1997 JTR(SC) 784
1997 2 AICLR 534 ; 1997 AIR(SC) 2598 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2554 ; 1997 35 AllCriC 10 ; 1997 2 ALT(Cri)(SC) 466 ; 1997 CriLR 409 ; 1997 2 Crimes(SC) 59 ; 1997 CriR(SC) 844 ; 1997 CrLJ 3180 ; 1997 5 JT 129 ; 1997 3 Scale 753 ; 2000 10 SCC 451 ; 1997 SCC(Cri) 648 ; 1997 3 SCR 1156 ; 1997 1 UJ 733 ; 2000 KHC 1649 ; 1997 4 Supreme 307
1997(4) Supreme 307
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Krishan -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1997
Decided on 1-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Satyapal Khushal Chand, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Prem Malhotra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Felonious propensity of an offender is a factor which requires consideration while dealing with question of imposition of sentence of death but that cannot be made the sole basis for such sentence.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
(A) The Indian Penal Code, Section 302, which prescribes the penalty of death for murder, applies to an offender who, while serving a sentence of life imprisonment, commits the offence of murder within the jurisdiction of the prison. The section was attracted in this case where the appellant, already incarcerated for a prior murder, inflicted fatal injuries using a sharp-edged weapon during a prison disturbance, thereby attracting the death penalty under the statute for the taking of a life while in lawful custody. The procedural safeguards including investigation, collection of forensic evidence, and judicial scrutiny were meticulously followed, culminating in the adjudication of guilt under this provision.
(B) Key legal principles include that the death penalty is an available punishment under Section 302 IPC for murder, but its imposition is reserved for the rarest of rare cases; factors such as the offender's felonious propensity and the gravity of the act are relevant yet not exclusive; and the sentence must be proportionate to the facts, motive, and circumstances of the crime.
Facts of the case:
The deceased was an under-trial prisoner murdered inside a District Jail by the appellant, who was himself serving a life sentence for a prior murder. On a specified date, the appellant used a kassi (spade) to inflict two severe incised wounds on the deceased's skull during a scuffle in the barracks. The injury was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and was inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon. The incident was promptly reported, investigated, and corroborated by medical and eyewitness testimony, leading to the appellant's arrest and charge.
Findings of Court:
The trial court and the High Court found the eyewitnesses Ram Phal and Chander Singh to be natural, probable, and independent witnesses whose testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the First Information Report. The appellate court affirmed these findings and the conviction under Section 302 IPC, concluding that the evidence was cogent and sufficient to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable on the evidence; and whether the death penalty was the appropriate sentence in view of the appellant's prior incarceration, the nature of the act, and the requirement that the death penalty be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
Ratio Decidendi:
While upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC, the court determined that the case did not meet the threshold of the rarest of the rare because the appellant, though demonstrating a felonious propensity by committing murder while serving a life sentence, did not warrant the extreme penalty when an overall view of the facts, including motive, manner, and magnitude, was considered. Consequently, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 5000 was imposed, and the appellant was ordered to undergo the sentence of fine in default if the fine remained unpaid.
(A) The Indian Penal Code, Section 302, which prescribes the penalty of death for murder, applies to an offender who, while serving a sentence of life imprisonment, commits the offence of murder within the jurisdiction of the prison. The section was attracted in this case where the appellant, already incarcerated for a prior murder, inflicted fatal injuries using a sharp-edged weapon during a prison disturbance, thereby attracting the death penalty under the statute for the taking of a life while in lawful custody. The procedural safeguards including investigation, collection of forensic evidence, and judicial scrutiny were meticulously followed, culminating in the adjudication of guilt under this provision.
(B) Key legal principles include that the death penalty is an available punishment under Section 302 IPC for murder, but its imposition is reserved for the rarest of rare cases; factors such as the offender's felonious propensity and the gravity of the act are relevant yet not exclusive; and the sentence must be proportionate to the facts, motive, and circumstances of the crime.
Facts of the case:
The deceased was an under-trial prisoner murdered inside a District Jail by the appellant, who was himself serving a life sentence for a prior murder. On a specified date, the appellant used a kassi (spade) to inflict two severe incised wounds on the deceased's skull during a scuffle in the barracks. The injury was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and was inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon. The incident was promptly reported, investigated, and corroborated by medical and eyewitness testimony, leading to the appellant's arrest and charge.
Findings of Court:
The trial court and the High Court found the eyewitnesses Ram Phal and Chander Singh to be natural, probable, and independent witnesses whose testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the First Information Report. The appellate court affirmed these findings and the conviction under Section 302 IPC, concluding that the evidence was cogent and sufficient to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable on the evidence; and whether the death penalty was the appropriate sentence in view of the appellant's prior incarceration, the nature of the act, and the requirement that the death penalty be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
Ratio Decidendi:
While upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC, the court determined that the case did not meet the threshold of the rarest of the rare because the appellant, though demonstrating a felonious propensity by committing murder while serving a life sentence, did not warrant the extreme penalty when an overall view of the facts, including motive, manner, and magnitude, was considered. Consequently, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 5000 was imposed, and the appellant was ordered to undergo the sentence of fine in default if the fine remained unpaid.
ORDER
Consequent upon dismissal of his appeal by the High Court Krishan, the appellant herein, stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death for committing the murder of Ranbir, his brother-in-law, on October 23, 1994 inside District Jail, Sonepat, where the former was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life and the latter was an under-trial prisoner.
