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

2018 Supreme(P&H) 2698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill
Murder Reference No.03 of 2017
State of Haryana
v.
Arun & Ors
{Decided on 06/12/2018}

Advocates Appeared:Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate withMr. Amrit S.Kang, Advocate for the appellants in CRA-D-98-DB-2017 & CRA-D-104-DB-2017;
Mr. Gaurav Mahunta, Advocate with Ms. Preeti Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-D-187-DB-2017.
Mr. S.P.Yadav, Advocate for the applicant in CRM-A-993-MA-2018Ms. Shubhra Singh, Addl.A.G Haryana.

Solitary Confinement – Right to Life – Practice adopted by the jail authorities in the State of Haryana, of segregating a convict sentenced to death, immediately after the pronouncement of sentence by the trial Court and after confirmation of sentence by the High Court, abolished being unconstitutional
Murder – Life Sentence – Minor girl aged 9 years was kidnapped, raped and killed by throttling – Not a rarest of rare case – Death Sentence commuted into life sentence

Headnote:(A) Punjab Jail Manual, Para 758 – Solitary Confinement – Right to Life – Practice adopted by the jail authorities in the State of Haryana, of segregating a convict sentenced to death, immediately after the pronouncement of sentence by the trial Court and after confirmation of sentence by the High Court, abolished being unconstitutional – The convict shall not be segregated/ isolated till the sentence of death has become final, conclusive and indefeasible which cannot be annulled or voided by any judicial process – The period to keep a convict sentenced to death in segregation/isolation should be for the shortest possible time i.e. 2-3 days – Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.73 – Constitution of India, Art.21. (Para 93)

       (B) Constitution of India, Art.21 – Solitary Confinement – Right to Life – Practice of solitary confinement to death row convict abolished – Held;

       (i) Practice to keep the convict in custodial segregation/solitary confinement before the exhaustion of his constitutional, legal and fundamental rights is without authority of law. It will amount to additional punishment. It also amounts to torture and violative of his basic human rights. (Para 92)

       (ii) Practice to keep the convict in custodial segregation/solitary confinement before the exhaustion of his constitutional, legal and fundamental rights is without authority of law – It will amount to additional punishment – It also amounts to torture and violative of his basic human rights. (Para 90)

       (iii) It causes immense pain, agony and anxiety to the condemned convict – It is violative of Articles 20 (2) and 21 of the Constitution of India – A man, even sentenced to death, has certain privileges and rights which cannot be denied to him due to colonial mindset – The provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual are anarchic, cruel and insenstive – Punjab Jail Manual, Para 758. (Para 89)

       According to Paragraph 368, cited hereinabove, every convict under sentence of death is to be confined in a cell apart from all other prisoners and is to be placed by day and by night under the charge of a special guard. He is only permitted half an hour in the morning and in evening to occupy the verandah in front of his cell. During this period, the convict has to remain handcuffed. It is thus, evident that the convict under sentence to death is to be kept in a segregated cell. He is permitted only half an hour to come out of his cell to occupy the verandah. He is put under the gaze of light. He is to be kept always under the observation of guards. As discussed hereinabove, keeping a convict in an isolated cell has psychiatric impact on him. It causes him heart palpitations (awareness of strong and/or rapid heartbeat while at rest), diaphoresis (sudden excessive sweating), insomnia, back and other joint pains, deterioration of eyesight, poor appetite, weight loss and sometimes diarrhoea, lethargy, weakness, tremulousness (shaking), feeling cold, aggravation of preexisting medical problems, anxiety, ranging from feelings of tension to full blown panic attacks, persistent low level of stress, irritability or anxiousness, fear of impending death, panic attacks, depression, varying from low mood to clinical depression, emotional flatness/blunting – loss of ability to have any ‘feelings’, emotional ability (mood swings), hopelessness, social withdrawal; loss of initiation of activity or ideas; apathy; lethargy, major depression, anger, ranging from irritability to full blown rage, irritability and hostility, poor impulse control, outbursts of physical and verbal violence against others, self and objects, unprovoked anger, sometimes manifesting as rage, cognitive disturbances, ranging from lack of concentration to confusional states, short attention span, poor concentration, poor memory, confused thought processes; disorientation, perceptual distortions, ranging from hypersensitivity to hallucinations, hypersensitivity to noises and smells, distortions of sensation (e.g. walls closing in), disorientation in time and space, depersonalisation/ derealisation, hallucinations affecting all five senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory and gustatory (e.g.hallucinations of objects or people appearing in the cell, or hearing voices when no-one is actually speaking), paranoia and psychosis, ranging from obsessional thoughts to full blown psychosis, recurrent and persistent thoughts (ruminations) often of a violent and vengeful character (e.g. directed against prison staff), paranoid ideas – often persecutory, psychotic episodes or states: psychotic depression, schizophrenia, self-harm and suicide etc. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners laid down that the solitary confinement shall be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort. It shall not be imposed by virtue of a prisoner’s sentence. The solitary confinement means the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact. Prolonged solitary confinement shall refer to solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days. (Paras 86,87,and 88)

