Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND MADAN B. LOKUR JJ.
SANGEET & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 490-491 of 2011
Decided on : 20-11-2012
(1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (1973) 1 SCC 20 - Relied upon
Administration of Criminal Justice - Aggravating and mitigating circumstances - Aggravating circumstances relate to the crime - Mitigating circumstances relate to the criminal. (Paras 26 and 27)
(1980) 2 SCC 684 - Relied upon
Administration of Criminal Justice - Aggravating and mitigating circumstances - Not only does the aggravating and mitigating circumstances approach need a fresh look but the necessity of adopting this approach also needs a fresh look (Para 33)
(2008) 13 SCC 767; (2007) 12 SCC 230; (2009) 6 SCC 498 - Relied upon
Administration of Criminal Justice - Circumstances of the criminal - Need to consider emphasized. (Para 34)
(1996) 2 SCC 175 - Per incuriam
(2010) 1 SCC 775; (2007) 4 SCC 713; (2012) 4 SCC 37; (2011) 5 SCC 317; (2011) 3 SCC 85; (2004) 2 SCC 338; (2001) 2 SCC 28; (2010) 1 SCC 58; (2011) 13 SCC 706; (2012) 4 SCC 107 - Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432 r/w section 45, IPC - Remission of sentence - Power of appropriate government - Courts awarding sentence for longer periods and even whole life expressly restricting exercise of power of remission by appropriate government - Not permissible. (Para 58)
(2008) 13 SCC 767; (2007) 13 SCC 606; (2010) 4 SCC 216; (1979) 3 SCC 745 - Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432 and 433-A - Remission - Checks and balances - Section 432 is enabling provision - Power u/s 432 cannot be exercised suo motu - Sufficient checks and balances provided to avoid arbitrariness - Proper scrutiny inbuilt - Restriction by Courts on exercise of such power - Not permissible. (Paras and 63)
(2010) 13 SCC 466; (2000) 3 SCC 394 - Relied upon
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432 - Life imprisonment and remission - Remission can only be in case of sentence of fixed term - Extent of sentence in Life sentence being uncertain remission becomes notional - Even if a certain amount is subtracted from an indefinite amount the balance remains indefinite - Appropriate governments reckoning life as 20 years and releasing prisoners after 14 years on remission - Reckoning span of life as 20 years - Arbitrary - Remissions should be granted on case to case basis and not wholesale. (Para 80)
AIR 1961 SC 600; (1981) 1 SCC 107; (1991) 3 SCC 498; AIR 1945 PC 64; (1976) 3 SCC 470 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This case involves determination of just and proportionate sentence - whether death sentence or life sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Sentence deserves to be commuted to life imprisonment.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.-In these appeals, this Court issued notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded to the appellants. They were awarded the death penalty, which was confirmed by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellants in these appeals against the order of the High Court should be awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful implementation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973.
The facts:
2. In view of the limited notice issued in these appeals, it is not necessary to detail the facts. However, it may be mentioned that as many as six persons (including the appellants) were accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and the Arms Act, 1959. They were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by his judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2004/2009 of the offence of murder (Section 302 of the IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 of the IPC), rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (Section 148 of the IPC), house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death (Section 449 of the IPC) read with Section 149 of the IPC (every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of a common object). Five of the accused were convicted of an offence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959. Except the appellants, all of them were given a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and payment of fine. The appellants, as mentioned above, were sentenced to death.
3. The Trial Judge found the accused guilty of having committed the murder of Ranbir, Bimla (his wife), Seema (wife of Amardeep) and Rahul the three-year-old child of Amardeep and Seema and grandson of Ranbir.
4. The Trial Judge found that accused Ram Phal believed that Amardeep’s family had performed some black magic which led to the death of his (Ram Phal) son Ved Pal soon after his marriage. Apparently, with a view to take revenge, Ram Phal and the other accused committed the crimes aforementioned.
5. The Trial Judge found that the bodies of Ranbir, Bimla (his wife) and Seema (wife of Amardeep) had bullet injuries and other injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon called ‘Kukri’. The body of Seema was also burnt from below the waist. As far as Rahul (a three-year-old boy) is concerned the upper portion of his head was blown off by a firearm injury. Amardeep also had a grievous injury but he survived and was the star witness for the prosecution. On these broad facts the Trial Judge convicted the appellants and others.
6. Thereafter, the Trial Judge heard the convicts under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the question of sentence. In his brief statement, appellant Sandeep stated that he is married and has a five-year- old daughter and aged parents to look after. Appellant Narender also gave a brief a brief statement that he is not married and has aged parents to look after. The Trial Judge considered the judgments of this Court, inter alia, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470.
Thereafter, by his order dated 18th November, 2009 the Trial Judge handed down the sentences mentioned above.
7. The Trial Judge found that the crime committed by the appellants was brutal in nature. As far as Narender is concerned he had blown off the upper portion of the head of three-year-old Rahul, son of Amardeep by the use of a firearm. As far as Sandeep is concerned, even after giving a gun shot injury on the head of Seema he poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. Taking note of the fact that the entire family of Ranbir (except Amardeep) was wiped out by the accused in a brutal and merciless manner, the Trial Judge held that the crime committed by them fell in the category of the rarest of rare cases, inviting the death penalty. The death sentence awarded to the appellants was however, subject to confirmation by the Punjab & Haryana
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
