REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 786-789 OF 2003  

State of Punjab …. Appellant

Versus

Manjit Singh & Ors. …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

 1. In  these  criminal  appeals  the  issue  that  arises  for  our  consideration  is  

whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the maximum  

penalty of death sentence is called for or life sentence which is awarded to  

the respondents by the High Court would meet the ends of justice.

2. One  Sewa  Singh,  the  deceased,  was  the  Municipal  Commissioner  of  

Municipal Committee, Sirhind City.  He also used to recite Kirtan in the  

Gurdwara  Sahib  whereas  his  son Rachhpal  Singh  alias  Happy,  Inderjit  

Singh and Kuldeep Singh, were also working as Sewadars in Gurdwara  

Bara Sirhind, which was quite near the house of Sewa Singh.  Kamaljit  

Singh  and  Manjit  Singh  were  previously  working  as  Sewadar  in  the  

Gurdwara.  While working as such they had developed illicit relations with

Bhinder  Kaur,  the  wife  of  Sewa Singh,  the  deceased.   The  said  illicit  

relation became known to Sewa Singh, the deceased, and his son Rachhpal  

Singh alias Happy and they did not appreciate the said illicit relationship  

and sometimes used to beat Bhinder Kaur and told her in specific terms  

not to indulge in such activities.  They also restrained accused Kamaljit  

Singh and Manjit Singh to come to their house.  Bhinder Kaur did not like  

the  aforesaid  attitude  of  her  family  and  was  also  fed  up  with  the  

harassment  caused  to  her  and  told  about  such  mal-treatment  and  

harassment  caused,  to  the  accused  Kamaljit  Singh  and  Manjit  Singh.  

Having known about the attitude and mal-treatment being meted out to  

Bhinder Kaur, they came on the fateful day of 26.6.1994 to the house of  

Sewa Singh when he was sleeping in his house whereas his son Rachhpal  

Singh alias Happy was sleeping in the Gurdwara Bara Sirhind.  Having  

reached the house of Sewa Singh, the accused Kamaljit Singh armed with  

Kirpan and accused Manjit Singh armed with Khanda, killed Sewa Singh  

in his house whereas the remaining three persons namely Rachhpal Singh  

alias Happy, Inderjit Singh and Kuldip Singh were killed in the Gurdwara  

by them.

3. Consequent to the aforesaid murders, a First Information Report (for short  

‘the FIR’) was registered bearing FIR No. 46, on 26.06.1994 at about 2.30  

2

a.m.  on  the  statement  of  Joginder  Singh  who  approached  the  Police  

Station, Sirhind and got recorded the FIR to the effect that he was working  

as an electrician and had been living near Gurdwara Bara Sirhind and that  

on the intervening night of 26.06.1994, when he was sleeping in his house,  

at about 1.30 a.m. he heard a noise from the house of Sewa Singh, the  

deceased which was located quite near his house, he went outside and saw  

that the light in front of the house of Inderjit Singh was on and two Sikh  

youths armed with Kirpans stained with blood were shouting that they had  

finished Sewa Singh, the deceased, his son Rachhpal Singh alias Happy  

and their supporters and they would not spare anybody who comes to their  

help.  It was also stated in the FIR that he along with other neighbours  

went to the house of Sewa Singh and found him dead.  They left Bhinder  

Kaur  near  the  dead body and went  to  the  Gurdwara  Sahib where  they  

found other three persons murdered namely Rachhpal Singh alias Happy,  

Inderjit Singh and Kuldip Singh.  While Rachhpal Singh alias Happy and  

Inderjit Singh were lying murdered in the room of the Gurdwara Sahib,  

Kuldip Singh was found killed in the Varandah of the Gurdwara.   

4. After registering the FIR the police started investigation during the course  

of which they arrested Kamaljit Singh, Manjit Singh. Bhinder Kaur was  

also arrested. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted  

3

charge-sheet  against  the  aforesaid  accused  persons.   The  court  framed  

charges against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC read with  

Section   120-B IPC, for causing death of Sewa Singh, Rachhpal Singh  

alias Happy, Inderjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined its witnesses whereas  

the defence did not produce any witness. The trial court, after conclusion  

of  the  trial  and  on  appreciation  of  the  evidence  on  record,  passed  a  

judgment and order finding both the accused persons namely,  Kamaljit  

Singh and Manjit Singh guilty of the offences under Section 302 read with  

Section 120-B IPC and sentenced both of them to death with direction that  

they be hanged by the neck till death subject to, however, the confirmation  

by the High Court.  As regards Bhinder Kaur, it was held by the trial court  

that she was one of the co-conspirator for killing Sewa Singh and his son  

Rachhpal Singh @ Happy.  The trial court, after taking into consideration  

that now she is left all alone in the family and that she never intended that  

Inderjit  Singh  and  Kuldeep  Singh  be  done  to  death,  sentenced  her  to  

undergo imprisonment for life under Section 120-B IPC read with Section  

302 IPC.

6. Since  in  respect  of  two  of  the  accused  persons  death  sentence  was  

awarded, reference was made to the High Court for confirmation of the  

4

death sentence.   On the other  hand,  all  the three  accused persons filed  

separate criminal appeals before the High Court.   

