LexGURVAIL SINGH @ GALA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 1 S.C.R. 783 GURVAIL SINGH @ GALA & ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2006) FEBRUARY 07, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Propriety of - Conviction u/s. 302134 /PC of 3 accused - Death sentence A B to two of the accused - Confirmed by High Court - On appeal, C held: Death sentence is not warranted - But in view of the fact that they caused death of 4 persons and nature of injuries inflicted, they deserve no sympathy - Death sentence is modified to life imprisonment for a minimum period of thirty years without remission - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134. D Death Sentence - Award of- Principles to be followed - Held: To award death sentence, aggravating circumstances (crime test) have to be fully satisfied and there should be no mitigating circumstance (criminal test) favouring the accused E - Even thereafter test of rarest of rare case has to be applied. Death sentence - Rarest of rare case test - Criteria - Held: Test of rarest of rare case depends on the perception of the society and not Judge-centric'. F Appellants-accused, along with 2 other accused were prosecuted for causing death of 4 people of a family. Trial court convicted the appellants and one other accused u/s. 302/34 IPC. Fourth accused was below 18 years of age and hence was sent to Juvenile Board. G Appellants were sentenced to death and the other accused was awarded file imprisonment. High Court confirmed their conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal by the appellants. 783 H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A The accused confined their contention on the question of sentence and stated that death sentence was not justified as in view of their age i.e. 34 and 22 years, there is possibility of their reform and rehabilitation; that antecedents of the appellants were unblemished and that B since they had already undergone number of years in jail they may be set free. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. To award death sentence, the aggravating C circumstances (crime test) have to be fully satisfied and there should be no mitigating circumstance (criminal test) favouring the accused. Even if both the tests are satisfied as against the accused, even then the Court has to finally apply the Rarest of Rare Cases test which depends on D the perception of the society and not 'judge-centric', that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crime or not. While applying this test, the Court has to look into variety of factors like society's abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy E to certain types of crimes like rape and murder of minor girls, especially intellectually challenged minor girls, minor girls with physical disability, old and infirm women with those disabilities etc. Courts award death sentence, because situation demands, due to constitutional F compulsion, reflected by the will of the people, and not Judge centric. [Para 13) [792-E-H; 793-A] 2. In the instant case, the appellants do not deserve death sentence. Some of the mitigating circumstances, as enunciated in *Machhi Singh case, come to the rescue G of the appellants. Age definitely is a factor which cannot be ignored, though not determinative factor in all fact situations. The probability that the accused persons could be reformed and rehabilitated is also a factor to be borne in mind. Due to the fact that the appellants are H instrumental for the death of four persons and nature of GURVAIL SINGH @ GALA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 785 injuries they have inflicted, in front of PW1, whose son, A daughter-in-law and two grand children were murdered, the appellants deserve no sympathy. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, imposition of death sentence on the appellants was not warranted but while awarding life imprisonment to the B appellants, it is held that they must serve a minimum of thirty years in jail without remission. The sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is modified from death to life imprisonment. [Paras 13 and 14) [792-D-E; 793-8-D] C *Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983 (3) SCR 413; Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana (2012) 11 SCALE 140 - relied on. Bachitar Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2002) 8 SCC D 125: 2002(2) Suppl. SCR 621; Prakash Dhawal Khairne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.