STATE OF PUNJAB versus GURMEJ SINGH

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 02-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
v. 
GURMEJ SINGH 
AUGUST 2, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.) 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 324, 326 and 450-Penalty of death 
sentence-Award of-On facts, quarrel on account of money transactions 
between accused and his brother infariating the accused leading to assault C 
resulting in death of three family members and injuries to other three 
relations-Trial Court holding it to be a gruesome murder committed by the 
accused, imposing death sentence-High Court declining to accept the 
reference for confirmation of death sentence-On appeal held, it does not fall 
in the category of rarest of rare cases to award extreme penalty of death--
Hence order of High Court does not call for interference. 
D 
Criminal Law-Pre-mature release of prisoner-It is considered on 
material facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of release and also 
on report of officers concerned-There cannot be any presumption about 
release or non-release of a prisoner. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 357-Compensatior>-
Award of-Question arises when court imposes a sentence of which fine does 
not form a part. 
E 
According to the prosecution, a quarrel took place between the 
respondent and his brother over money transaction; respondent got infuriated F 
when explanation or excuses given to him by his brother did not convince him. 
He assaulted his brother and his family members including young children, 
as a result of which his brother, brother's wife and their son died and brother's 
daughter, father-in-law and wife's sister's daughter were left injured. Trial 
Court imposed death sentence on the respondent holding that it was gruesome G 
murder committed by him, who did not even spare young children and 
assaulted them without any provocation. However, High Court declined to 
accept the reference for confirmation of death sentence. Hence the present 
ap(leaL 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
427 
H 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. A number of factors are to be taken into account while 
imposing penalty of death, for illustration, the motive of the crime, the manner 
of the assault, the impact of the crime on the society as a whole, the personality 
of the accused,~ circumstances and facts of the case as to whether the crime· 
committed. is for satisfying any kind of lust, greed or in pursuance of any 
organised· anti-soeial activity or by way of organised crime, drug trafficking 
B or thellke or the chances of inflicting the society with a similar criminal act 
that is to say vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the 
accused in future or commission of murder which may be shocking to the . 
conscience. [432-E, F) 
C 
1.2. In the instant case, the facts and circumstances of the case do not 
fall in any of such category or the like. It is no doubt true that the incident is 
ghastly and deserves all condemnation, but looking to the principles laid down 
in the numerous decisions of this Court the case would not fall in the category 
of rare of the rarest cases to award extreme penalty to death. [432-G; 433-A, B) 
D 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980) 2 SCC 684; Machi Singh and 
E 
Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1983) SC 957; State through Superintendent of 
Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 253; Lehna v. State of 
Haryana, (2002} 1 SCALE 273; Dharmendra Singh Alias Mansing Ratansing 
v. State of Gujarat, [2002) 4 SCC 679 and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana 
[1999) 3 sec 19, referred to. 
2. Pre-mature release is considered on the material facts and 
circumstances prevailing at the relevant time of release. Report of the 
concerned officers is also called for and it is after consideration of all the 
material that a decision is taken in the matter. Therefore, the submission 
that after a few years the case of the respondent-accused is likely to be 
F considered for his pre-mature release and in the event of his coming out it 
will endanger the life of deceased's daughter cannot be appreciated. 
Respondent-accused would not lose his right of being considered for pre-
mature release, which may be considered at the appropriate time in the light 
of the facts and circumstances then found prevailing. There cannot be any 
G presumption about release or non-release of a prisoner. It would not be a valid 
consideration to inflict the extreme penalty. [433-B-D) 
3. A reading of Section 357 (3) ofCr.P.C. would show that question of 
awa

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