7. All the aforesaid three criminal appeals and the reference were taken up  

together for consideration and after appreciation of the evidence on record,  

the High Court upheld the order of conviction passed against all the three  

accused persons.  The High Court, however, after considering the facts and  

circumstances of the case held that the case in hand cannot be called as  

rarest  of  the  rare  cases.   It  was  held  by  the  High Court  that  both  the  

appellants (respondents herein) who have been sentenced to death do not  

deserve capital  punishment.   Consequently,  their  sentence of death was  

converted into a sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.  

10,000/- each.

8. The State of Punjab being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of alteration of  

the sentence of the two accused persons namely Kamaljit Singh and Manjit  

Singh  filed  the  present  appeals  on  which  the  notice  was  issued.   The  

appeals  were  listed  for  hearing  and  we  heard  the  appeals  with  the  

assistance of Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Punjab.

9. It was submitted before us by the counsel appearing for the appellant-State  

that  it  was  a  brutal  murder  of  four  persons  by  the  two  accused  and,  

5

therefore,  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  converting  the  death  

sentence awarded by the trial court into the imprisonment for life.  He also  

submitted before us that reliance of the High Court on the decision of this  

Court  in  Om  Prakash  v.  State  of  Haryana  [(1999)  3  SCC  19]  is  

misplaced.   It  was  submitted  by him that  death  of  four  persons  in  the  

present case was one of the aggravating causes.  There being other factors  

such  as  the  nature  of  offence,  manner,  motive  and  other  aggravating  

factors  surrounding  the  case  which  when  considered  together  would  

definitely make out a case of rarest of       rare case.

10.In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for  

the appellant-State, we have examined the records and relevant case laws.   

11.The Supreme Court has held succinctly in several decisions that for a case  

to  be  regarded  in  the  rarest  of  rare  category,  fact  situation  has  to  be  

exceptional,  like  after  committing  one  offence  another  offence  is  

committed so as to cover up the first offence. In Bachan Singh v. State of  

Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684] this Court for the first time used this category  

(rarest of rare) for awarding death penalty. However, the  Bachan Singh  

(supra) decision did not  elaborate  the criteria  for identifying “rarest  of  

rare” cases. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470] this  

Court  laid down the guidelines for the application of the “rarest of rare”  

6

rule to specific cases. The guidelines were couched in fairly broad terms  

that relate to several considerations such as: “Manner of commission of  

murder”, “Motive for the commission of murder”, “Anti-social or socially  

abhorrent nature of the crime”, “Magnitude of crime” and “Personality of  

victim of murder”.

12.With regard to the quantum of punishment to be awarded to persons found  

guilty of offences dealt with in the IPC, the Code confers a wide discretion  

on  the  court  in  the  matter  of  awarding  appropriate  punishment  by  

prescribing  the  maximum  punishment  and  in  some  cases  both  the  

maximum as well as the minimum punishment for the offence. Though no  

general guidelines are laid down in the Code for the purpose of awarding  

punishment, generally the judicial discretion of the court is guided by the  

principle that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of  

the offence having regard to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances  

vis-à-vis an accused in each case. In such situation, the obligation of the  

court in making the choice of death sentence for the person who is found  

guilty of murder becomes more onerous indeed.  

13.On the question of awarding the sentence for the offences for which life  

imprisonment as well as the death sentence is prescribed, sub-section (3)  

of Section 354 CrPC enjoins that in the case of sentence of death, special  

7

reasons for such sentence shall be stated. As already noted, the provision  

was elaborately  discussed by this  Court  in  Bachan Singh (supra).  The  

Court  pointed  out  the  change  in  the  policy  of  sentencing  in  following  

manner: (SCC p. 734, para 151)

“151. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  marks a significant shift in the legislative policy underlying the  Code  of  1898,  as  in  force  immediately  before  1-4-1974,  according  to  which  both  the  alternative  sentences  of  death  or  imprisonment for life provided for murder and for certain other  capital  offences under the  Penal  Code were normal  sentences.  Now, according to the changed legislative policy which is patent  on the face of Section 354(3), the normal punishment for murder  and  six  other  capital  offences  under  the  Penal  Code,  is  imprisonment for life (or imprisonment for a term of years) and  death penalty is an exception.”

