http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 318 of 2001

PETITIONER:

STATE OF PUNJAB

RESPONDENT:

GURMEJ SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/08/2002

BENCH:

R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

2002 Supp(1) SCR 427

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BRIJESH KUMAR, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab

against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab High Court, declining

to accept the reference for confirmation of death sentence, as awarded

against the respondent-Gurmej Singh by the Court of Sessions. The appeal,

preferred by the accused Gurmej Singh against his conviction was however,

dismissed upholding his conviction. The sentence, thus was commuted form

one of death to imprisonment for life. The question, therefore, is confined

to the award of the sentence whether it may be maintained as imprisonment

for life or the respondent be sentenced to death as ordered by the Trial

Court.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the accused respondent- Gurmej

Singh is brother of the deceased Jagjit Singh. It is said that while in

Dubai, Gurmej Singh had been sending money to his brother Jagjit Singh.

Gurmej Singh had also been running business of dairy farming in the village

and used to give his land on contract basis Jagjit Singh has been living in

the village.

The prosecution case about the occurrence is that on November 1, 1993, at

about 11.00 p.m. Gurmej Singh assaulted his brother Jagjit Singh at their

house in village Manuke, as well as wife of his brother Charanjit Kaur,

their son Swaranjit Singh, daughter Gurmeet Kaur and Amarjit Kaur daughter

of the sister of Charanjit Kaur. PW5 Dalip Singh, who is father-in law of

the deceased Jagjit Singh and father of Charanjit Kaur, happened to be

satying there on that day at the house of Jagjit Singh. He got up on

hearing the commotion and asked Gurmej Singh not to assault, upon which

Gurmej Singh assaulted Dalip Singh as well. It is further said that since

the handle of the kirpan got broken, Gurmej Singh picked up a dah and

continued the assault with the said dah. The witnesses raised alarm and

other people arrived at the spot. As a result of the assault three persons

died viz. Jagjit Singh his wife Charanjit Kaur and Swaranjit Singh, their

son. Dalip Singh, Gurmeet Kaur-minor daughter of Jagjit Singh and Amarjeet

Kaur-daughter of sister of Charanjit Kaur, received injuries. Thereafter,

report was lodged any PW-5 Dalip Singh the complainant and after usual

investigation, respondent- Gurmej Singh and his wife both were charge-

sheeted. After the trial, respondent-Gurmej Singh was convicted under

Section 302 IPC on three counts for the three murders and sentenced to

death on each count with a fine Rs. 5000 also on each count, in default of

payment of fine, to go rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The other

sentences which have been awarded, are as follows:

1. Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to

Gurmeet Kaur 2 Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing

grievous hurt to Amarjit Kaur 3. Under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

for causing simple hurt to Gurmeet Kaur 4. Under Section 324 of the Indian

Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Amarjit Kaur Sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000 and in

default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine

of Rs. 3000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two months. Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

one year and to pay a fine Rs. 2000. In default of payment of fine, to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000. In 5. Under

Section 324 of the Indian default of payment of fine, to Penal Code for

causing simple hurt undergo rigorous imprisonment for to Dalip Singh

two months. , Sentenced to undergo rigorous 6 Under Section

450 of the Indian imprisonment for one year and to Penal Code for

trespassing in the pay a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default house of Jagjit

Singh of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine

of Rs. 3000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two months. Wife of Gurmej Singh, however, has been

acquitted.

On facts none of the parties raised any dispute before us, since the matter

was confined to sentence to be awarded to respondent - Gurmej Singh. In

this view of the matter motive of the crime assumes importance. According

to the prosecution case the two brothers used to quarrel on account of

money transactions. According to P. W.5-Dalip Singh, the father-in-law of

the deceased Jagjit Singh, he had gone to village Manuke on November 1,

1993, reaching there at about 5.00 p.m., at that time also the two brothers

were quarrelling. P.W.5-Dalip Singh, however, persuaded them not to fight

and get the matter settled through panchayat within a day or two. Gurmej

Singh is said to be very much annoyed with his brother and had been

planning to assault him. On return from Dubai, whenever Gurmej Singh is

said to have enquired about money sent from Dubai, it is said that the

deceased has been telling that the money was spent on the house. It

infuriated Guurmej Singh, which ultimately became the cause of the assault,

as a result of which three persons died and another three got injuries as

indicated above.

The Trial Court while considering the question of sentence held that it was

a gruesome murder committed by the respondent, who did not even spare the

young children and assaulted them without any provocation and it needed a

deterrent punishment. According to the Trial Court, it was one of those

rare of rarest cases in which sentence of death would only meet the ends of

justice. The High Court, however, observed that in view of the decisions of

the Supreme Court in the cases of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980] 2

SCC 684, Machi Singh's Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1983) SC 957 and State

through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT\. Nalini and Ors., [1999] 5 SCC

253, it could not be said to be rare of rarest cases, so as to call for

penalty of death.

