SUBHASH RAMKUMAR BIND @ VAKIL AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 65 · Decided: 12-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUBHASH RAMKUMAR BIND@ VAKIL AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
NOVEMBER 12. 2002 
[UM ESH C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] 
Arms Act, 1959-Section 27(3)-Arms Rules, 1962-Rule 3-Conviction 
under by Courts belou'--Death sentence-Murder caused by 9nun pistol and 
A 
B 
38 caliber revolver-On appeal-~Held, conviction cannot be sustained-Arn1s C 
in question 1vere not the prohibited arn1s under the Act. 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302134-Conviction under by courts below 
-Death sentence-On appeal-Held, conviction justified but in the facts of 
the case punishn1ent a1varded is in excess of the requiren1ent of the situation-
Brutality in the instant case is not of such a nature so as to exercise discretion D 
by passing an order of capital punishn1ent-Brutality itself l11ould not bring 
the case tt•ithin the a1nbit of rarest of rare cases-Sentence of death altered 
to life in1prisonn1ent .. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 354 (3)-Special reason 
for award of death sentence-Held, brutality can be an existing factor but E 
cannot be tern1ed to be special reason }Or awarding such sentence-Holt' the 
brutality takes place, is the relevant and necessary n1aterial to be considered. 
Sentencing-Death sentence-bnposition of-Held, latt• courts should 
be slolv in imposing-A reasonable proportion has to be nraintained bet1veen 
the heinousness of crime and the punishment-Punishment should neither be F 
disproportionately severe nor inadequate. 
Interpretation of statutes-Statements of objects and Reasons of statute-
Aid of for interpretation--Admissibilil)~Held, it is not admissible as an aid 
to the construction of a statute, bl!t the sa111e si111ply assists as to the necessity G 
of introduction of such law--// can be looked into for a limited purpose of 
ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the time-Statement of Objects and 
Reasons of Arms (Amendment) Act 42 of 1988. 
Trial Court convicted the accused u/s 302/34 IPC and Section 27(3) 
of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced them to death for having committed H 
65 
66 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A murder ()fa person with 9 mm. Pistol and .38 caliber revolver. High Court 
confirmed the order of trial Court and held that in view of Arms Act, 1959, 
Arms Rules, 1962 and Rules and the Schedule I thereof, the arms seized 
from the accused are prohibited arms and hence Section 27(3) is squarely 
. attracted. For confirmation of death sentence it recorded the special reason 
B being that gunshot injuries were caused and at that point of time the 
deceased was unarmed and was taken aback as to the whole situation. 
. 
. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the arms in question 
cannot come within the purview of 'Prohibited Arms' as defined u/s 2(t)(i) 
of the Act, because they are not automatically triggered and because there 
C was no notification as required by law vide category A schedule I of the 
statute; and that the note issued by Central Government pertaining to 9 
mtn pistol and .• 38 caliber revolver stands out to be prohibited for the 
purpose of importation only and thus would not attract the general 
definition as regards the prohibited weapons and ·hence the note to be 
treated as an instruction and not a notification. 
D 
E 
St.ate contended that the note issued by the Central Government 
ought to be treated as an authorization within the meaning of the first 
schedule to the statute. 
Dismissing ~he appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Section 27(3) of Arms Act, 1959 provides for a definite 
punishment for a definite offence : to wit, user of 11ny prohibited arms, 
which results in the death of another person and in that event the Statute 
has been categorical enough to prescribe that user.shall be punishable with 
F death. There are thus two specific requirements of the Statute in order to 
bring home the guilt of the accused within the meaning of Section 27(3): 
the requirements being- (a) user of a prohibited arm; and (b) resultant 
death of a person by reason of such user. (77-H; 78-A-BI 
1.2. Statement of Objects and Reasons is not otherwise admissible 
G as an aid to the construction of a Statute but the same simply assists as to 
the necessity of introduction of such a law. Though, in case of an urgent 
need of the situa~ion by reason wherefor the intent of the. legislature is to . 
be assessed, the Statements arid Objects can be looked into for the limited 
purpose of ascertaining the .conditions prevailing at the time which 
pro

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