2007 Supreme(SC) 1151

2007(7) Supreme 174
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
R.V. Raveendran & B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Des Raj — Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 648 of 2007
Decided on : 07-09-2007

important points
Guidelines to decide whether death sentence is warranted, on the facts and circumstances of a case, enumerated.
The special reasons necessary for imposing death penalty must not relate to the crime as such but to the criminal.

Headnote:(a)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 354 (3) – It has been recognised that special reasons attracting death penalty may relate to manner of commission of murder, or the motive for murder, the abhorrent nature of the crime or the magnitude of the crime, or even the personality of the victim.(Para 5.2)

       (b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 354(3) r/w section 302, IPC – Guidelines to decide whether death sentence is warranted, on the facts and circumstances of a case, enumerated.(Para 6)

       (1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (2003) 8 SCC 224; (2002) 3 SCC 76; AIR 2007 SC 697 – Relied upon.

       (c)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 354(3) r/w section 302, IPC – Neither the shocking nature of the crime nor the number of murders committed was the criterion to determine whether death sentence should be imposed – The special reasons necessary for imposing death penalty must not relate to the crime as such but to the criminal.(Para 7)

       (1979) 2 SCC 64; (1979) 3 SCC 745 – Relied upon.

       (d)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – This is not a case of murder to satisfy any greed or lust, or involving cruelty to or torture of the victim – This is also not a case where the act is brutal, diabolic or revolting – The accused has no bad antecedents nor is a hard core criminal nor an anti-social nor an anti-national element – The action was impulsive and without premeditation arising out of a sudden quarrel – Each of the victims was shot at only once – The repeated firing by appellant is an over-reaction of an inebriated brain to a petty issue – Of Course, drunkenness cannot be an excuse for any brutal or diabolic act – Thus this is not that rarest of rare case, which invites death penalty.(Para 8)

       (2003) 9 SCC 310; (2005) 4 SCC 15; (2006) 7 SCC 442 – Distinguished.

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant Des Raj is a retired police constable. Chand Singh, the complainant is a distant relative of Des Raj. Des Raj and Chand Singh with their respective families reside in adjoining houses. On 16.2.2003, both families attended the Bhog ceremony in connection with the Birth Anniversary of Baba Ravi Dass and returned home in the afternoon. Des Raj was fully drunk when he returned home. At about 4 P.M., a quarrel arose between Manjit Kaur (wife of Chand Singh) and Jaswant Kaur (wife of Des Raj), when Manjit Kaur objected to the family members of Des Raj throwing rubbish in front of her house. On hearing the quarrel, Chand Singh’s brothers - Lal Singh and Bhagwan Singh, and Chand Singh’s son - Shamsher Singh, and nephew Tarlok Singh came out of his house. Des Raj also came out of his house along with his three sons and two daughters-in-law. Des Raj was carrying his licensed double barrel gun. Des Raj shouted that if the family members of Chand Singh raised their voice, he would finish them, and fired a shot towards Manjit Kaur, which hit the left side of her head. She collapsed and died. Shamsher Singh, son of Chand Singh, rushed to the rescue of his mother. Des Raj fired another shot which hit the right hand of Shamsher Singh. Shamsher Singh raised an alarm. Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh, the two brothers of Chand Singh, rushed to the assistance of Shamsher Singh. Des Raj re-loaded his gun and fired at them. Bhagwan Singh was hit on the left side of the chest and died. Lal Singh was hit on left side of his abdomen (and died later in the hospital). Des Raj again loaded his gun and fired towards Chand Singh which hit him on his right arm. A few pellets also hit his nephew Tarlok Singh and a neighbourhood child Raveena. According to the prosecution, all through this, the family members of Des Raj (his wife, three sons and two daughters-in-law) exhorted Des Raj by shouting ‘do not leave any members of the family alive’. After the incident, Des Raj and his family members fled from the scene.

       Des Raj (accused No.1) and his six family members (accused 2 to 7) were charged and tried for offences under sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 114 IPC. Chand Singh (PW-2) and his son Shamsher Singh (PW-3) who were injured eye-witnesses gave a graphic account of what transpired. After appreciating the evidence, the Sessions Judge, Sangrur by judgment dated 7.12.2005, convicted Des Raj under section 302 IPC for the murder of Manjit Kaur, Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh and also convicted him under section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Shamsher Singh and Chand Singh. After hearing on the question of sentence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the sentence of life imprisonment was inadequate and having regard to the gravity of the offence, the appellant deserved sentence to death. Accused 2 to 7 who allegedly exhorted appellant, were acquitted. The trial court was of the view that as accused 2 to 7 were not armed, and as there was no evidence of any common object to kill Manjit Kaur and others, there was a possibility that the exhortation attributed to Accused 2 to 7 may be only to implicate them in the crime.

       By common judgment dated 22.12.2006, the High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and confirmed the death sentence awarded to Des Raj.

       Findings of the case:

       This is not rarest of the cases deserving death sentence.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.