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

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  178 of 2003

PETITIONER: Ram Pal                                                  

RESPONDENT: Vs. State of U.P.                                                    

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/08/2003

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

In this appeal, while granting leave, this Court confined  the scope of the appeal to the consideration of the question of  sentence only.  The appellant along with seven others, who survived the  trial out of the eleven persons originally tried, were convicted  for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 436 and 440  all read with Section 149 IPC. The trial court imposed varying  sentences on them, but in regard to appellant and one other  person, awarded the sentence of death and referred the said  sentence to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,  Lucknow Bench for confirmation. The High Court by the  impugned judgment has accepted the reference and confirmed  the death sentence awarded to the appellant but taking into  consideration the age of the other accused who was also  sentenced to death converted his sentence from death to life  imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellant questions the  sentence of death awarded to him on various grounds.

Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing  for the appellant submitted that the crime of which the appellant  is charged with cannot be termed as a rarest of the rare cases  calling for extreme penalty of death even though 21 persons had  lost their lives due to the acts of the appellant and other accused  persons. He submitted that there was sufficient provocation  from the side of the victims which lead to the incident on the  fateful day because the victims party was earlier responsible for  the double murder of appellant’s close relatives in regard to  which the members of the said party were being prosecuted in a  sessions trial. Inspite of the said proceedings, on the day of the  incident another relative of the appellant by name Bhagwati  was found murdered which the appellant and his family  members had reasons to believe was due to the act of the family  of the victims. These facts according to the learned counsel was  the provocation for the murders for which the appellant is being  punished. Hence the facts of the case in hand did not call for the  extreme penalty of death. He also submitted that the appellant  was not the leader of the group of accused which caused the  death of so many victims nor he had exhorted others either to  kill or to set fire to the houses. His act was at the most on par  with the other accused who have been awarded lesser sentence.  He also submitted that even according to the prosecution case,  there was considerable doubt as to the role played by the

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

appellant in the incident in question, hence, he has been roped  in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. His further submission was  that the incident in question had taken place nearly 17 years ago  and eversince then the appellant has been in jail, therefore the  appellant should be given an opportunity of redeeming himself.

Shri Ravi Malhotra learned counsel appearing for the  State opposed the reduction of the sentence on the ground that  both the courts below have considered all aspects of the case  including the question of quantum of punishment and having  come to the conclusion that the incident in question which  caused the death of 21 innocent victims was a rarest of the rate  cases, considered the death penalty as the appropriate sentence  in regard to this accused, therefore, this is a case in which no  interference in the sentence awarded by the courts below is  called for.

We have carefully considered the argument addressed on  behalf of the parties. It is true the incident in question has pre- maturely terminated the life of 21 people but then number of  deaths cannot be the sole criterion for awarding the maximum  punishment of death. While in a given case death penalty may  be the appropriate sentence even for a single murder, it would  not necessarily mean that in every case of multiple murders  death penalty has to be the normal punishment.  Guidelines to  be borne in mind while awarding death sentences have been  considered and laid down by this Court in a number of cases  but for the purpose of deciding this appeal it would suffice if  we refer to a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the  case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980 2 SCC 684). In  the said case this Court after considering the constitutional  validity of the provisions which empowers the court to award  death sentence laid down the following broad guidelines to be  borne in mind by the courts while considering the question of  awarding a sentence in cases involving murder :  "One thing however stands clear that for  making the choice of punishment or for  ascertaining the existence or absence of "special  reasons" in that context, the court must pay due  regard both to the crime and the criminal. What is  the relative weight to be given to the aggravating  and mitigating factors, depends on the facts and  circumstances of the particular case. More often  than not, these two aspects are so intertwined that  it is difficult to give a separate treatment to each of  them. This is so because ’style is the man’. In  many cases, the extremely cruel or beastly manner  of the commission of murder is itself a  demonstrated index of the depraved character of  the perpetrator. That is why, it is not desirable to  consider the circumstances of the crime and the  circumstances of the criminal in two separate  watertight compartmentsâ\200¦â\200¦..

