lives of others. Criminalisation of politics is a hot topic causing concern. The election was to a panchayat in 1988. The lives of innocent children were taken. One shudders to think what happens presently, when a large number of people lose lives in the heat of political battles for election to the legislative bodies. In a democracy, the path to power cannot be allowed to have dead bodies littered over it. It cannot be a case of capturing power (beginning with booth capturing) at any cost. The trend is dangerous and has to be curbed. In a case linked with political battles, stringent punishment is desirable without exception. Choice to vote for a candidate cannot be suppressed by intimidation. That would be against the spirit of democracy. The punishment has to be always proportionate to the crime. Punishment serves a purpose inasmuch as it acts as deterrent for those who have the propensity to take law into their own hands. The principle of proportion between crime and punishment is a principle of just desert that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable. As a principle of criminal justice it is hardly less familiar or less important than the principle that only the guilty ought to be punished. Indeed, the requirement that punishment not be disproportionately great, which is a corollary of just desert, is dictated by the same principle that does not allow punishment of the innocent, for any punishment in excess of what is deserved for the criminal conduct is punishment without guilt. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the traffic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now a single grave infraction that is thought to call for uniformly drastic measures. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences. Therefore, the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court is quite appropriate. The accused-appellants shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in respect of their conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated. (Paras 20 to 25)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Political battles are increasingly being fought with bullets and not with ballots. Innocent lives are lost and in some cases of those who have no role to play therein.
2. Two young boys, Manohar and Satish, aged about 10 and 12 years respectively (hereinafter referred to as the deceased by the respective names) lost their lives allegedly on account of one such battle. The two accused-appellants Ruli Ram and his son Ramesh were said to be responsible for taking away their lives. The trial court i.e. the Court of Sessions at Hissar held the accused-appellants guilty under Section 304 Part II of Indian Panel Code, 1860 (in short IPC ). In appeal by the State a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh held that the accused-appellants were to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. The trial court awarded sentence of 10 years R.I. imprisonment; but the High Court substituted it by imprisonment of life.
3. Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution version is as follows:
On 2.8.1988 Datta Ram PW2 lodged first information report alleging that while two young boys (his grandsons) were playing by the side of a pond, they were thrown into it by the accused-appellants. PW3 Dharampal informed him about the incident and he found the accused-appellants running away from the spot. Effort was made to take out the two victims out of the water and later on they were taken to the hospital where they were declared dead. The act was stated to be on account of refusal by PW2 and his family members to vote in favour of candidate supported by accused-appellants. On the date of the incident, election to the panchayat was being held. The accused-appellants wanted the informant and his family members to vote for their candidate, but on their refusal to do so, accused-appellants took their revenge in the manner as aforesaid.
4. On the basis of the information lodged, investigation was undertaken, arrests were made and charge-sheet was placed. Accused-appellants pleaded innocence. It is to be noted that almost as a sequel to the aforesaid incident, there were allegations of booth capturing and poll violence. Because the incidents were closely linked, common trial was held, where the accused-appellants and 10 others faced trial. While the case of the accused-appellants related to the commission of alleged offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the other accused persons faced trial and were held guilty for commission of other offences with which the present appeals are not concerned.
5. By a common judgment the Additional Sessions Judge as noted above convicted the accused-appellants under Section 304 Part II IPC, while others were convicted for other offences. The accused-appellants as well as the State filed appeals before the High Court. By a common judgment High Court disposed of the appeals. While appeal filed by the accused-appellants was dismissed, that of the State as indicated above was allowed. Judgment in said appeals is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeals.
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the evidence is so sketchy that no credence can be put on it. The witnesses were partisan and biased, more particularly in the background of almost admitted political enmity. The scenario as projected by the prosecution is highly improbable. Alternatively, it was pleaded that no case under Section 302 IPC is made out and the trial court s conviction under Section 304 Part II should have been maintained by the High Court, even if the prosecution case was to be accepted. It was submitted that the maximum sentence of 10 years was awarded by the Sessions Judge and the same is highly disproportionate. In this context it was pointed out that one of the accused-appellants Ruli Ram is presently 80 years old. In response, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the case is clearly covered under Section 302 IPC. Evidence of the wit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
