UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DEVENDRA NATH RAI

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 10-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-.I, 
I 
.1 
-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DEVENDRA NA TH RAI 
JANUARY 10, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law: 
Sentencing-Court Martial awarding death penalty to accused for having 
caused homicidal death of two army personnel and attempting to murder two C 
others-High Court holding /he conviclion as well meriled bul remilting the 
matter lo authorilies concerned lo pass a fresh order as regards senlence as 
in its opinion !he case did no/ fall wilhin lhe calegory of rares/ of rare cases-
Held, to consider the queslion of exlreme penalty of death senlence, aggravaling 
and miligating circwnslances have to be weighed-High Courl did no/ attempl D 
!hat exercise-The direc/ion of High Courl is conlrary lo lhe principles se/ out 
by Supreme Court-High Courl would consider the matter afresh as regards 
the sentence only-Court Martial proceedings. 
Accused-respondent was on quarter guard duty, at the time of 
occurrence. He did not allow the army personnel concerned to write "light E 
out" report in the register, on the ground that they were in civvies and 
had no identity cards.· Later, when the CHM came and asked the accused 
to allow the personnel concerned to write the "light .out" report, the 
accused opened fire as a result of which the CHM and three others 
received gun-shot injuries. All the four victims were rushed to the hospital 
where the CHM and another were declared 'brought dead' and the F 
remaining two were found to have received injuries which were grievious 
in nature. General Co!lrt Martial proceedings were initiated against the 
accused. He was awarded death sentence for having caused death of two 
army personnel and for having caused grievious injuries with the intent 
of causing murder <if two others. The award of death penalty by the Court G 
Martial was affirmed by the Central Government'. The accused filed a writ 
· petition before the High Court which held that the convictiOn was well 
merited, but opined that the case did not fall in the category of rarest of 
rare cases; and directed the authorities concerned to pass a fresh order 
on the question of sentence. Aggrieved, the Union of India and others filed 
295 
H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) 1 S.C.R. 
A the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: I.I. While deciding the question as to whether the extreme 
B penalty of death sentence is to be awarded, a balance sheet of aggravating 
and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up. In the instant case, the 
High Court has not attempted to do that exercise and has come to an 
abrupt conclusion about the case being not covered by the rarest of rare 
category. That is clearly contrary to the principles set out by this Court. 
c 
1302-E-FI 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. 1198012 SCC 684; Machhi Singh and 
Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1198313 SCC 470 and Devender Pal Singh v. State 
of NCT of Delhi, 120021 5 SCC 234, relied on. 1299-C; 301-DI 
D 
1.2. The High Court would consider the matter afresh limited to the 
aspect of appropriate sentence alone as the High Court itself has found 
that the conviction was well merited. 1302-FI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2003. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.2000 of the High Court of 
Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Pe(ition No. 35206/91. 
F 
Rajiv Dutta, Ravi P. Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra and Mrs. Anil Katiyar 
for the Appellants. 
Subhash Sharma and V.K. Vasdev for the Respondent(s). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. The Union of India, Chief of Army Staff (Army 
Headquarters). General officer Commanding, Commanding Officer, 502, Area 
Defence Group and the Commanding Officer, I, Corps, Artillery Brigade are 
G in appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High 
Court directing the authorities to re-consider the question of sentence to be 
awarded to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). In the 
Court martial proceedings, the accused was awarded death sentence for having 
caused homicidal death of two army personnel and for having caused grievous 
H injuries with the intent of causing murder of two others. The award of death 
, 
'<. . 
, 
U.0.1. v. DEVENDRA NATH RAI [PASAYAT,J.] 
297 
penalty by the Court Martial was affirmed by the Central Government the A 
Section 153 of the Army Act, 1950 (in short the 'Army Act'). 
Factual position as projected by the appel

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