As to the aggravating circumstances, pre- planned, calculated cold-blooded murder has  always been regarded as one of an aggravated  kind; so also a murder "diabolically conceived and  cruelly executed" and the test of Ediga Anamma :  "The weapons used and the manner of their use,  the horrendous features of the crime and hapless,  helpless state of the victim".     In the said judgment this Court also laid down  circumstances which could be considered as aggravating

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

circumstances. These circumstances are as follows :- (a)     if the murder has been committed after  previous planning and involves extreme  brutality; or

(b)     if the murder involves exceptional depravity; or (c)     if the murder is of a member of any of the  armed forces of the Union or of a member of  any police force or of any public servant and  was committed â\200\223 (i)     while such member or public servant  was on duty; or (ii)    in consequence of anything done or  attempted to be done by such member or  public servant in the lawful discharge of  his duty as such member or public  servant whether at the time of murder he  was such member or public servant, as  the case may be, or had ceased to be  such member or public servant; or

(d)     if the murder is of a person who had acted in  the lawful discharge of his duty under Section  43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,  or who had rendered assistance to a magistrate  or a police officer demanding his aid or  requiring his assistance under Section 37 and  Section 129 of the said Code."    Similarly it also considered the following circumstances  as mitigating circumstances :- (1)     That the offence was committed under the  influence of extreme mental or emotional  disturbance.

(2)     The age of the accused. If the accused is young  or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.

(3)     The probability that the accused would not  commit criminal acts of violence as would  constitute a continuing threat to society.

(4)     The probability that the accused can be  reformed and rehabilitated.

 The State shall by evidence prove that the  accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and  (4) above.

(5)     That in the facts and circumstances of the case  the accused believed that he was morally  justified in committing the offence.

(6)     That the accused acted under the duress or  domination of another person.

(7)     That the condition of the accused showed that  he was mentally defective and that the said  defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the  criminality of his conduct.     

Bearing in mind the above broad guidelines laid down by

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

this Court in the case of Bachan Singh (supra), if we consider  the facts of the case we notice the fact that the appellant was a  party to an incident in which 21 people including young  children were murdered by gun shot injuries or by burning them  in latched houses itself could be considered as aggravating  circumstances to consider awarding of death sentence.  According to the judgment in Bachan Singh’s case (supra), then  we will have to weigh the same with any mitigating  circumstances that may be available on the facts of this case.  While doing the said exercise of searching for mitigating  circumstances in the present case, we find the incident in  question was sequel to the murder of Bhagwati a close relative  of the appellant and other principal accused, which was  suspected to have been committed by the members of the  victims family. Prior to that the victims family was accused of  having committed the murder of 2 of the close relatives of the  appellant’s family for which some of the members of the  victims family were being prosecuted. On facts and  circumstances of this case, we think this circumstance can be  treated as a circumstance which amounts to a provocation from  the victims side. We also notice that the role played by the  appellant is somewhat similar to the role played by the other  accused persons who have been given lesser sentence while the  appellant has been awarded death sentence that too with the aid  of Section 149 IPC therefore, a question arises why this  appellant should not be considered at par with those accused for  the purpose of awarding the sentence. We also notice from the  argument of the learned counsel which is supported by material  on record, that the specific overt act attributed to the appellant  that he climbed the house of the informant and threatened to  shoot the victims if they came out of their houses, while the  other accused latched and set the houses on fire seems to be an  afterthought not having been told to the investigating officer by  the witnesses when their statements were recorded by him. We  also notice that the appellant was not treated by the prosecution  itself as the leader of the gang but was considered to be one  amongst other accused who took part in the incident. The fact  that accused has spent nearly 17 years in custody after the  incident in question can also be treated as a mitigating  circumstance while considering the question of sentence.

The above noted circumstances which we consider as  mitigating circumstances, in our opinion, outweigh the  aggravating circumstances as found by the courts below. In the  said view of the matter, we think it appropriate to allow this  appeal and in substitution of sentence of death awarded to the  appellant, we sentence the appellant under Section 302 read  with Section 149 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. The  said sentence shall run concurrently with the substantive  sentence imposed by the trial court on other counts. The appeal is allowed partly.