Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. S. Chauhan, Dipak Misra, JJ.
Phoolwati & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1012-1013 of 2010.
Decided On : 17-5-2013
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 72, 142 and 161 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 148, 149 and 449 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 432, 433 and 433-A – Offence of murder – Charged - Appeal against conviction - Incident occurred due to a land dispute as it was alleged that the crops sown by one stood destroyed by the assailants - Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated had awarded death sentence while awarding the life imprisonment to other three accused - While dealing with murder reference, High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated declined to confirm death reference and converted death sentence to life imprisonment - However, considering the gravity of offence, put a condition that they would serve minimum 25 years without remissions - learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the High Court had no competence to put such a condition - While serving sentence their case could have been considered for premature release under the provisions of Sections 432, 433 and 433-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and therefore this condition is liable to be set aside – Held, aforesaid judgments make it crystal clear that this Court has merely found out the via media, where considering facts and circumstances of a particular case by way of which it has come to conclusion that it was not "rarest of rare cases" warranting death penalty but a sentence of 14 years or 20 years as referred to in guidelines laid down by States would be totally inadequate - Life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years, rather it always meant as whole natural life - This Court has always clarified that the punishment so awarded would be subject to any order passed in exercise of clemency powers of President of India or Governor of State as case may be - Pardons, reprieves and remissions are granted in exercise of prerogative power - Thus, such orders do not interfere with the sovereign power of State - More so not being in contravention of any statutory or constitutional provision orders even if treated to have been passed under Article 142 of Constitution do not deserve to be labelled as unwarranted - Aforesaid orders have been passed considering the gravity of offences in those cases that accused would not be entitled to be considered for premature release under guidelines issued for that purpose i.e. under Jail Manual, etc. or even - Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 2002 by way of which, the High Court has rejected the Murder Reference No. 1 of 2002, however, awarded the life imprisonment to the appellants herein, and has issued a direction that all the three appellants, who have been awarded the death sentence by the trial court, would undergo sentence of 25 years without remissions keeping in view the heinous nature of the offence committed by them.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:
B. The incident occurred due to a land dispute as it was alleged that the crops sown by one Om Parkash stood destroyed by the assailants. The Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2002 had awarded death sentence to Sadhu, Pada, Har Kishan while awarding the life imprisonment to other three accused i.e. Rohtas, Phoolwati and Babli.
C. While dealing with the murder reference, the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2004, declined to confirm the death reference and converted the death sentence to life imprisonment. However, considering the gravity of the offence, put a condition that they would serve minimum 25 years without remissions.
Hence, these appeals.
3. Shri Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the High Court had no competence to put such a condition. While serving the sentence, their case could have been considered for premature release under the provisions of Sections 432, 433 and 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Cr.P.C.') and, therefore, this condition is liable to be set aside.
4. Shri Vikas Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, has opposed the appeal contending that the entire family had been eliminated and the High Court has taken a lenient view while converting the death sentence into life imprisonment. Therefore, the High Court was justified in imposing such a condition. Therefore, no interference is required.
5. The issue involved herein is no more res-integra. This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar, III (2012) CCR 579 (SC) : VI (2012) SLT 492 : III (2012) DLT (Crl.) 565 (SC) : (2012) 8 SCC 537, examined the issue at length. While placing reliance upon the earlier judgments of this Court in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, III (2008) CCR 186 (SC) : VI (2008) SLT 322 : III (2008) DLT (Crl.) 571 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 3040; Ramraj v. State of Chhattisgarh, I (2010) CCR 41 (SC) : IX (2009) SLT 161 : I (2010) DLT (Crl.) 5 (SC) : AIR 2010 SC 420; Mulla v. State of U.P., I (2010) CCR 381 (SC) : I (2010) SLT 710 : I (2010) DLT (Crl.) 645 (SC) : AIR 2010 SC 942; and Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat, II (2011) SLT 52 : I (2011) CCR 379 (SC) : AIR 2011 SC 803, wherein it has been held that where death sentence seems to be excessive and unduly harsh and life imprisonment is highly disproportionally inadequate, the court may find out a via media and instead of giving or confirming the death sentence awarded by the trial court may award a particular period of punishment as in a particular case, 14 years or 20 years may be found to be too less considering the gravity of the offence. The court may further impose a condition that State authorities will not grant them the benefit of remission and may not consider the case of premature release as per the sentencing policy adopted by the State.
6. In Jayawant Dattatraya Suryarao
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
