GURMEET SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 28-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
A 
GURMEET SINGH 
v. 
STATEOFU.P. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1870: 
Section 302-Murder-Death sentence-Commutation of death sentence c 
to life imprisonment-Accused came with swords and started shouting and 
indiscriminately attacked and killed thirteen members of his family who were 
asleep at various places in his farmhouse-It was a moonlit night-Trial 
court sentenced the accused to death-However, there was a difference of 
opinion between the two Judges who constituted the Bench hearing the D 
appeal-One Judge was for dismissal of the appeal and maintaining conviction 
and the death sentence while the other was for acquittal of the accused-
The matter was referred to a third Judge who ultimately upheld the conviction 
and sentence-What weighed with the Judge who opined for acquittal of the 
accused was that eyewitnesses were near relations-Secondly, it was felt that E 
the deceased family members must have raised alarm by shouting and crying 
and if the murder was committed as stated by the prosecution in the house 
of the accused, neighbours would have come to help-Further, the Judge felt 
that it was surprising that no resistance was offered-Held: The residential 
portion of each farmhouse was located at quite a distance from each other-
Therefore, there was no question of neighbours hearing the shouts and F 
coming for help-Most of the family members were asleep and, therefore, 
could not offer any resistance-ft was moonlit night and, therefore, the 
accused could be easily identified more so since the accused was a member 
.. 
of the family-Therefore, there could be no doubt about the identity of the 
accused to the eyewitnesses-Hence, accused rightly convicted and sentenced G 
to death-The time for consideration of delay in execution of death sentence 
started from the date of judgment pronounced by Supreme Court-Therefore, 
there is no warrant to commute the death sentence life imprisonment. 
Commutation of death sentence w life imprisonment due to delay in 
651 
H 
652 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A execution. 
l 
According to the prosecution, the appellant-accused was living with 
several members of his family in a big farmhouse. On the fateful night, the 
appellant and the co-accused came with swords and started shouting and 
B 
indiscriminately attacking the members of the family who were asleep at 
various places in the house and killed thirteen members of his family. It was 
a moonlit night. The appellant-accused had been married about one year prior 
to the date of incident. The family was suspecting unnatural relationship 
between his newly married wife and the co-accused. The family, therefore, 
was objecting to the visit of the co-accused and his presence in the house, 
c which was not liked by the appellant and the co-accused. 
The trial court convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 
of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to death. 
In the High Court there was a difference of opinion between the two 
D Judges who constituted the Bench hearing the appeal. One Judge was for 
dismissal of the appeal and maintaining conviction and the death sentence 
while the other was for acquittal of the accused. The matter was referred to. 
a third Judge who ultimately upheld the conviction and sentence. What weighed 
with the Judge who opined for acquittal of the accused was that eyewitnesses 
were near relations. Secondly, it was felt that the deceased family members 
E must have raised alarm by shouting and crying and if the murder was 
committed as stated by the prosecution in the house of the accused, neighbours 
would have come to help. Further, the Judge felt that it was surprising that 
no resistance was offered. Hence the appeal. 
F 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that in view of the long delay 
in execution of the death sentence, the accused deserved some sympathy and 
the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
)-, 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The incident took place in the family house of the appellant. 
All the deceased persons were immediate family members of the accused being 
his father, brothers, their wives and their children. The surviving eyewitnesses 
are one brother and two children of the brothers who were killed. Their 
presence in the house is natural. The entire family was sleeping in the family 
house at that hour of the night. The family had been t

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