2020 Supreme(Pat) 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J.
State Of Bihar - Appellant
Versus
Onkar Nath Singh @ Sheru Singh - Respondent
Death Reference No. 3 of 2016; Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2016
Decided On : 07-02-2020

Headnote:

Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Murder – Death sentence – Rarest of the rare cases – Judges exercise discretion in process of sentencing – Sessions Courts are not expected to do only lip service but apply their judicious mind and follow basic guidelines laid down by Apex Court and after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances choose sentence – Choice of imposing death sentence involves competing interest and security of individual, society and State and as such choice of decision making process is a complicated one – Court has not confronted accused with specific admissible evidence against accused as may witnesses were formal or hearsay and their evidence has no relevance in process of examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Deciding appeal on the basis of materials available on record may either cause prejudice to prosecution or accused – Manner in which Sessions Court inflicted death sentence for offence under Section 27(3) of Arms Act which has been declared as unconstitutional reflects that trial court has not impartially conducted trial and as such, ends of justice requires that fresh decision may be taken in trial based on materials on record – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed – However, criminal jurisprudence is not designated to extend benefit to accused – Defect in trial cannot obliterate criminal liability of accused – Fair trial does not mean that accused should be extended benefit of lapses in trial – Balancing equity of situation warrants that matter be remanded to Sessions Court for fresh adjudication, to endeavour to ascertain issue of juvenility of appellant by process of Medical Board. (Paras 14, 22, 25, 32, 37, 39, 40 and 41)

Criminal Law – Conviction and sentence – Conviction and sentence are two different propositions, scrutiny of evidence and scrutiny of fact and law is required to be meticulously done at stage of recording finding – Judicial discretion is always guided by rules of reason – Guideline formulated by Apex Court is always considered unsurmountable mandate on courts subordinate including Sessions Court in process of dispensing justice – Howsoever high individual may be, law is always above – Foundation of rule of law in decision making process, judicial decorum, propriety demands strict adherence to principle and guidelines issued by Apex Court particularly Constitution Bench – It does not confer discretion on any judicial officer to decide case according to personal standards and parameters ignoring mandatory guideline of Constitution Bench of Apex Court and declaration of law by Apex Court which has effect of law of land under Article 141 of Constitution of India. (Para 34)

(1982) 3 SCC 24; (1980) 2 SCC 684 ; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (1973) 1 SCC 20; (1979) 3 SCC 646; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (1980) 2 SCC 684; (2009) 6 SCC 498; (2012) 8 SCC 537; (2013) 3 SCC 346; (2014) 10 SCC 270; AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1961 – Relied.