KISHORI versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 17-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KISHORI 
v. 
ST A TE (NCT) OF DELHI 
B 
DECEMBE~ 17, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1872' : 
c 
Sections 302 & 149-Death in mob violence-Deceased persons 
dragged from their house and hacked to death-Eye witness deposing accused 
involved in hacking-Accused awarded death sentence-Challenged -Held, 
member of group loses one's self and normal standard or sense of judgement 
and reality in crowd instinct-Diminished individual responsibility-Act 
committed under the influence of collective fury and not the outcome of 
· D systematic or organised activity-Temporary frenzy-Cannot be classified as 
"rarest of rare cases"-Death sentence reduced to life imprisonment. 
Prosecution charged and tr.ied six persons including appellant for 
mercilessly killing three Sikh brothers in riots that took place following the 
E assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister Trial Court 
convicted appellant and two other accused persons under Sections 148, 149,_ 
188, 397, 302 IPC and sentenced them to death. In appeal filed by the convicted 
F 
persons, High Court acquitted the two persons but confirmed the order of 
conviction and sentence passed against appellant. Against the order of High 
Court, appellant has appealed to this court. 
The appellant contended that High Court had erred in recording a 
finding of guilt against him; and alternatively, that the case could not be said 
to be 'rarest of the rare cases' as the incident was an outcome of mob frenzy 
when normal human behaviour had taken a back seat and animal instinct in 
man· ran high witli members of the frenzied ·mob and therefore, the appellant 
G deserved lesser punishment of life imprisonment in place of sentence of 
death. 
The respondent-State contended that the brutal and merciless manner 
in which the deceased persons were dragged out of their house and hacked. 
to death in the presence of their family members did not make out a case 
494 
..,.;:, 
\. 
-
KISHORI v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI 
495 
for lesser punishment. 
A~ 
Dismissing the appeal but reducing the sentence, the Court 
HELD : 1. PW. 3 who was an eye witness to the incident has stated that 
appellant, who was known to him earlier, was member of the unlawful assembly 
that killed his three sons and has attributed a specific overtact of killing his B 
sons with big knife by the appellant. Thus, there is no good ground to interfere 
with the judgement of the High Court finding the appellant guilty of the said 
charges. (498-F; 499-D] 
2. It is common experience that when people congregate in crowds, 
normal defences are lowered so that the crowd instinct assaults on the sense C 
of individuality or transcends one's individual boundaries by offering a release 
from inhibitions from personal doubts and anxiety. In such a situation, it can 
well be imagined that a member of such a group loses one's self and the 
normal standard or sense of judgement and reality. When there is a collective 
action, as in the case of a mob, there is a diminished individual responsibility 
unless there are special circumstances to indicate that a particular individual D 
had acted with any predetermination such as by use of weapon not normally 
found. If, however, a member of such a crowd picks up an article or a weapon 
which is close by and joins the mob, either on his own volition or at the 
instigation of the mob responding to the exhortation of the mob, playing no 
role of leadership, it can very well be said that such a person did not intend E 
to commit all the acts which a mob would commit left to himself, but did so 
under the influence of collective fury. When an amorphous group of persons 
come together, it cannot be said that they indulge in any systematic or organi7.ed 
activity. Such group may indulge inactivities and may remain cohesive only 
for a temporary period and thereafter would disintegrate. The acts of the mob 
of which the appellant was a member cannot be stated to be the result of an F 
organisation or any group indulging in violent activities formed with any 
purpose or scheme so as to call an organised activity but was only the result 
ofa temporary frenzy. [503-D, E, F-G; 504-G-H; 505-B) 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Jagmohan 
Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 sec 20, followed. 
G 
Kishori v. State of Delhi, [1999) 1 SCC 148, relied on. 
3. On the totality of the circumstances, it is not a case which can be 
called 'a rarest of rare cases' 

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