LexMOHINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 3 S.C.R. 90 MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1278-1279 of 2010) JANUARY 28, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.366, 432 and C 433A - Double murder - Appellant-accused committed murder of his wife and daughter in the background of inimical relationship between them on account of criminal cases registered against him by his wife for committing rape on the said daughter, for which he was sentenced to rigorous o imprisonment for 12 years, and for attacking her after release on parole for which an FIR was registered against him - Appellant had committed the offence with a deadly weapon i.e. 'Ku/hara' (Axe) - Trial court convicted the appellant u/ s.302 IPC and sentenced him to death - High Court affirmed E the conviction and confirmed the death sentence - Held: In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the case did not fall within the category of 'rarest of rare case' though it called for stringent punishment - Appellant was feeling frustrated because of the attitude of his wife and children - It was thirst F for retaliation, which became the motivating factor in this case - Appellant not such a dangerous person that sparing his life will endanger the community - He did not harm his other daughter, namely, PW-2 even though he had a good chance for the same - Moreover, probability of appellant's G rehabilitation and reformation not foreclosed - Therefore, his sentence modified from one of death penalty to that of life imprisonment till the end of his life - Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life meaning thereby the end of his life subject, however, subject to remission granted by the H 90 MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 91 appropriate Government satisfying the conditions prescribed A in s.432 CrPC and further substantiate check u/s.433A CrPC by passing appropriate speaking orders. According to the prosecution, the appellant-accused committed murder of llis wife and daughter-'G' in the 8 background of inimical relationship between them on account of criminal cases registered against him by his wife for committing rape on 'G', for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years, and for attacking her after release on parole for which an FIR was registered against him. The appellant had entered C the scene of occurrence to commit the said offence carrying a deadly weapon i.e. 'Kulhara' (Axe) which was used in the commission of both the killings. The appellant committed the offence in the presence of his youngest daughter (PW-2). The trial court convicted the D appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the death sentence imposed on him by the trial court. Disposing of the appeals, the Court Per Sathasivam, J. [for himself and Kalifulla, J.] HELD: 1. In terms of Section 366(1) of CrPC, when E the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the F proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. The scope and application of the above section is only in cases where a sentence of death has been passed by the Court of Session. The Court of G Session should refer the proceedings to the High Court and the High Court can only deal with them as a Court of reference. It is the practice of the High Court to be satisfied on the facts as well as the law of the case, that the conviction is right, before it proceeds to confirm that H 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R. A sentence. In other words, the High Court has to come to its own independent conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, independently of the opinion of the Judge. In a reference for confirmation of death sentence, the High Court must examine the entire B evidence for itself independent of the Session Court's views. While confirming the capital sentence, the High Court is under an obligation to itself consider what sentence should be imposed and not be content with the trial Court's decision on the point unless some reason is c shown for reducing the same. Where, in addition to an appeal filed by an accused sentenced to death, the High Court has to dispose of the reference for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 of the Code, the High Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.