Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Gurvinder Singh Gill, JJ.
State Of Haryana - Appellant
Vs.
Usman Khan And Others - Respondent
Murder Reference No. 4 of 2017, Criminal Appeal (D) No. 235 of 2017, 246 of 2017, 363 of 2017
Decided On : 12-07-2019
Shubhra Singh, Adv., J.S. Bedi, Adv., Lovekirat Singh Chahal, Adv., Shivand Malik, Adv., Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Adv., Mohan Singh Rana, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'rarest of rare' principle in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the balance between aggravating and mitigating factors.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - IPC 364-A, 302, 120-B, 201, 506, Arms Act 25 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellants for offences under IPC 364-A, 302, 120-B, 201, 506 and Arms Act 25. The court analyzes the evidence, including witness testimonies, post mortem reports, and forensic evidence, to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also considers legal principles from landmark cases such as Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu to determine the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the kidnapping and murder of an 11-year-old boy for ransom. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, call details, and forensic reports to establish the guilt of the appellants. The appellants denied the charges, claiming false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment considering the principles from landmark cases and the specific circumstances of the case.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the guilt of the appellants for the charged offences, the appropriateness of the death penalty, and the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from landmark cases such as Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India to determine the appropriateness of the death penalty and the balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Final Decision: The court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the appellants under IPC 364-A, 302, and 120-B, and imposed additional sentences for other offences. The murder reference was answered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in Murder Reference No.4 of 2017, CRA-D-235-DB, CRA-D-246-DB and CRA-D-363-DB of 2017, therefore, these are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Murder Reference No. 4 of 2017 has been made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, for confirmation of death sentence awarded to Pankaj Kumar, Usman Khan and Vijay Kumar, vide judgment dated 24.01.2017 and order dated 30.01.2017, rendered in Sessions Case No. 48 dated 10.06.2013/17.05.2014.
3. Criminal Appeals No. D-235-DB, D-246-DB and D-363-DB of 2017 have been preferred by Pankaj Kumar, Usman Khan and Vijay Kumar, respectively, against the aforesaid judgment dated 24.01.2017 and order dated 30.01.2017.
4. Appellants Pankaj Kumar, Usman Khan and Vijay Kumar were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC. Appellants Pankaj Kumar and Usman Khan were also charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC. Appellants Pankaj Kumar and Usman Khan were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellants were sentenced as under :-
| Name of appellants | Under Section | Sentence |
| Pankaj Kumar, Usman Khan and Vijay Kumar | 364-A IPC | Death sentence |
| Pankaj Kumar, Usman Khan and Vijay Kumar | 302 IPC | Death sentence |
| Pankaj Kumar, Usman Khan and Vijay Kumar | 120-B IPC | Death sentence |
| Pankaj Kumar, Usman Khan and Vijay Kumar | 201 IPC | Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, one month rigorous imprisonment. |
| Pankaj Kumar, Usman Khan and Vijay Kumar | 506 IPC | One year rigorous imprisonment. |
| Pankaj Kumar and Usman Khan | 25 of Arms Act | One year rigorous imprisonment |
5. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 27.03.2013, complainant Sahabuddin (PW.1) received a telephone call on his mobile from mobile No. 84453 26849. The caller made him speak to his son Rahul. Rahul was saying "Papa Papa". The caller told him that his son Rahul was in his custody and demanded Rs. 15 lacs as ransom. He threatened to kill Rahul, if matter was reported to the police. Sahabuddin made a telephone call to his brother Nazir (PW.8) and asked him to lodge the FIR. He also made a call to Police Control Room regarding kidnapping of his son. Statement of Nazir was recorded vide Ex.PJ. According to him, he was running a bicycle repair shop in C Block, SGM, Faridabad. Two sons of his brother Sahabuddin, namely Rahul, aged 11 years, and Sakir, aged 5 years, were playing outside his shop. He had gone to his house for some personal work. At about 12.23 PM, Sahabuddin informed him on telephone that someone had made a telephone call to him that his son Rahul was in their custody. The caller demanded ransom of Rs. 15 lacs. The caller made him to talk to Rahul. They searched for Rahul, but could not locate him. FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statement of Sakir, younger brother of Rahul, was also recorded. He named Vijay as one of the accused. Nazir in his supplementary statement named Usman, Pankaj and Vijay as accused. Sahabuddin produced one CD containing his conversation with the caller. On 29.03.2013, it transpired that mobile number used by the accused was activated from Tannu Electronics, Kinnoni, District Meerut. The police enquired from the owner of the shop who sold the SIM. The police gathered the information that accused Pankaj was using SIM in the name of his maternal uncle Jagat Pal. The police reached at Bagpat Chowk, Partap Pur
