STATE OF PUNJAB versus MANJIT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 28-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 864 
;... 
A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
MANJIT SINGH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 786-789 of 2003) 
-
B 
MAY 28, 2009 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARIVIA AND DR. B.S. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.) 
Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence - Alteration of, to 
c life imprisonment - Justification of - On facts, held: Both the 
accused persons had illicit relationship with the third accused, 
who was wife of one of the deceased - The accused lost their 
balance when she narrated her woes and the harassment 
caused to her by her husband and sons - They entered the 
D house and killed.husband of third accused and thereafter went 
to Gurdwara and killed three sons - This behaviour on part 
of accused showed that they acted in the manner being driven 
more by infatuation and also being devoid of their sense on 
coming to know about the ill treatment meted out to the third 
E accused - Though act was gruesome but it was result of 
human mind going astray, for which, they were adequately 
punished - Life sentence awarded to all the three accused 
persons by High Court upheld- Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 - s.354(3) - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r.w. s.1208. 
F 
Prosecution case was that the accused persons 
developed illicit relations with 'BK', the third accused. Her 
husband and sons did not like this and restrained 
accused persons from coming to their house. 'BK' did 
G 
not like this and toltf to the accused persons about 
maltreatment meted to her. On fateful day, the accused 
_._ 
persons killed her husband and sons. The trial court 
convicted them under ss.302134 IPC and awarded death 
sentence. On appeal, High Court altered the death 
sentence to life sentence. Hence appeals by the State 
H 
864 
• 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANJIT SINGH & ORS . 
865 
/ 
~ 
,. 
challenging alteration of sentence. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. With regard to the quantum of·punishment 
to be awarded to persons found guilty of offences dealt 
B 
with in the IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure confers 
a wide discretion on the court in the matter· of awarding 
f 
appropriate punishment by prescribing the maximum 
punishment and in some cases both the maximum as 
well as the minimum punishment for the offence. Though 
no general guidelines are laid down in the Code for c 
awarding punishment, generally the judicial discretion of 
the court is guided by the principle that the punishment 
should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 
having regard to the aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances vis-a-vis an accused in each case. In such 
D 
r 
situation, the obligation of the court in making the choice 
of death sentence for the person who is found guilty of 
murder becomes more onerous indeed. [Para 12] [871-E-
H; 872-A] 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; 
E 
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, relied 
on. 
~ 
Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 19, 
l\ 
referred to. 
F 
2. On the question of awarding the sentence for the 
offences for which life imprisonment as well as the death 
sentence is prescribed, sub-section (3) of Section 354 
CrPC enjoins that in the case of sentence of death, 
G~ 
~ 
special reasons for such sentence shall be stated. 
Whether the case is one of the rarest of the rare cases is 
a question which has to be determined on the facts of 
each case. The choice of the death sentence has to be 
made only in the rarest of the rare cases and that where 
H 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A culpability of the accused has assumed depravity or 
where the accused is found to be an ardent criminal and 
menace to the society; where the crime is committed in 
an organized manner and is gruesome, cold-blooded, 
heinous and atrocious; and where innocent and 
B unarmed persons are attacked and murdered witho_ut any 
provocation. [Paras 13 and 17] [872-A-B; 873-E-G] 
Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5, relied 
~ 
on. 
C 
3. Both the respondents behaved in a most cruel 
manner, killed four persons while they were asleep. 
Three, out of the four deceased persons, were murdered 
within the precincts of a Gurdwara. But, there were 
certain mitigating circumstances in the case which 
D cannot be lost sight of. Both the respondents, as is 
disclosed from the records, had illicit relationship with 
. the third accused, who was wife of one of the deceased 
and when she narrated her woes and the harassment, 
both the accused persons, lost their balance and acted 
E in a cru

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