LexVIKRAM SINGH@ VICKY &ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015) 10 S.C.R. 816 VIKRAM SINGH@ VICKY &ANR. • v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.824 Of 2013) AUGUST 21, 2015 [T. S. THAKUR, R.K. AGRAWAL AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 364A - Kidnapping and killing of 16 year old boy demanding ransom of Rs 50 lakh from his father - Conviction u/ss. 302 and' 364A and imposition of death sentence - Order attaining finality upto this Court - Writ D petition by appellant u!Art. 32 challenging vires of s. 364A to the extent the same prescribes death sentence for anyone found guilty, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants to approach High Court- Thereaft~r, writ petition before the High Court dismissed, upholding the vires of s. E 364A - On appeal, held: Provisions of Section 364A in so far as the same prescribes death or !ife imprisonment is not unconstitutional on account of the punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of the crime committed by the appellants- s. 364A was enacted for the safety and security F of the citizens and the unity, sovereignty and integrity of the country-Appellants were held guilty not only uls. 364A, but even for murder punishable u/s. 302 - Award of death sentence was considered to be just, fair and reasonable, even G by the standards of rarest of rare cases...:.. Just because the sentence of death is a possible punishment that may be awarded in appropriate cases cannot make it per se inhuman or barbaric. s. 364A - When attracted- Held: Kidnapping/abduction H demanding ransom from private persons also- attracts s. 816 VIKRAM SINGH@VICKYv. UNION OF INDIA 817 364A - Language employed in s. 364A is wide enough to A cover even cases where the demand for ransom is made not as a part of any terrorist act but also for monetary gain from a private individual- Provision does not suggest that the same is attracted only in ransom situations arising in· acts of terrorism directed against the Government or any foreign state B or international inter-governmental organization. s. 364A - Ingredients of- Stated. s. 364A - Scope and purport of- Examination of historical perspective - Explained and discussed. C Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 32, 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Order attaining finality upto this Court - Writ petition by appellant u!Art. 32 challenging vires of s. 364A dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants to 0 approach High Court- Thereafter, writ petition before the High Court dismissed, upholding the vires of s. 364A - On appeal,· held: In view of the decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra's case, if against a final judgment of this Court, a remedy was not available u/Art.· 32, the same would also not be available u/ E Art. 226 - Only remedy available, is by invoking this Court's inherent powers u!Arts. 129, 142 for recall, reversal or modification of the order passed by this Court in the criminal appeal filed by appellants- Thus, writ petition before the High Court for that relief is untenable. F Interpretation of statutes - Rule of ejusdem generis - Applicability - Whether the expression 'any other person' appearing in s. 364A ought to be read ejusdem generis with the expression preceding the said words - Held: s. 364A G made use of only two expressions viz. 'government' or 'any other person' - Parliament did not use multiple expressions in the provision constituting a distinct genus class or category - It used only one single expression viz. 'government' which does not constitute a genus, even when it may be a specie - H 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A Tenor of the provision, the context and .the statutory definition of the expression 'person' all militate against any attempt tO restrict the meaning of the term 'person' to the 'government' or 'foreign State' or 'international inter-governmental B organisations' only, thus, the rule is not applicable. Sentence/Sentencing: Proporlionality of sentence - Guiding principles - Stated. Dismissing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. The provisions of Section 364A IPC in so far as the same prescribes death or life imprisonment is not unconstitutional on account of the punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of the crime committed by the appellants. A sentence of death in a case of murder D may be rare, but, if the Courts have, upon consideration of the facts and evidence, found that the same is the only sentence that can be awarded, it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.