LexGURDEV SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B GURDEV SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AUGUST I, 2003 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 r/w 149-Murder of 15 persons and injuries to 8 others-By 5 accused-3 accused arrested while 2 absconded- C Trial, Appeal to High Court, Special Leave Petition and Review Petition in Supreme Court-Conviction and death sentence to 2 accused while acquittal of one-Arrest of absconded accused -incident witnessed by eyewitnesses, two of them injured-Conviction and death sentence by Courts be/ow-During pendency of SLP plea for recalling the dismissal order of previous SLP- Order recalled and leave granted-Held: Offence of accused proved-Hence D conviction and sentence justified-The act is so gruesome, merciless and brutal that aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances-Since the previous SLP was finally disposed of and conviction and sentence had attained finality, it is not just, proper and legal to hear the matter again on merit. E F Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 235(2) and proviso to Section 309(2) (as amended by Amending Act, 45 of 1978)-Death sentence- Pronouncement of sentence on the same day on which conviction order passed-Justification of sentence-Held: sentence is not vitiated for non- compliance with Section 235(2) in view of proviso to Section 309(2). Section 354(3)-Death sentence-Guidelines for invoking-Held: No rigid formula or standards can be fu:ed and only a broad guideline cohsistent with legislative policy as provided under Section 354(3), viz. providing special reasons for it, shall be considered-Sentencing. G Appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No. 392/2002 alongwith the appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No. 393/2002 and another accused went to the house of PW-6 on the eve of the marriage of her son. PW9 armed with firearms started firing at the relative.s gathered there when feast was going on. They continued the shooting for 10-15 minutes. The shooting resulted in 13 deaths and serious injuries to 8 persons. Thereafter H so GURDEV SINGH v.STA TE OF PUNJAB 81 all the accused went to the house of PW15 and started firing as a result A of which father and brother of PW15 died on the spot. Thereafter they went to two other places and caused death of two persons. Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 393-2002 and another accused ! were arrested immediately while appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 392/ 2002 absconded. Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 393/2002 were tried B and were found guilty for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 149 IPC and were sentenced to death. However, another accused was acquitted. High Court confirmed the death sentence. Special Leave Petition as well as Review Petition against the same were dismissed by this Court. Separate trial was initiated against the appellants in Criminal C Appeal No. 392/2002, after they were apprehended. During trial PWs 7 and 8, the injured witnesses and PWs 6 and 9 were examined as eyewitnesses to prove the first incident. PW 15 was examined as eye- witness to prove the second incident. Motive was also attributed to the accused to attack the family members of PW6. They were found guilty of D offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 149 IPC and accordingly convicted 1 and sentenced to death. On appeal and death reference, High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Special Leave Petition was filed against the same. During pendency of the petition prayer was made to recall the order of dismissal of previous SLP filed by the appellants in E Criminal Appeal No. 393/2002 and the same was recalled by this Court and leave was granted. Appellants contended that there were infirmities in the prosecution case viz. statement of PW6 as to lodging of FIR and actual lodging of FIR are contradictory and FIR reached the Magistrate belatedly; that sentence F imposed was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.; and that death sentence was not justified as there were mitigating circumstances. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: I.I. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for causing the death of 15 persons, besides causing grievous injuries to eight others. They have been rightly convicted by the Sessions Court for the various offences charged against them. (88-FI G 1.2. Minor infirmities would not cast doubt on the prosecution's H 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.