LexSTATE OF U.P. versus DHARMENDRA SINGH AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF U.P. v. DHARMENDRA SINGH AND ANR. ETC. SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 B [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 I Penal Code, 1860: Section 354(3) I Section 302-Death Sentence-Murder of 5 persons ( chi(dren and elder per- . C sons) to wreak vengeanc~Attacked in the night while victims were as- leep-Multiple injuries inflicted-Lower part of the girl's body denuded-Trial Court convicted respondents for the offence of murder and sentenced them to death holding it to be rarest of rare cas~In appeal and death sentence reference, High Court confirmed conviction but commuted death sentence to D life imprisonment in view of the fact of respondents /anguishing in death cell for more than three years-On appeal, Held: High Court was factually incor- rect that the respondents were in the death cell for the last three years-There is no law conferring commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment ipso facto on persons /anguishing in death cells for three years-Ghastly manner of attack on the victims showed the act of killing was premeditated, senseless E and beyond human reasoning--53 wounds inflicted on 5 persons-Offence committed was rarest of rare case-H~nce death sentence awarded by trial Court confirmed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/Constitution of India: Section 377(3) and 386(c)(iii)/Article J3(r-Section 377(3) applicable in case of appeal F before the High Court only-Does not apply to an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution-However, Supreme Court would keep in mind the prin· ciples analogous to those found in the Cr.P.C. including Section 377(3) apart from Supreme Court Rules to make the procedure fair. The complainant purchased, from the grandfather of respondent No. G 1, a part of the family house belonging to family of R-1. After the said Purchase, complainant's family started living with the family of R-1 in the same house. R-1 resented to the said purchase as he himself wanted to purchase the same. Respondent No. 2, a law student, was harbouring evil designs on the complainant's 15 years old niece. In order to fulfil his lust, H 4-5 days before the occurrence, R-2 tried to molest the said girl. Despite 52 - ] STATEv. DHARMENDRASINGH 53 threats from R·2, the young girl complained to the. complainant which A resulted in thrashing of R-2. In order to seek revenge R·l and R-2, with the support of four others caused death of all the five persons of the complainant's family by ~nOicting multiple injuries while they were asleep. The victims included an old aged 75 years, a woman aged 32, two boys both aged 12 and the said girl aged 15. The Trial Court, convicting the respon· dents, sentenced them to death and termed the case to be "rarest of the rare cases". In appeal, High Court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence of death to life imprisonment on the ground that the respondents were languishing in the death cell for the last more than three years. Hence the present appeal by the State and a companion petition by the com- plainant. B c The appellant-State contended that the Trial Court had awarded death sentence to the respondents after giving cogent and acceptable reasons as required by Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. and the High Court while agreeing with the said finding of the Trial Court erred both in law and fact in reducing the sentence of the respondents. D The respondents contended that if the Court is inclined to go into the merits of the State appeal then the Court should consider the effect of Sections 377(3) and 386 Cr.P.C. meaning thereby that in the event of this Court's entertaining the State appeal, they were not only to show cause E against enhancement of such sentence but also were entitled to plead for their complete acquittal or for reduction of the sentence. Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. High Court erred in refusing to confirm death sentence p both factually and inferentially. First of all these respondents were not in death cell for three years nor is there a law which says that a person in death cell for three years ipso facto is entitled for commutation of death sentence. While it is true that prolonged trial or execution of death sentence beyond all reasonable period may be ground for commuting the death sentence in a giving case, it will be highly erroneous to lay down as a principle in Ia.w or G draw an inference on fact that awarding of death senten
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.