14.For ascertaining the existence or absence of special reasons in the context,  

it was observed that though, in a sense, to kill is to be cruel and, therefore,  

all murders are cruel, yet such cruelty may vary in its degree of culpability  

and  it  is  only  when  culpability  assumes  the  proportion  of  extreme  

depravity  that  special  reasons  can  legitimately  be  said  to  exist.  It  was  

emphasized that life imprisonment was the rule and death sentence was an  

exception  and  that  death  sentence  must  be  imposed  only  when  life  

imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having  

regard  to  the  relevant  circumstance  of  the  crime and provided  that  the  

option  to  sentence  of  imprisonment  for  life  cannot  be  conscientiously  

8

exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and  

all the   relevant circumstances.

15.In  Machhi  Singh (supra)   a  three-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  having  

considered the guidelines laid down in the above-noted case added that the  

following  two  questions  might  be  asked  and  answered  as  a  test  to  

determine  the  rarest  of  rare  case  in  which  death  sentence  could  be  

inflicted: (SCC p. 489, para 39)

“(a)  Is  there  something  uncommon  about  the  crime  which  renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls  for a death sentence?  (b)  Are the  circumstances  of  the  crime such that  there  is  no  alternative  but  to  impose  death  sentence  even  after  according  maximum  weightage  to  the  mitigating  circumstances  which  speak in favour of the offender.”

16.Further, in  Allauddin Mian v.  State of Bihar  [(1989) 3 SCC 5] it was  

laid down that unless the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the  

offender  reveal  that  the  criminal  was  a  menace  to  the  society  and the  

sentence of life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate, the court  

should  ordinarily  impose  a  lesser  punishment  and  not  the  extreme  

punishment of death which should be reserved for exceptional cases only.

17.The above discussed legal principles have been followed consistently in  

numerous judgments of this Court. Whether the case is one of the rarest of  

9

the rare cases is a question which has to be determined on the facts of each  

case. It needs to be reiterated that the choice of the death sentence has to  

be made only in the rarest of the rare cases and that where culpability of  

the accused has assumed depravity or where the accused is found to be an  

ardent  criminal  and  menace  to  the  society  and;  where  the  crime  is  

committed in an organized manner and is gruesome, cold-blooded, heinous  

and  atrocious;  where  innocent  and  unarmed  persons  are  attacked  and  

murdered without               any provocation.

18.Reverting  back  to  the  present  case,  it  is  no  doubt  true  that  both  the  

respondents  behaved in a most  cruel  manner,  killed four persons while  

they were asleep.  Three, out of the four deceased persons, were murdered  

within  the  precincts  of  a  Gurdwara.   But,  there  are  certain  mitigating  

circumstances  in  the  case  which  cannot  be  lost  sight  of.   Both  the  

respondents, as is disclosed from the records, had illicit relationship with  

the third accused namely Bhinder Kaur and when she narrated her woes  

and  the  harassment,  both  the  accused  persons,  as  it  appears  from  the  

record, lost their balance and acted in a cruel manner by entering into the  

house of Sewa Singh-deceased in the dead night and killing Sewa Singh in  

the house and other three sons in the Gurdwara. Thereafter, they also gave  

threat to everybody outside the house by stating that they have killed those  

10

persons  and,  therefore,  no  one  should  dare  to  come  near  them.   This  

behaviour on the part of the accused-respondents would show that they  

acted  in  the  manner  being  driven  more  by  infatuation  and  also  being  

devoid of their sense on coming to know about the ill treatment meted out  

to Bhinder Kaur.  Though the act of the accused is a gruesome one but it  

was a result of human mind going astray. No doubt, they acted in a ghastly  

manner  for  which,  in  our  considered  view,  they  have  been adequately  

punished.  The High Court has given its reasons for not awarding the death  

sentence and also relied upon a Supreme Court decision for the purpose.

19.In  view  of  the  aforesaid  discussion,  keeping  in  view  entire  facts  and  

circumstances of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for altering  

and converting capital sentence to a sentence of life are found to be cogent  

and reasonable. We do not intend to interfere with the said judgment and  

order passed by the High Court.  Therefore, the life sentence awarded to  

all the three accused persons by the High Court stands upheld.   

20.In the result, the appeals stand dismissed.  

 ……………………………J.               [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

…….……………………...J.         [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

11

New Delhi, May 28, 2009

12