2003(3) Crimes 242 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Gurdev Singh & Anr. —Appellants
versus
State of Punjab —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 2002
With
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2002
Decided on 1-8-2003

Important points
1. Harbans Singh’s case did not lay down any rule that an Appeal/SLP already disposed of by Supreme Court was to be re-heard when an appeal preferred by another set of accused involved in same incident came up for consideration at later stage.
2. Where acts of murder committed by appellants were so gruesome, merciless and brutal that aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating circumstances, death sentence awarded called for no inter­ference.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/149—Conviction of appellant and death sentence awarded by trial Court confirmed in appeal by High Court—Two other accused in same incident earlier had been convicted and were sentenced to death—SLP filed by those two accused was dis­missed—Need to recall order of dismissal of SLP against other two accused while hearing SLP of present appellants—Harbans Singh’s case did not lay down any rule that appeal/SLP already disposed of by Supreme Court was to be re-heard when appeal preferred by another set of accused involved in same incident came up for consideration. (Para 4)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/149—Appellants with other three accused went to house of complainant informant armed with fire arms and started firing from their weapons and continued shooting for 10-15 minutes—13 persons were left dead and 7 others injured serious­ly—Appellant then went to house of PW 15 and killed father and son in gun-shots—Conviction by trial Court and upheld in appeal by High Court—Appeal—­Presence of eye witnesses particularly ­injured witness­es found natural and could not be doubted—Minor infirmities would not cast doubt on the case—Few hours delay in sending FIR to Magistrate in such a serious crime did not create doubt—Conviction called for no interference. (Paras 8 to 11)

       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 235(2) and 309(2)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302 —Conviction and death sentence—Sentence was pronounced on same day on which con­viction was passed—Proviso to Section 309(2) Cr.P.C. provided that no adjournment could be granted for only enabling accused to show cause against sentence proposed to be imposed—Nothing to show if any re­quest was made to trial Court for adjournment—Sentence could not be said vitiated for non-compliance of Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. (Paras 12 to 14)

       (iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 354(3)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Death sentence—Court where finds that capital punishment is inevitable, Court should give special reasons—No rigid formula or standards could be fixed—Appellants, armed with guns and other fire-arms reached the house of complainant-informant whose son was to be got married a day after—Many guests had collected—Appellants fired shots for 10 to 15 minutes and 13 people were killed and 7 others seriously injured—Entire incident was ex­tremely revolting and shock the collective conscience of community—Acts of murder committed by appellants were so gruesome, merciless and brutal that aggravating circumstances far out weighed the mitigating circumstances—Death sentence was not liable to be interfered with.

       Held : Coming back to the instant appeal, the counsel for the appellants pointed out that there were some mitigating circumstances to award lesser sentence. According to the counsel, there was no evidence on record to show that the appellants were involved in any other criminal case. Normally, the evidence regarding the character of the accused will not be adduced by the prosecution. It is true that there is no direct evidence regarding the motive except that there was a sugges­tion that there was earlier a confrontation between Piara Singh and a son of the complainant and in that incident one of the servants of Piara Singh died. Regarding that also, there is no direct evidence. The aggravating circumstances of the case, however, are that the appellants, having known that on the next day a marriage was to take place in the house of the complainant and there would be lot of rela­tives present in her house, came there on the evening of 21.11.1991 when a feast was going on and started firing on the innocent persons. Thirteen persons were killed on the spot and eight others were seri­ously injured. The appellants thereafter went to another place and killed the father and brother of PW-15. Out of the thirteen persons, one of them was seven year old child, three others were at the thresh­old of their lives. The post-mortem reports show their age ranged between 15 to 17 years. They had also their right to live in this world peaceably and these appellants had no grievance or enmity against any one of them. In the course of wide ranging submissions, the Counsel for the appellants laid stress on the point that the underlying principle of our sentencing jurisprudence is reformation and there is nothing in evidence to show that the appellants may be a threat or menace to the society. It is true that we cannot say that they would be further menace to the society or not as “we live as creatures saddled with an imperfect ability to predict future”. Never­theless, the law prescribes for future, based upon its knowledge of past and is being forced to deal with tomorrow’s problems with yester­day’s tools. The entire incident is extremely revolting and shock the collective conscience of the community. The acts of murder committed by the appellants are so gruesome, merciless and brutal that the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances. Moreover, the two ­accused who were earlier tried are already sentenced to death and their Special Leave Petition was finally disposed of by this Court. (Para 29)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.