DES RAJ versus STA TE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 07-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DES RAJ 
) 
v. 
STA TE OF PUNJAB 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 
B 
[R. V. RA VEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,JJ.) 
Sentence/Sentencing-Murder-Over a petty dispute retired police 
-f 
constable opening fire, resulting in death of three neighbours-Award of 
c death sentence-Justification of-Held: Murder committed not to satisfy pny 
greed or lust;- there was no pre-meditation; no cruelty or torture of victim; 
act not brutal, diabolic or revolting nor accused had bad antecedents-On 
careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, inspite of 
gravity of crime, aggravating circumstances did not overwhelmingly outweigh 
mitigating circumstances-Thus, no/ a rarest of rare case-Death penalty 
D modified to one of life imprisonment - Penal Code, 1860. 
According to the prosecution, there was a petty dispute between 
appellant-retired police constable and his neighbours. Appellant opened fire, 
killing three members and injuring three members of neighbours fam11y and 
a child of the neighbourhood. Sessions Judge convicted appellant under section 
E 302 IPC for the murder of three and under section 307 IPC for attempting to 
murder two members and imposed death sentence. Accused 2 to 7 who 
allegedly exhorted the appellant were acquitted. High Court upheld the order. 
Hence the present appeal. 
F 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether 
the courts below were justified in imposing the sentence of death. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The conviction under section 302 IPC is upheld and the 
G 
sentence of death imposed on the appellant is modified to one of life 
imprisonment The conviction and senten_ce under section 307 IPC remains 
undisturbed. [Para 10) (783-G) 
fa
1.2. The instant case is not a case which calls for imposition of death 
sentence. This is not a murder to satisfy any greed or lust. This is not a case 
H 
774 
\. 
DESRAJv. STATE 
775 
involving cruelty to or torture of the victim. This is not a case where the act A 
is brutal, diabolic or revolting. The accused has no bad antecedents nor is a 
hard core criminal nor an anti-social nor an anti-national element The action 
was impulsive and without premeditation arising out of a sudden quarrel 
between appellant's wife and his neighbour's wife. Each of the victims was 
shot at only once. The repeated firing by appellant is an over-reaction of an B 
inebriated brain to a petty issue. Drunkenness cannot be an excuse for any 
brutal or diabolic acts. The entire incident occurred in the span of a few 
minutes. The repeated loading and firing in utter disregard for life, in the 
circumstances, is not an indication of extreme depravity or brutality, but of a 
drunken rage. The trial court and the High Court have persuaded themselves 
to award the death penalty by considering only the aggravating circumstances, C 
and to ari extent carried away by the fact that three died and fOur(two directly 
and two indirectly) were injured. The mitigating circumstances have not been 
given their due importance. On a careful balancing of the aggravating and 
mitigating circumstances, in spite of the gravity of the crime involving triple 
murder, the aggravating circumstances noticed and enumerated by the High 
Court do not outweigh, much less overwhelmingly, the mitigating D 
circumstances. This is not that rarest of rare case, which invites death penalty. 
(Para 8) (782-G-H; 783-A-C) 
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, (2003) 9 SCC 310; Saibanna v. State 
of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 15 and Renuka Bai v. State of Maharashtra, E 
(2006) 7 sec 442, distinguished. 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh v. 
State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470; State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, [2003) 
8 SCC 224; Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76; Bab/u v. State of 
Rajasthan, AIR (2007) SC 697; Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P., [1979) 2 F 
SCC 64 and Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 745, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2006 of the High Court of G 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. Appeal No. IO-DB of 2006 and 
Murder Reference No. 12 of2005. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Prem Malhotra, Rishi Malhotra, Ravinder Singh, Eveneet 
Uppal and Raj Kamal for the Appellant. 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R 
A 
H.M. Singh and Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RA VEENDRAN, J. I.

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