LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus DALBIR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 4 S.C.R. 608 STATE OF PUNJAB v. DALBIR SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2006) FEBRUARY 01, 2012 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Arms Act, 1959 - s.27(3) - Vires of - Mandatory death c penalty as imposed u/s.27(3) - If justified - Held: Mandatory death penalty has been found to be constitutionally invalid in various jurisdictions where there is an independent judiciary and the rights of the citizens are protected in a Constitution - In s.27(3), the provision of mandatory death penalty is more 0 unreasonable inasmuch it provides whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or acts in contravention of s. 7 and if such use or act results in the death of any other person then that person guilty of such use or acting in contravention of s. 7 shall be punishable with death E - The word 'use' has not been defined in the Act - Therefore, the word 'use' has to be viewed in its common meaning - In view of such very wide meaning of the word 'use' even an unintentional or an accidental use resulting in death of any other person shall subject the person so using to a death penalty - Both the words 'use' and 'result' are very wide - Such F a law is neither just, reasonable nor is it fair and falls out of the 'due process' test - The concepts of 'due process' and the concept of a just, fair and reasonable law has been read by this Court into the guarantee u!Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution - s.27(3) is thus violative of Articles 14 and 21 of G the Constitution - Principles of Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which provides for guarantee against cruel and harsh punishment) have a/so been incorporated in our laws - Direct mandate of the Constitution under Article 13 is that the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges H 608 STATE OF PUNJAB v. DALBIR SINGH 609 the right conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution and any law A made in contravention of the same is, to the extent of contravention, void - s.27(3) is in clear contravention of Part Ill rights - It also deprives the judiciary from discharging its Constitutional duties of judicial review whereby it has the power of using discretion in the sentencing procedure - s.27(3) is B against the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional law as developed by this Court - It is ultra vires the Constitution and is void - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 13, 14 and 21. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 307 - Acquittal of accused on ground of benefit of doubt - Justification - Accused C CRPF constable, who had been warned by his officer for non- performance of duty, opened fire from a self-loading rifle (SLR) whereupon the officer was hit on the back and another officer sustained multiple bullet injuries causing his death - Conviction of accused-respondent by trial court inter alia u/ . D ss. 302 and 307 /PC - High Court found irreconcilable inconsistencies in the prosecution case relating to a) deposition of witnesses and b) number of cartridges fired and recovered, and acquitted respondent by giving him benefit of doubt - On appeal, held: In the facts and circumstances of the E case, it cannot be said that the order of the High Court was either perverse or not based on proper appreciation of evidence - No interference called for u!Article 136 of the Constitution. The prosecution case was that respondent, a CRPF F constable, who had been warned by the Deputy Commandant Quarter Master for his refusal to carry out fatigue duty as assigned to him, opened fire towards the Deputy Commandant's office from a Self Loading Rifle (SLR) whereupon the Deputy Commandant was hit in his G back while the Battalion Havaldar Major (B.H.M.), who was also inside the office at the relevant time, sustained multiple bullet injuries in his shoulders which ultimately caused his death. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 307 IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-. The B substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The High Court, however, reversed the order of conviction on the grou'nd that there were irreconcilable inconsistency in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.