2. According to the prosecution case on the fateful day at or about 10.45 A.M. when the deceased was getting himself shaved by Ram Phal (P.W. 3), who is a barber by profession and at the material time was serving a sentence, in Barrack No. 3 of the Jail, the appellant came there with kassi (spade) in his hand and inflicted two successive blows on the head of Ranbir, with whom he had a property dispute as a result of which he fell down and started bleeding profusely. Ram Phal raised an alarm which attracted the attention of Head Constable Some Nath, who was on duty nearby. Ram Phal and Som Nath chased the appellant who had fled away in the meantime with the kassi, and nabbed him with great difficulty. They snatched the kassi from him and put him inside Barrack No. 4. They then went to Shri Ashok Kumar (PW 4), Assistant Superintendent of the Jail and narrated the incident and also handed over the kassi to him. Shri Ashok Kumar then arranged a vehicle to shift Ranbir to the General Hospital, Sonepat. There Ranbir was examined by Dr. R.R. Mittal, (PW1) and he found the following :
"1. Incised would in front of the left pinna extending upto mid-line of vault of skull which was 12 x 1 cms. x bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present and brain matter was coming out of the injury and
2. Incised wound on the skull from its middle to parieto-temporal region measuring 10 x 1 cms x bone deep with fresh bleeding. Brain matter was coming out of the injury. X-ray was advised in respect of skull and surgical opinion was sought.
3. According to the doctor, both the aforesaid injuries could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like kassi. The doctor sent a ruqa (Ext. PB) to In-charge, Police Post General Hospital, Sonepat, at 12 noon.
4. On receipt of a telephonic message from the city Police Station, S.I. Ami Singh (PW 8), who was then posted as In-charge Police Post, Gohama Road, Sonepat, first went to General Hospital, Sonepat, where he came to learn that Ranbir Singh had since been referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Thereafter, he came to District Jail, Sonepat, where Chander Singh (PW 7), made a statement (Ext. PG) regarding the incident. He forwarded the said statement for registration of a case and took up investigation. Thereafter, S.I. Ami Singh recorded the statements of Ram Phal, Som Nath and Ashok Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He took possession of the kassi (Ext. P1) from Ashok Kumar and seized some blood stained earth from the place of incident. He also prepared a rough site plan (Ext. P1).
5. In the night intervening 26/27th of October, 1994 the Investigation Officer received a message from Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak that Ranbir Singh had since died. On receipt of this message, S.I. Ami Singh reached there along with H.C. Dhera Singh and Constable Suresh Kumar and conducted inquest proceedings (Ext. PX). He then sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. A.P. Sharma (PW 10) in Civil Hospital, Rohtak and he noted two stitched wounds on his person corresponding to the medico-legal report. According to the doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The appellant who was already lodged in District Jail, Sonepat as a convict in some other murder case was put under arrest by S.I. Ami Singh. On 23.10.1994, S.I. Ami Singh had deposited the Kassi Ext. P.1 duly sealed in a packet and another packet containing blood stained earth with the Moharrir Malkhana Randhir Singh and on 16.11.1994 the said Head Constable Randhir Singh handed over the same duly intact to the said Constable Vinod Kumar for being delivered at the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) and the said constable delivered the same there duly intact on the same day. Subsequently, report from the F.S.L., Madhuban vide Ext. PP was received to the effect that there was human blood on the kassi (Ext. P1) and the blood stained earth lifted from the spot. On completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
7. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated. He took the stand that on the date of the incident he was on duty at the Sabzi Panja in Jail and came to the Barrack on hearing the alarm of whistles issued by the Lambardar on duty and then came to know that Ranbir was lying injured. He further stated that on seeing him injured, he started dressing him and while he was still dressing him, he himself became unconscious and thereafter regained consciousness in the hospital.
8. To sustain the charge levelled against the appellant the prosecution principally relied upon the ocular version of Ram Phal (PW 3) and Chander Singh (PW 7), the warden of the Jail. Both the learned Courts below found that the above two witnesses were natural, probable and independent witnesses and there was no reason to disbelieve them. As their evidence stood amply corroborated by the medical evidence and the First Information Report, which was promptly lodged, the Courts below recorded their respective findings against the appellant.
9. We have for ourselves perused the entire evidence on record and see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below as they have been arrived at on a detailed and proper appraisal of the evidence and are based on cogent and convincing reasons. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC must therefore be upheld.
10. Coming now to the sentence we find that the principal reason which weighed with the Courts below to hold that the extreme penalty of death was called for, was that earlier the appellant had committed a murder for which he was serving the sentence of life imprisonment at the material time and that he committed another murder while he was released on parole. Undoubtedly, felonious propensity of an offender is a factor which requires consideration while dealing with the question of imposition of the sentence of death but that cannot be made the sole basis for such sentence as all other factors relating to the commission of the crime including motive, manner and magnitude have also to be taken into consideration. Taking an overall view of the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case we do not feel that this is one of the rarest of the rare cases where the appellant should be sentenced to death. We, therefore, commute the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant for his conviction under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life, but maintain the sentence of fine of Rs. 5000/- and the sentence to be undergone in default of payment thereof. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Appeal disposed of.
*******