I
BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER.
A
v.
RESHAMPAL SINGH AND ANR.
NOVEMBER 22, 2006
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
B
Sentencing-Award of death sentence, reduced to life imprisonment by
High Court-Plea of enhancement of the punishment to death sentence-
Held: High Court awarded life imprisonment after considering the question C
of sentence in detail-Thus, no reason to enhance the punishment to death
sentence-Pena/ Code, 1860-Section 302.
Trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to death under section
302 IPC. However High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence
to life imprisonment Hence the present appeals.
D
Dismissing the appeals, the court
HELD : High Court considered the question of sentence in detail. On
going through the evidence and having considered the facts of the case, there
is no reason to enhance the punishment of life imprisonment awarded by High E
Court to death sentence. [304-D-F)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1604 of
2005.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of2005.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24-l 0-2002 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. A. No. 616-DB/200 I.
F
Amarjit Si~gh and A.P. Mohanty for the Appellants.
G
Sanjay Jain, Mukesh Kumar, Arun K. Sinha, Ravi P. Mehrotra (A.C.),
Deepti P. Mehrotra and Garvesh Kabra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. These appeals have been filed against the
303
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A impugned judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated
24.10.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 616-DB of2001.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The trial court by its judgment dated 18.10.200 I convicted accused ·
B Resham Pal Singh and sentenced him to death under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, but the High Court while affirming the conviction has reduced
the sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court has further directed the
appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo further RI
for a period of one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The High Court
C also maintained the sentence of imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine
of Rs. 1,000/- awarded under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine
the appellant had to undergo further RI for a period of two months. The
amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/-, if realized from the appellant was directed to
be paid to Harpreet Singh, who has lost his parents.
D
In these two appeals the prayer was to enhance the punishment to
death sentence .
. We have gone through the evidence and have considered the facts of
the case.
E
. In our opinion, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
of the High Court .. The question of sentence has been considered by the High
Court in detail in paragraph 36 of its judgment and, therefore, we see no
reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court. Hence, both the
appeals are dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court stands upheld.
F
N.J.
Appeals dismissed.
,.,
Lex