Back
2009(2) Supreme 465
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Sattan @ Satyendra & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 314-315 of 2001
Decided on : 27-02-2009
2004 SCC (Crl.) 1873 – Relied upon.
(b)Criminal Trial – Medical and ocular evidence – When killing of many persons takes place in midnight, it would be difficult for any witness to remember with precision the kind of weapon used by a particular accused – Evidence of the witnesses are not liable for rejection on the hypothetical so called medical discrepancy. (Para 10)
(2002)6 SCC 686 – Relied upon.
(c)Sentencing Policy – In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix – A murder committed due to deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death – But an organised crime or mass murders of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence – Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. (Paras 11 and 12)
(1987) 2 SCR 710; AIR 1991 SC 1463 – Relied upon.
(d)Sentencing Procedure – Proportionality of sentence is a goal respected – However, no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment – The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence – Not only rights of the criminals but also rights of the victims also have to be considered. (Para 15, 16 and 18)
402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711; (1994)4 SCC 353; (1994)2 SCC 220; (1996)2 SCC 175; (2005)2 SCC 712; (1980)2 SCC 684; (1983)3 SCC 470; (2002)5 SCC 234 – Relied upon.
(e)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Brutal, diabolic and bristly murder of six persons including helpless women and children falls in the rarest of rare category. (Paras 27 and 29)
2008 (10) SCALE 336 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1.In the night between August 30 and 31, 1994 all the nine members of family of Hukum Singh were present and sleeping in their houses when this ghastly incident occurred at about 12.30. Four were of Shiv Singh’s family and rest belonged to Sheo Pal’s family. All the five persons of Sheo Pal’s family were gunned down. Four others (of Shiv Singh’s family ) were injured, out of whom Neetu also succumbed to his injuries later on.
2.Smt. Bala, Baby Kapil and Km. Guddi survived but before statement of Guddi could be recorded at the trial she was also murdered. Baby Kapil was a child of about three years old. Thus the prosecution was left with no alternative except to examine at the trial Smt. Bala, the sole surviving member of the above two families.
3.Some of the accused persons were arrested while others surrendered in court.
4.The trial court found the evidence of the witnesses to be credible and cogent and directed conviction and imposed death sentence, so far as the Sattan, Upendra, Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari pal son of Ram Charan are concerned. It also found that the accusations relating to Section 120B of the Act have been established so far as the Kripal, Brij Pal, Devendra are concerned.
5.The High Court analysed the evidence to hold that the accusations so far as the Sattan, Upendra, are concerned have been established. But further held that this was a case where there were certain mitigating circumstances which warranted alteration of the death sentence to life sentence.
Finding of the Court :
Sattan and Upendra deserve death sentence. High Court rightly directed acquittal of Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari Pal son of Ram Charan.
Result : Appeal concerning Sattan and Upendra allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by which two Criminal appeals filed by accused Sattan, Uppendra, Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari Pal son of Ram Charan (Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999) and Criminal Appeal No. 2237 of 1999 filed by accused Kripal, Brij Pal, Ram Pal and Devendra. A reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) for confirmation of death sentence in respect of the accused appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999 before the High Court was made. So far as Sattan, Upendra, Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari pal son of Ram Charan are concerned they were sentenced to two years R.I. each under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’), 10 years R.I. under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and death sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The appellants in the Criminal Appeal No.2237 of 1999 were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 120 B IPC alongwith appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999 accused Mukesh, Dhirendra, Rakesh, Naresh and Pappu also faced trial. Out of them Pappu and Naresh died during the pendency of trial while Mukesh, Rakesh and Dhirendra absconded and trial so far as they are concerned were separated. One Rajveer was also charged in terms of Section 120B alongwith appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 2237 of 1999. The Criminal Appeal No.2237 of 1999 was allowed and conviction of Brijpal, Ram Pal and Devendra was set aside. So far as Criminal Appeal No.2140 of 1999 is concerned the conviction as recorded was maintained. Death sentence imposed was altered to life sentence. In the present appeals State has questioned alteration of the death sentence to life sentence in respect of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999 and the acquittal as recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 2237 of 1999 as maintained; While upholding the conviction of accused Sattan and Upendra directed acquittal of Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari Pal son of Ram Charan.
2.According to learned counsel for the State the only appropriate sentence in a case of this nature was death sentence and the High Court erred in altering it to life sentence after upholding the conviction. Similarly, in respect of the acquittal in the case of the appellants in separate Criminal Appeal Nos.2237 and 2140 of 1999 is concerned, it is submitted that the High Court has not indicated any reasons as to why the conviction as recorded by the Trial Court suffered from any infirmity to warrant interference.
3.Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned Amicus Curiae supported the judgments of the High Court.
4.The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
In the night between August 30 and 31, 1994 at about 12.30 five persons of Sheo Pal’s family were gunned down in his house in village Saloni within the area of police station Bahadurgarh, Ghaziabad. Four others were injured, out of whom Neetu also succumbed to his injuries later on. This massacre was reported at the police station on the same night at 2.55 A.M. by one of the survivors, Smt. Bala, PW 1 widow of deceased Shiv Singh. With the registration of case police came into action and the Investigating Officer promptly rushed to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of Smt. Bala, Neetu and Km. Guddi who all had received injuries in the course of ghastly incident. Inquest proceedings were held in respect of dead bodies of five persons, namely, Sheo Pal Singh, Smt. Kunti Devi, Shiv Singh, Manjeet and Khushal who were reported to have been shot dead by the assailants while asleep inside their house. Their dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination. The investigating Officer Shri Ram Babu Tiwari, P.W.9 also pr-epared site plan, Ex.Ka 48 after making spot inspection of the place of occurrence. Injured Neetu was sent for medical examination
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
