Back
P.N.SHINGHAL, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Bachan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Key Points: - The High Court dismissed the accused's appeal but enhanced the sentences of some accused and partly accepted the State's appeal for enhancement of punishment (!) . - An argument was made that the High Court erred in enhancing sentences without giving the accused an opportunity to show cause against it, as per Section 377(3) Cr. P.C. (!) . - The court found no illegality in not complying with Section 377(3) Cr. P.C. because the State Government did not file an appeal against the sentence under Section 377(1) Cr. P.C., and its appeal was directed against acquittal for a more serious offense (!) . - A revision petition under Section 401 Cr. P.C. for enhancement of sentence was maintainable as the revision petitioner could not file an appeal under Section 377 (!) . - The High Court had expressly ordered the revision petition to be heard along with the criminal appeal filed by the accused (!) (!) . - The High Court's judgment effectively disposed of both appeals and the revision petition, even if the revision petition was not explicitly mentioned in the operative part of the order, which was an inadvertent mistake (!) . - The opportunity for pleading for acquittal was provided during the hearing of the accused's own appeal, and the same appeal provided an opportunity to plead for sentence reduction (!) . - The hearing of the State's appeal against acquittal along with the accused's appeal provided further opportunity to the accused to plead for acquittal, sentence reduction, or show cause against enhancement (!) . - Under Section 401 Cr. P.C., the High Court can exercise the powers of a Court of Appeal under Section 386 to enhance or reduce a sentence (!) . - The concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the brutal nature of the offense and the established facts justified the sentence awarded by the High Court (!) . - Arguments regarding the conviction on merits, motive, medical evidence, and self-defense were considered without merit (!) . - The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
SHINGHAL, J.:—We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. Accused Bachan Singh, Gurnam Singh and Chanan Singh were convicted by the Sessions Judge of Gurdaspur of an offence under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1000/-. They were also convicted of an offence under Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. The remaining two accused Ravail Singh and Vir Singh were convicted of an offence under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 I.P.C. but they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Further, they were convicted of an offence under Section 147 imprisonment for 1 year.
3. An appeal was filed by the accused against their conviction and sentence; and the State filed an appeal for their conviction and sentence under Section 302 I. P. C. A. revision petition was filed under Section 401 Cr. P. C. for enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment and fine "to meet the ends of justice." The High Court of Punjab and Haryana made an express order on December 9, 1974 that the revision petition would be heard along w
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
