GYASUDDIN KHAN @ MD. GYASUDDLN KHAN versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 07-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GYASUDDIN KHAN @ MD. GYASUDDlN KHAN 
A 
v. 
THE ST A TE OF BIHAR 
NOVEMBER 7, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, I 860-Section 302-Murder-Death sentence-Justification 
for-Mental condition of the accused-Held, a relevant factor for determining 
sentence-Accused police personnel killing three fellow police personnel- C 
Murder committed because one of the deceased had reprimanded him and 
had made adverse entries against him in register-No motive to kill the other 
two police personnel-Death sentence converted into life imprisonment 
considering his mental condition-Penology-Death Sentence. 
The appellant was a constable in police force. He was aggrieved by D 
the action of his superior, R, who had reprimanded him on various 
occasions for negligence and lack of devotion to duty. R had also made 
certain adverse remarks in the Guards' register against him. When R was 
meditating, the appellant took his sten-gun and shot him dead. He 
thereafter killed another colleague, C, who challenged him. Another police 
personnel, B, witnessing all this ran for his safety. The appellant chased E 
him to the nearby field and shot him dead. After exhausting the magazine 
of the sten-gun, the appellant took the sten-gun of B and started firing 
indiscriminately. Thereafter, he threw the gun and tried to escape when 
he was over-powered by the police constables. 
The appellant was charged for commission of offences under Section 
302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant pleaded 
not guilty and took a plea that the police station was attacked by extremists 
who killed the deceased persons. 
F 
The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 302 l.P.C. G 
and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to death. The appeal 
of the appellant to the High Court was dismissed and the death reference 
was accepted by the High Court. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal on the question of sentence, the Court 
367 
H 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: On conviction under Section 302 l.P.C. 
1.1. The conviction of the appellant .under Section 302 I.P.C. is 
upheld. The version of eyewitnesses who were all present at the camp at 
the crucial time is quite consistent and reliable. They have given an account 
of the incident lasting for a few minutes leading to the death of three police 
B personnel. They have also spoken to the motive, viz., the reprimand and 
adverse entries made in the register. There was no reason for the fellow 
policemen to invent a story to implicate the accused against whom none 
of them had any animosity. (376-E; 373-E, F) 
1.2. If, according to the accused, some armed outsiders were 
C responsible for this incident, the fellow policemen would not have gone to 
the extent of suppressing that incident and conspiring together to implicate 
the accused. The defence witnesses never came forward to give their 
version before the police. There is no explanation as to why they should, 
as law abiding citizens, withhold the important information. (376-8) 
D 
On conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act 
2. The conviction of the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 
1959 is set aside. There was no discussion whatsoever either by the trial 
Court or by the High Court in regard to offence under Section 27 of the 
E Arms Act. There is no evidence to the effect that the weapon used, namely 
sten-gun, answers the description of 'prohibited arms' within the meaning 
of Section 2 (I) (i) of Arms Act though, in all likelihood, it maybe. It is 
not appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 27 (3) in which the 
extreme punishment of death is provided for. (380-F, G; 381-A) 
F 
On death sentence 
3.1. The death sentence is not the appropriate sentence in the instant 
case. (380-D) 
3.2. Capital punishment ought to be imposed only in very rare and 
G exceptionally grave cases of murder. The number of persons killed, though 
a factor to be taken into account, should not be the sole consideration to 
condemn the criminal to death. A delicate balancing of various factors such 
as those which give an insight into the state of mind, motivation, attitude 
and propensities of the accused has to be done while at the same time, 
H keeping in view the larger societal interests. The principle that in case of 
GY ASUDDIN KHAN v. STATE OF BIHAR 
369 
murder, life imprisonment is the normal rule and the death sentence should A 
be handed down in 

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