KULJEET SINGH @ RANGA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 21-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
512 
KULJEET SINGH @ RANGA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
April 21, 1981 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD C.J., A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Article 32-No material furnished for justifying the 
reduction of the death sentence-Dismissed. 
The petitioner, alongwlth ar.other accused was convicted by the Additional 
Session Judge for the murder of two young children and sentenced to death. Their 
conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. The Special Leave 
Petitions filed by them against their conviction and sentence were dismissed by 
this Court. By this Writ Petition the petitioner asked for re-appraisal of his 
case and reconsideration of the death sentence imposed upon him, 
Dismissing the ~Writ Petition and upholding the death sentence imposed 
upon the petitioner once again, 
HELD : I. The answers given by the petitioner furnished no material a 
all for justifying the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. 
[515 E-F] 
2. The Sessions Court and the High Court were right in 
comin~ to the 
conclusion that the two accused were guilty of the offence of which they were 
charged. 
There is voluminous evidence of unimpeachable character which 
establishes his complicity in the mu rd er. The evidence regarding the theft of 
the Fiat Car, the blood group of the accused, the manner of the arrest and the 
recovery of incriminating weapons at their instance leave not even the slightest 
doubt that it was they who committed the murders. [514 D, 515 D-E] 
3. It is true that the murder of the two particular children was not pre-
planned. 
But that was because the accused did not know that they would hit 
upon those particular children that evening. What is important is that the 
accused had made all the preparations for committing the murder. The plan 
was that they would offer a lift to some young children, try to extort ransom 
from their parents by kidnapping them and do the children to death in the event 
of any impediment arising in the execution of their plan. The impediments here 
were the uncommon courage of the brave little children who did not make an 
abject surrender to their destiny and the fact which emerged during their 
molestation that their father was a mere government servant whose salary was 
too small to permit the payment of a handsome ransom. (515 G-H, 516 A-Cl 
4. The accused trapped the children like helpless mice. The children 
got into the car but could not get out of it. In the boot of the car were kept 
formidable weapons which were ultimately used for committing the murder. In 
addition, the accused carried sharp weapons with them. The author of the 
injury on the boy was clearly the petitioner since his hands were more free than 
those of his co-accused who was at the wheel. The strategy to which they 
KULJEET SINGH V. UNION 
513 
adhered to the last without contrition of any kink was so deep laid. Their 
A 
inhuma'nity defies all belief and description. [516 E-F] 
5. The case of the petitioner can not be 'separated from that of his 
co-accused. The petitioner was an active participator in the whole episode and 
but for his willing cooperation, his co-accused could never have succeeded in his 
design. Many atrocities were committed, many falsehood uttered, many escapades 
achieved and many an evidence concealed or destroyed by them. The petitioner's 
B 
part in· carrying out the nefarious plan is no less significant than that of his 
co-accused and he is no less guilty than him. There is no room for treating the 
one differently from the other. [517 A-CJ 
6. The survival of an orderly society demands !he extinction of persons 
like the accused who are a menace to social order and security. They ar~ 
professional murderers and deserve no sympathy even in terms of the evolving 
standards of decency of a maturing society. [516 G-H] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petit10n No. 539 of 1981. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
c 
R.K. Garg, D.K. Garg and R.C. Kaushik for the Petitioner. 
D 
M.K. BanarjPe, Addi!. Sol. Genl. and A. Subhashini for Respon-
dent No. I. 
N.C. Talukdar and R.N. Poddar for Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, c. J. 
Kuljeet Singh alias Ranga Khus, the 
petitioner herein, was convicted along with one Jasbir Singh alias 
Billa, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for various 
offences in connection with the murder of two young children, Geeta 
Chopra

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