SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003(4) Crimes 372 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Prem Sagar —Appellant
versus
Dharambir & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal No. 242/2003
Decided on 29-10-2003

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties :P.C. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Balbir Singh Gupta, R.N. Kush, Prem Malhotra and Vinay K.Garg, Advocates.

Important Point
For offence of murder life imprisonment is rule and death sentence is exception.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34 and 120B—Murder of three people by appellants—Conviction on testimony of sole eye witness—Witness was relative of both deceased and accused and thus no reason why he would falsely implicate accused—Testimony not shaken despite elaborate cross-examination—Evidence appeared cogent, truthful and trustworthy—Conviction of appellant who infact assaulted deceased was liable to be confirmed—Conviction of accused who was alleged to have felled deceased but not named by witness could not be said to be a slip of tongue and his conviction could not be maintained. (Para 6)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder of three people—Death sentence—Life imprisonment is rule and death sentence is exception—Death sentence to be given in rarest of rare cases—High Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment taking note of certain mitigating cir­cumstances—No reason to differ. (Para 7)

       Result : Appeals disposed of.

       

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—These two appeals are interlinked being directed against the same judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. While Criminal Appeal no. 242/2003 is by the convicted persons, Criminal Appeal no. 243/2003 is by the informant. The three appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 242/2003 have been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’). While accused-appellants Dharambir and Joginder were awarded death sentence by learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, appellant-Karambir was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Each of the accused persons was asked to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. In appeal before the High Court, the death sentence was commuted to life sentence in case of accused-Dharambir and Joginder. The convictions, however, were maintained. It is to be noted that accused-Joginder, as per the information given to this Court by learned counsel for the appellants, has died during pendency of the appeal and, therefore, the appeal so far he is concerned, has abated.

2. The backgrounds facts are as under:

Appellants (Dharambir, Joginder Singh and Karambir) along with their two real brothers­ – Jagbir Singh and Jasbir Singh and their mother Vanaspati, in all six accused, were charged sheeted by the learned trial Court on the allegations that about 7-8 days prior to the date of occurrence i.e. 29.6.2000, in the area of village Mayyar, resolved to do an illegal act to commit the murder of Dalbir, Vijender and Smt. Kitabo and they murdered them in pursuance of the said agreement and thereby committed offence under Section 120-B IPC. The second charge against the appellants was that on 29.6.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. in the area of the said village and in pursuance of their conspiracy, they murdered Dalbir, Vijender and Smt. Kitabo and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. Thirdly, on the same day, time and place, appellant-Dharambir in furtherance of common intention of co-accused Joginder and Karambir committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Dalbir and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC while his co-accused Joginder and Karambir committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Fourthly, on the same day and in the said area of village Mayyar and in furtherance of common intention Dharambir and Joginder committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Kitabo and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Fifthly, on the same day, time and place and in furtherance of their common intention, all the three appellants did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Vijender and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.

3. Interestingly, in this case the first information report was lodged by accused-appellant Dharambir before ASI Vinod Kumar (PW12) but during investigation he found that Dharambir along with two others were the assailants and after investigation charge sheet was placed.

4. During trial and before the High Court, prosecution relied on the version of Prem Sagar (PW15) who claimed to be an eyewitness. The trial court and the High Court found his evidence to be credible, cogent and acting on it directed conviction and imposed sentence as aforesaid. In view of the death sentence imposed on two persons, reference was made to the High Court for confirmation under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the ‘Cr.P.C.’). As noted above, the High Court converted the death sentence into life sentence. While accused persons have questioned the correctness of the judgment so far as their conviction and sentence are concerned, the informant has contended that the High Court was not justified in altering the death sentence to life sentence. It is accepted by the learned counsel for the State that no appeal has been p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top