DALBIR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 04-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

"• 
1059 
DALBIR SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
May 4, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 & Criminal Procedure Code 1973 
'(2 of 1974), S. 354(3)-lmposition of death penalty-Court enjoined 
with 
-duty to record 'special reasons for awarding extren1e penalty-NaJure of the 
-crime whether the sole determinant of the punishment. 
A 
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 141-Binding nature of Precedents-lngre-
C 
.dients of a decision-Explained-Ratio decidendi-Definition of. 
There was 0t dispute between the appellants and the complainant's party 
,over the 'turns of water' for irrigation of their agricultural ]ands. The dispute 
was settled by a patchwork mediation but it was of no avail. On the fate
4 
fol day, the complla·inant's party were making merry with alcohol in the house 
.of the prosecution witness when the 3rd appeHant joined them. 
His unwel-
D 
,come presence resulted in frayed tempers, and beatings of the 3rd appellant. 
The latter, bent on reprisal for the flagellation and humilation, waited 
till 
sundown and returned armed with friends and weapons. 
He ignited the attack 
'by instigation and the 1st and 2nd appe1lants fired with their guns as a result 
of wluch 3 members of the complainants' party died on the spot. At this 
·situation, PW 14 brought out his licensed gun from his house, and thereupon 
both sides started firing and a number of _persons sustained gun shot injuries 
K 
on their person. In the midst of this firing, the lamPardar of the 
villtage 
.appeared on the scene and made an attempt to pacify both the sides, but he 
-also received gun shot injuries as a result of which he died two days later. 
A fourth person made a dying declaration thtat he had been shot by the appel-
·1ants. 
The Sessions Court held the appellants guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. 
F 
and sentenced them to death, and the High Court on appeal confirmed the 
·sentence. 
Allowing the appeal to this court, 
HELD: [Per Krishna Iyer & Desai, JJ.] 
1. Death sentence on death sentence is Parliament's function. Interpretative 
G 
·non-application of death sentence when legislative !alternatives exist is within 
judicial discretion. 
[1065B] 
2. The dignity of man, a sublinle value of the Constitution and the heart 
of. penelogical humanisation, may find expression through culturisation· of the 
·judicial art of interpretation and choice from la:lternatives. If the 
Court 
'!<ads .the text of s. 302 "Penal ·Code, enlightened by the fundamental 
right 
H 
'lo life which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution made manifest 
the 
duditial oath to uphold. the Constitution wi.11 unfold profound implidations · 
.. ,, 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979) 3 S.C.R .. 
A 
beyond lip service to Form VIII of the Third Schedule and this lofty obliga-
tion and cultural Constitutional behest validates the exploration of the meaning 
of meanings wrapped in the uncharted either/or of the text of s. 302 
IPC. 
[1065E-F] 
3. Courts read the Code, not in judicial cloisters but in the light of societal 
ethos. Nor does the humanism of our Constitution holistically viewed, subs-
B 
cribe to the hysterical !assumption or facile illusion that a crime free society 
will dawn if hangman and firing squads were kept feverishly busy. 
[1066A-B] 
c 
D 
4. The myopic view that public executions backed by judicial sentences will 
perform the funeral of all criminals and scare away potential offenders is a 
die-hard superstition of sociologically and psychologically illiterate Jeg{l.}ism 
which sacrifices cultural values, conveniently turns away from the history of 
the futility of capital penalty over the ages and unconsciously violates the 
global reality that half the world has given up death penalty, 
de ;ure 
or 
. de facto, without added calamity. and the other half is being educated out of 
this State practised lethal violence by pOVi'erful human rights movements at 
once secular and spiritual. 
[1067B-C1 
5. The jurisprudence of sentencing iri Free IndiU, has been a Cinderella and 
the values of our Constitution have not adequately humanised the punitive 
diagnostics of criminal courts, \vhich -sometimes, though rarely, remind us of 
the torturesome and trigger-happy aberrations of the Middle Ages and some 
gory geographic segments, soaked in retributive blood and untouched by the 
correctional karuna of our Constitutional culture. 
[1068Gl 
6. After. Ediga Annan1as's case [1974] 4 SCC 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.