       (C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, S.366 and S.376 – Murder – Life Sentence – Minor girl aged 9 years was kidnapped, raped and killed by throttling – Held; though death is violent but it cannot be termed that as gruesome murder that has pricked collective conscious of the society – Not a rarest of rare case – Death Sentence commuted into life sentence – Appellants to mandatorily serve out minimum 20 years without claiming remission. (Para 48)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid murder reference and appeals, therefore these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Murder Reference No.03 of 2017 has been received from the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, for confirmation of death sentence awarded to (1) Arun son of Subhash Chand, resident of Ward no.10, Mandi Ateli, District Mohindergarh; (2) Deepak son of Mahender, resident of Ward no.10, Mandi Ateli; and (3) Rajesh son of Rohtash, resident of Ward no.10, Mandi Ateli, District Mohindergarh, as per judgment and order dated 18.01.2017/19.01.2017.

3. Criminal Appeal no.D-98-DB-2017 has been preferred by Arun; Criminal Appeal no.D-104-DB-2017 by Rajesh; and Criminal Appeal no.D-187-DB-2017 by Deepak against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2017/19.01.2017 whereby the appellants were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 302, 201, 376-A, 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “POCSO Act”). Appellant Deepak was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two years for offence under Section 366- A IPC. Deepak along with Rajesh and Arun were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment to life and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three years for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and 377 of IPC. Deepak, Rajesh and Arun were also sentenced to be hanged by neck till they were dead and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each. The death sentence awarded to the appellants was subject to confirmation by this Court.

4. The complainant Indu has also filed criminal appeal no.CRMA-993-MA-2018 against the acquittal of Sanjay Chaudhary. Leave had been granted to file an appeal on the date of hearing. The appeal has been heard on merits.

5. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 01.11.2014 at about 11.25 P.M., Balwan Singh ASI along with HC Jugal Kishore and Constable Anil Kumar was patrolling near the old bus stand Ateli. The complainant Indu wife of Rakesh Kumar appeared and moved an application. According to the averments made in the application, her daughter (name withheld) aged about 9 years had gone to leave the mouse at 5.30 P.M. in the neighbouring plot. She did not come back. They searched for her but could not find her. Her daughter may be searched. Ruqa was sent to the police station. FIR was registered. The appellants were arrested. They were medically examined. Their cell phones were taken into possession. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The opinion of the Board is Ex.PW22/R. The post-mortem reports are Exs.P22/B and PW22/C. Recoveries were effected. The FSL reports were obtained vide Ex.PW22/J, PW22/K, PW22/N, PW22/P, PW22/Q. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the nodal formalities. Two supplementary challans were also put up.

6. Prosecution examined as many as 37 witnesses. The statements of appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution.

7. The appellants Arun, Rajesh and Deepak were sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC; for life imprisonment under Section 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 377 IPC whereas Deepak was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 366-A IPC. Hence these appeals against their conviction and sentences; death reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul for confirmation of death sentence; and one appeal against acquittal of Sanjay Chaudhary.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants (convicts) have vehemently argued that the prosecut





































































































































































































































































































































































































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