SUBHASH CHANDER ETC. ETC. versus KRISHAN LAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 29-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUBHASH CHANDER ETC. ETC. 
v. 
KRISHAN LAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MARCH 29, 2001 
[K. T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302, 307, 148, 450 read with Sections 149, 
~-
120-B. 
Murder-Accused persons-Appreciation of testimony of eye-witness-
Deposition of eye-witnesses establishing involvement of accused persons-No 
material infirmity in the deposition of eye-witnesses-Concurrent finding of 
guilt of accused by Trial Court as well as High Court-Conviction of accused 
upheld. 
Murder-Sentence-Award of death sentence by Trial Court-Sentence 
commuted into life imprisonment by High Court-Held, on facts discretion 
exercised by High Court cannot be interfered with. 
Death penalty-Commutation to life imprisonment-Validity of 
S.57-Sentence-Life imprisonment-Unless life imprisonment commuted 
as per law prisoner is bound to serve the life terms in prison. 
The appellants along with other co-accused persons were prosecuted 
und~r Sections 302, 307, 148, 450 read with Sections 149, 120-B and Section 
307 read with Sections 149 and 120-B .of the Penal Code, 1S60. The prosecu-
tion story was that the families of Band K, (A· l) had an old enmity. One of 
the sons of B was murdered by A· l and some family members ofB had been 
cited as eye-witnesses in that case. During the pendency of the trial Al, A6, 
A 7 and AS were released on bail. On the night of 21st August 1992 the 
accused persons intruded into the house of B with a view to eliminating the 
prosecution witnesses in the murder case and started indiscriminate firing 
on the sleeping family members of B. In this attack B, one of bis sons and bis 
mother died. Two of the injured victims PWs 2 and 3 survived. The Trial 
Court acquitted AS but convicted the other accused persons and awarded 
them death sentence. The High Court convicted only four accused persons 
viz. Al, A6, A 7 and AS but commuted their death sentence to imprisonment 
oflife. Hence these appeals. 
864 
• 
SUBHASH v. KRISHAN LAL 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
865 
HELD : 1. Both the trial court and the High Court have, upon 
appreciation of evidence, concurrently found accused Al, A6, A7 and AS 
guilty of the offences with which they were charged. Involvement of these 
accused persons is fully established by the testimony of PW2 and PW3. No 
material infirmity in the depositions of these two eye-witnesses bas been 
pointed out. Consequently, there is no doubt regarding the involvement of 
the aforesaid accused P"rsons for the offences with which they were charged, 
convicted and sentenced. [872-H; 873-D) 
2. There is no denial of the fact that the accused convict-appellants, 
A 
B 
c 
who were earlier involved in the murder of a son of B left no stone 
unturned to eliminate the whole family of said B including three eye-
witnesses in that case. The means adopted in execution of the evil designs 
speak of the mental condition of the accused persons whom the trial Court 
found to have been involved in the commission of a crime termed by it as 
rarest of the rare cases. But the High Court, presumably on general con· 
D 
spectus and upon consideration of facts of the case, found that accused 
persons should not be awarded with death sentence. Consequently, for 
interfering with the discretion of the Court, further exceptional grounds 
are required to be made out. When two views are possible about the 
quantum of sentence, a view which favours the grant of life in comparison 
E 
to death is generally accepted. There are some reservations about the 
sentence awarded vide the impugned judgment but in view of the exercise 
of discretion in commuting the death sentence the sentence awarded to the 
accused persons calls for no interference. [874-B-E) 
Nirmal Singh & ,for. v. State of Haryana, [1999) 2 Scale 133; State of 
F 
U.P. v. Dharmendra Singh & Anr., [1999) 6 Scale 113; Ram Deo Chauhan @ 
Raj Nath Chauhan v. State of Assam, JT (2000) 8 SC 430 and Narayan 
Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, JT (2000) 10 SC 78, 
referred to. 
3. Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code provides that in calculating 
fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life sbali be reckoned 
as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. It does not say that the impris-
onment for life shall be deemed to be for 20 years. The position at law is 
that unless the life imprisonment is commuted or remitted by appropriate 
authority under the relevant provisions of law applicab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.