HARBANS SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 12-02-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HARBANS SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 
February 12, 1982 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., D.A. DESAI AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.J 
235 
PenafCode-Death Sentence imposed on three accused for the same ojfence-
One accused executed-Sentence of death commuted in case of another accused-
Mercy petition rejected by President in another-Court if could interfere. 
By a common judgment the petitioner and the two other accused (JS and 
KS) were convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of four persons. The 
High Court affirmed their conviction and sentence. 
The special leave petition filed by JS was dismissed and he was executed. 
The sentence of death passed on KS was commuted by this Court into imprison· 
ment fof life. The petitioner's ('HS's) speciaf leave petition and later his review 
petition were dismissed by this Court and his petition to the President of India 
for commutation of death sentence was dismissed, whereupon he filed the present 
petition. 
(Per Chandrachud, CJ and D.A. D~sai, J. 'A,N. Sen, J. concurring.) 
HELD : The petitioner and the other two co-accused were sentenced to 
death by a common judgment. No distinction could at all be made between 
the part played by KS and the petitioner. Since the death s~ntence in bis case 
was commuted by this Court it would be unjust to confirm the death sentence 
imposed upon the petitioner. (238 B·CJ 
In view of the background of the case it would not be wrong if this Court 
had Commuted the sentence of death imposed upon the petitioner but in the inte-
rest of comity between the powers of this Court and the powers of the President 
it would be more in the fitness of things if this Court were to recommend that 
the President be so good as to exercise his power under Article 72 of the Consti-
tution to commute the death sentence into impriSonment for life because the 
President had already considered the mercy petition of the .Petitioner once and 
had rejectod it. [238 E-G] 
[The Court directed that prior to the actual execution of any death 
s111tence the Jail Superintendent should ascertain personally whether the 
,sente~ce of d.:ath impose<l ppon any of the co-accused of the prisener 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
236 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1982J 3 S.C.R. 
who was due to be hanged had been commuted.·· If it had been commu-
ted, the Superintendent should apprise the superior authorities- of the 
matter, who must take prompt steps for bringing the matter to the notice 
of the Court concerned.] [239 A·B] 
(Per A.N. Sen, J. concurring) 
B 
It would be unjust to allow the death sentence imposed on the petitioner. 
c 
D 
E 
executed. [242 G] 
Considering that the responsibility, involvement and complicitY of the peti-
tioner in the commission of the offence is the same as that of the other co-accu-
sed, it would be sheer travesty of justice if for the same offence the petitioner 
had to pay the extreme penalty of death while the death sentence imposed on the 
co-accused, for the very same offence had been commuted to one of life 
imprisonment. Had the petitfoner mentioned either in the special leave petition 
or review petition or mercy petition to the President this all important and signi-
ficant fact, death sentence imposed on him would have been commuted.[242 CF] 
Apart f~om the very wide jurisdiction and powers conferred on this Court 
under Arts. 32 and 136 of the Constitution this Court retains and must retain, 
an inherent power atid jurisdiction for dealing with.any extra·ordinary situation 
in the larger interests of administration of justice and for preventing manifest 
injustice being done. This power must necessarily be sparingly used for further-
ing the ends of justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this 
and interfere case, this is a fit case where this Court· should entertain the present 
petition. [243 A·C] 
Since in the instant case the petitioner's mercy petition had earlier been 
considered by the President propriety and decorum require that the matter should 
be referred back to the President. [243 D] 
F 
· ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 7453 
G 
H 
of 1981. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
A.P. Mohanty for the Petitioner. 
R.K. Bhatt for the Respondent. 
The following judgments of the Court were delivered 
CHANDRACHUD C.J. By this writ· petition the petitioner Harbans 
. Singh prays that the death sentence imposed upon him sb.olJl<! not b~ 
executed in view of the following circumstances.

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