LexVIKRAM SINGH@ VICKY & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 S.C.R. 1090 VIKRAM SINGH@ VICKY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2013) JULY 2, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 364A - Constitutional validity of C - Challenged by appellants-convicts on the ground that inasmuch as the same prescribes death sentence for a case of kidnapping for ransom, the same is so harsh as to make it . unreasonable and unfair hence violative of Article 21 of the Constitution - Matter referred to larger Bench in view of the o peculiar fact situation in which the instant case arose and the grounds on which provisions of s. 364A were assailed - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21. The appellants were sentenced to death by hanging E both under Section 302 and 364A of IPC by the trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court and finally affirmed by the Supreme Court. Seeking review of their conviction on the ground that Section 364A IPC is itself unconstitutional being violative F of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court praying for striking down Section 364A of IPC and for an order restraining the execution of the death warrant against them. Re-opening of the case of the appellants and G commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for - life were also prayed for in the said petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition which was challenged in the instant appeals. H 1090 VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY &ANR v. UNION OF INDIA1091 & ORS. The constitutional validity of Section 364A of IPC was A challenged on the ground that inasmuch as the same prescribes death sentence for a case of kidnapping for ransom, the same is so harsh as to make it unreasonable anc:I unfair hence violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. B Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1. Constitutional validity of any Parliamentary or State legislation is judged on the twin tests of legislative competence of the legislature that enacts the C law or on the ground that the legislative enactment violates a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen. There is no other ground on which the constitutional validity of an enactment may be determined by a Court of law competent to do so. [Para 11] [1098-C-D] D 2. In the instant case, the appellants were convicted both under Sections 302 and 364A of the IPC and sentenced to death for each one of the two offences. When asked whether any juristic exercise aimed at E determining the constitutional validity of Section 364A will be of any assistance to the appellants who may despite an acquittal under Section 364A remain condemned to death for the capital offence of murder under Section 302 IPC, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that if Section 364A IPC were to be declared ultra vires of the F Constitution, the sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 302 may call for a fresh look, having regard to the fact that the Courts had while awarding death sentence to the appellants had taken them to be guilty under both the provisions, which would no longer hold G good, if Section 364A were to be held ultra vires. There is no need to express any final opinion on this aspect at this stage. For the present, there is a last ditch attempt by the appellants to avoid the extreme penalty that the law provides for even the most heinous crime punishable H 1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A under the Code. The plea may indeed be in complete desperation but one can well understand such desperation among those who are waiting at the gallows for the hangman to put the noose around their neck. Dismissal of this appeal is bound to take them a step 8 closer to the end. That apart the questions raised may require an authoritative answer, by a Bench of three Judges having regard to the fact that the death sentence awarded to the appellants has been affirmed by a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction. In view of the peculiar fact c situation in which the case arises and the grounds on which the provisions of Section 364A are assailed, this case ought to go before a larger Bench of three Judges for hearing and disposal. [Para 12 and 13] [1098-F-H; 1099-A-B, C-F] D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2012 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.