2002 Supreme(SC) 967

2002(7) Supreme 182
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Y.K. Sabharwal and H.K. Sema, JJ.
Bachhitar Singh & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1229 of 2001
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1228 of 2001
Decided on 26-9-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.S. Cheema, H.L. Aggarwal and K.B. Sinha, Sr. Advocates, Kawaljit Kochhar, K.S. Nalwa, S.C. Paul, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Anoop G. Chaudhari, Sr. Advocate, Bimal Roy Jad, Sunita Pandit, B.K. Khurana, Ms. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, A.P. Mohanty, Dinesh Verma and Ms. Suresh Kumari, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction of the appellants under Sections 460, 302/34 IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act is upheld believing the eye witness. PW3 corroborated by other evidence but the sentence of death awarded to appellants is modified to imprisonment for life as the case does not fall in the category of the rarest of the rare case.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 460, 302, 302/34 and Section 30 of Arms Act-Murder of 8 persons of two families due to greed to grab land of deceased-Incident witnessed by PW3-Corroborated by recoveries and medical evidence-Courts below concurrently recording their conviction-Whether can be interfered with in appeal to Supreme Court? (No)- Conviction affirmed.

       Held (on appraisal of evidence) : We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the testimony of Joginder Singh, PW-3, is quite natural and trustworthy. We have no reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the trial court and the High Court in this respect. (Para 13)

       Held consequently : Believing the eye-witness account of Joginder Singh, coupled with other formidable materials on record, as discussed above, we are clearly of the view that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond the shadow of doubt, as held by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. (Para 21)

       (ii) Murder of 8 persons of two families due to greed to grab land of deceased-Death penalty awarded by courts below-Whether it is rarest of the rare case warranting capital punishment? (No)-Result-Sentence modified to life imprisonment-Case law referred.

       Held : This takes us to consider the death penalty awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the case does not fall within the category of "rarest of rare" which would invite capital punishment. On a perusal of the evidence and materials on record, we find that apart from the solitary incident in question, there is no evidence on record either oral or documentary, which would suggest about the mis-conduct of the appellants in the past. There is also no evidence on record to suggest that the appellants would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co-existence of the society. In a case, what appears to be similar with the present one, Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 35 the accused had done to death his own brother, brother s wife and children out of land dispute. This Court held that no doubt the crime was heinous and brutal but at the same time it will be difficult to hold that it is rarest of rare case. The Court was also of the view that it would be difficult to hold that the appellant is a menace to the society and there is no reason to believe that he cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue the criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continued threat to the society. The same principle has been followed by this Court in Ram Anup Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar JT 2002(5) 621. In the case at hand also, we are of the view that having regard to the absence of evidence to the contrary that the appellants are a menace to the society threatening the peaceful and harmonious co-existence of the society and they are likely to be a continuous threat to the society if once they come out of incarceration, no doubt the crime was committed in a heinous and brutal manner but viewed from the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, it would be difficult to hold that the case falls within the category of "rarest of rare". At the same time, there is no reason to believe that they cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, we are of the opinion that the appellants must be given a chance to repent that what they have done is neither approved by the law or by the society and be reformed or rehabilitated and become good and law abiding citizens. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, we would think that sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court and instead award punishment of sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. (Paras 22, 23 & 24)

       Held finally : In the result, the conviction of the appellants is upheld but the sentence of death awarded to the appellants is set aside. Instead, they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. With this modification in sentence, the appeals are disposed of. (Paras 25 & 26)