We have given our an anxious consideration to the submissions made on

behalf of the parties. We have also taken note of the decisions referred to

by the High Court in its judgment, as also relied upon by the counsel for

the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention

to a decision reported in (2002) 1 SCALE 273 Lehna v. State of Haryana

also. Yet another case on the point is reported in [2002] 4 SCC 679

Dharmendra Singh Alias Mansingh Ratansing v. State of Gujarat. The

principles laid down in the cases of Bachan Singh and Machi Singh (Supra)

have also been discussed and considered in the above noted decision of this

Court and it has been held that sentence of imprisonment for life is

normally to be awarded in murder cases. Penalty of death sentence is

awarded only in exceptional cases. In the case of Machi Singh (Supra),

this Court observed that extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted

except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. In the case of Om Prakash

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

v. State of Haryana, [1999] 3 SCC 19, where the accused a member of

paramilitary force had killed seven members of a family, was not awarded

extreme penalty for the reason that he had been labouring under the strain

that the accused and the members of his family had been suffering due to

injustice being meted out to them by the family of the deceased. It was

considered to be a mitigating circumstance in that case. A number of

factors, which are to be taken in to account while imposing penalty of

death, for illustration are the motive of the crime, the manner of the

assault, the impact of the crime on the society as a whole, the personality

of the accused, circumstances and facts of the case as to whether the crime

committed its, for satisfying any kind of lust, greed or in pursuance of

any organised anti-social activity or by way or organised crime, drug

trafficking or the like or the chances of inflicting the society with a

similar criminal act that is to say vulnerability of the members of the

society at the hands of the accused in future or commission of murder which

may be shocking to the conscience. We feel that the facts and circumstances

of this case, do not fall in any of such category or the like as indicated

above. The accused-respondent had been demanding and asking about the money

from the deceased Jagjit Singh, which was sent to him by the respondent

from Dubai. It appears that the explanation or excuses which were being

given by the deceased did not convince him and the dispute inter-se and

mistrust between the two brothers has been widening leading to the heinous

crime in which three lives were lost and three other persons were left

injured. It is no doubt true that the incident is ghastly and deserves all

condemnation, but looking to the principle laid down in numerous decisions

of this Court referred to above the case would not fall in the category of

rare of the rarest cases to award extreme penalty of death. The view taken

by the High Court does not call for any interference in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that after a few years the

case of the respondent is likely to be considered for his pre-mature

release, as he has been in jail for a period of eight years and in the

event of the respondent coming out, it will endanger the life of Gurmeet

Kaur, the daughter of Jagjit Singh. Who was injured in the incident. We

fail to appreciate the argument. Pre-mature release is considered on the

material facts and circumstances prevailing at the relevant time of

release. Report of the concerned officers is also called for and is after

consideration of all the material that necessary decision is taken in the

matter, therefore in our view this ground advanced by the learned counsel

of the appellant has no force and respondent would not lose his right of

being considered for premature release, which matter indeed may have to be

considered at the appropriate time in the light of the facts and

circumstances then found prevailing. There cannot be any presumption about

release or non-release of a prisoner. It would not be a valid consideration

to inflict the extreme penalty.

The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that

the surviving victim namely the daughter of Jagjit Singh may be awarded

some compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In support of his submission he has also referred to a decision of this

Court in [Criminal Appeal Nos. 767-769 of 2001] Rachpal Singh's Anr. v.

State of Punjab, decided on July 23, 2002. In the said case this Court

allowed compensation under Sub-section (3) of Section 357 Cr. P.C. to the

victims but it would not applicable in the present case since a sentence of

fine has also been imposed. A reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 357

would show that question of award of compensation would arise where the

Court imposes a sentence of which fine does not form apart of it. The

decision in Rachhpal Singh (Supra) does not take any contrary view nor

holds that compensation may be awarded over and above the sentence office.

A perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 357 Cr. P.C. would make the

position clear.

The provision reads as under: "357. Order to pay compensation-(3) when a

Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, Court may,

when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person

who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the

accused person has been so sentenced."

In the present case sentence of fine has also been imposed, as indicated in

the earlier part of this judgment .Out of the fine, a sum of Rs. 1000 each

had been ordered to be given to the three injured persons namely Dalip

Singh, Amarjit Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur. The balance amount is to go to the

legal heirs of Jagjit Singh. We had heard the learned counsels for both

parties on this aspect. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

Gurmeet Kaur lost both her parents as well as her brother in the incident

and now she is alone and would have become of marriageable age or may have

to start some work of her own. She would need some money. In case she

cannot be compensated, the amount of fine may be enhanced to some extent.

Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted that out of

seven acres of land belonging to his father, same has been divided into

three equal shares and some of it is also under mortgage and he has got two

daughters and a son and his wife. He has also submitted that whenever

respondent was released on parole he met Gurmeet kaur and his wife also

keeps on going to meet her. Their relations are normal and cordial. If that

is so, nothing better can be thought of in the prevailing circumstances.

However, we are not considering for awarding any compensation to Gurmeet

Kaur under Section 357 (3) Cr. P.C. but the amount of fine imposed, can in

any case be reasonably enhanced.

Therefore, while declining to impose penalty of death in place of

imprisonment of life on respondent-Gurmej Singh as prayed on behalf of the

appellant-the State of Punjab and dismissing their appeal and upholding

sentence of life imprisonment on all three counts under Section 302 IPC,

enhance the amount of fine from Rs. 5000 to Rs.20000 on each count. Besides

the amount payable as per the directions of the Trial Court, the enhanced

amount of fine shall also be paid to Gurmeet Kaur, daughter of Jagjit

Singh. We also modify sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of

fine and enhance it to two years rigorous imprisonment in default of

payment of fine on each count.

Subject to the modifications indicated in the preceding paragraph, the

appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.