DILIP KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 10-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DILIP KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
October 10, 1975 
289 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.) 
1.P.C.1 s. 302 and 303-Sentence to motiveless murderers-Meaning of per• 
son under sentence· of life imprisonme111-Relevant dat~ for s. 303-p:ffect of an 
order of acquittal-Whether cdurt seized of a proceedmgs con take mto 11ccount 
subsequent events-Interpretation consistent with good sense 
and 
fa!f'neJs-
Construction leading to oppressible, unjust and inconsistem result. 
The appellants Dilip Kumar, Bharatsingh and Rohitsingh were co!1victed for 
committing the murder of one Arnn Bhargava. The learned Sess10ns Ju~ge 
convicted Dilip Kumar under s. 302 and Bharatsingh under s. 302 read with 
s. 34 and Rohitsingh under s. 303 IPC and sentenced them to death. 
One Prabhu was murdered before the incident in question too~ place for 
which Rohitsingh was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Co_urt 
·A 
B 
c 
in May, 1972. In appeal, Rohitsingh was acq~itted by Madhya Pradesh High 
Court in February, 1974, being the same day on w~ich the Hig_h Cou~t pro-
nounced its judgment in the present case. 
T~e . Sessions Court. m the ~nstant 
D 
~ 
case, had to impose the death sentence on Rohitsmgh as he was, at the time of 
conviction for the present offence, undergoing sentence of imprisonment for 
life, 
• 
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of Dilip Kumar. The 
High Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence of Rohitsingh. 
While 
maintaining the conviction, High Court reduced the s-entence of Bharatsingh 
to imprisonment for life. 
· 
In May, 1974, this Court granted Special Leave to the appellants limited to 
the question of application of section 303 in the case of Rohitsingh and sentence 
in cases of all. 
HELD : (Per Chandrachud and Bhagwati, JJ.) 
E 
1. Bharatsingh has been convicted under s. 302 read with s. 34. He has 
been awarded the minimum sentence for murder under section 3(12 and that 
F 
sentence cannot be rednced. [291-G] 
2. As regards Dilip Kumar, there is no reason to rednce the sentence of 
death imposed on him by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court. 
'J!le deceased Arnn Bhargava was sitting in front of a hotel at Ujjain. Bharat-
smgh amd. Rohi1'3ingh caught hold of his arms from behind and Dilip Kumar 
stabbed. him: on the chest with a big knife. As a result of the injury the pleura, 
the pencardium of the right ventricle of the heart were extensively damaged, 
Mohv'eless murders afe not. necessarily acts of 
mad 
and 
unhinged peopJe. 
G 
Prosecution is often unable to collect satisfactory evidence on the motive behind 
the crime. Dilip Kumar's conduct cannot be viewed with leniency and the 
High Court was right in confirming the death sentence. [291-G, H, 292-A] 
. 3. Rohitsingh's appeal arising ont of Prabhn's murder was allowed by the 
H~g~ Court a~d immediately thereafter it took up for consideration the appeal 
ansmg out of Arnn Bhargava's murder. Thus, when the High Court 
pro-
nounced its judgment in the instant case Rohitsingh was not un<ler the sentence 
of imprisonment for life. The High Court erroneously held that for the purpose 
H 
of determining the application of s. 303, the date on which the subsequent offence 
of murder is committed is the relevant date. S. 303 does not afford a clear cine 
to the solution of the problem raised in the appeal. When a person who 
is 
sentenced to imprisonment for life commits a murder the previous conviction 
A 
B 
.E 
F 
G 
H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 S.C.R. 
assumes _a graver propo1iion and becomes an aggravating circumstance but the 
aggravation JS on the assumption that the previous conviction is lawful and 
valid. 
An order of acquittal in regard to the previous offence wipes out the 
g_mlt and turplll!de attachJ!1,g to th~ previo_us convicti0~, for the true implica• 
t10n of a~ acqmttal 1s as 1f the offender did not commit the offence for which 
he was tried, no matter whether the acquittal is founded on benefit of dtmbt 
·or based on the overall rejection of the case. 
Therefore if a court whether 
of the first instance or otherwise, finds on the date on ~hich, it re~ords its 
decision that the accused before it is no longer under a sentence of life impri-
sonment it cannot under s. 303 sentence him to death. [292 D-F, G, 293 B·EJ 
4. It is a well-estabfr;hed proposition that a court seized of a proceeding 
must take into account events subsequent to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.