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

PETITIONER: BALWANT SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/11/1975

BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1976 AIR  230  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1976 SC2196  (1)  RF         1979 SC 916  (193)  C          1980 SC 898  (163)

ACT:      Code of Criminal Procedure (Act II) 1973-Section 354(3) Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant,  ‘B’ aged  60 years,  on  13-4-1974  was convicted u/s  302 I.P.C. For the murder of ‘M’ by poisoning on that  date. On  appeal by  special leave  on the  limited question of  sentence under  the new Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, the Court ^      HELD: (i)  In India  the Legislature  in its wisdom has not thought  it fit  and proper to abolish the death penalty altogether, but  there has  been a gradual swing against the imposition of such penalty. [685-F]      (ii) Under  section 354(3)  of the  Criminal  Procedure code, 1973,  the Court  is required to state the reasons for the sentence  awarded and  in the  case for the’ sentence of death special reasons are required to be stated. Awarding of the sentence other than the sentence of death is the general rule now  and only  special reasons  or  special  facts  and circumstances in  a given case will warrant the passing of a death sentence  like (i)  the crime having been committed by professional or  a hardened criminal (ii) crime committed in a very  brutal manner or on a helpless child or woman. [686, C, D]      (iii) In  the instant  case (a) even after noticing the provisions  of  the  section  354(3)  of  the  new  Criminal Procedure  Code,  the  High  Court  wrongly  relied  on  the principle of  absence of  extenuating circumstance  and (b). There was no special reason nor any has been recorded by the High Court for confirming the death sentence. [686 F, G]      Mangal Singh  v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 76 and Perumal v.  The State  of Kerala,  A.I.R. 1975  S.C. 95  not applicable.

JUDGMENT:

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

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 1975.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  25th April,  1975 of  the Punjab  & Haryana  High Court at  Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1325 of 1974 and Murder Reference No. 59 of 1 974.      S. K.  Mehta, M.  Qamaruddin and K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.      O. P. Sharma for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      UNTWALIA, J.-Balwant  Singh, the sole appellant in this appeal, was  convicted under  section 302  of the Penal Code and sentenced  to death  by the  Trial Court. His conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.  Special leave  to appeal  was granted  by this Court limited  to the  question of  sentence only.  We have, therefore, to see whether on the facts of this 685 case the  High Court  was  right  in  confirming  the  death sentence imposed  upon the appellant or was is, a case where the lesser  sentence of life imprisonment ought to have been awarded.      The appellant  was aged  about 60  years at the time of the occurrence.  He was  working as a Granthi of a Gurudwara in  village  Salihna  District  Faridkot.  Mohan  Singh  the deceased was  a member  of the  Managing  Committee  of  the Gurudwara. He  made certain complaints against the appellant to the President of the Managing Committee and asked for his removal  from  the  post  of  the  Granthi.  The  appellant, therefore, bore  a grudge against the deceased. In the early hours of  April 13, 1974 the appellant gave Karah Parshad of Granth Sahib  to Mohan  Singh mixing  opium it.  As soon  as Mohan Singh  took the  Parshad he  felt sick  and his  heart began to  sink. In  spite of  the medical  aid he  could not survive and  died about  4 hours  after the administering of the poison  to him  by the  appellant. On the facts found by the learned  Sessions Judge  and as  affirmed by.  the  High Court, the  appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code.  The question  for consideration  is whether the sentence of death was rightly passed. It may be noticed that the occurrence  took place  on April  13, 1974  after coming into force  of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on and from April 1, 1974. Provisions of Section 354(3) of the new Code, as noticed  by the  High Court,  governed this case. Yet the High Court  confirmed the sentence of death relying upon two decisions of  this Court  which were  not concerned with the application of  law engrafted  in section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973  but were  given with reference to the  Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 as it stood at the relevant time.      It is  well-known that  in many  parts of  the world an agitation has  been going on against the imposition of death penalty even  in murder  cases. And  in  many  countries  or States death  penalty  has  been  abolished.  In  India  the Legislature in  its wisdom has not thought it fit and proper to abolish the death penalty altogether but there has been a gradual swing  against the imposition of such penalty. Under the Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as it stood before its amendment by  Act 26 of 1965, sub-section (5) of Section 367 required:           "If  the   accused  is  convicted  of  an  offence      punishable with  death, and  the Court sentences him to      any punishment  other   than death,  the Court shall in      its judgment state the reason why sentence of death was      not passed :"

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

Under the  provision aforesaid  if an  accused was convicted for an  offence punishable  with death  then  imposition  of death sentence  was  the  rule  and  awarding  of  a  lesser sentence was  an exception  and the  Court had  to state the reasons for  not passing  the  sentence  of  death.  By  the Amending Act  26 of  1955 the  said provision  was  deleted. Thereafter it  was left  to the  discretion of the Court, on the facts of 686 each case,  to pass  the sentence  of death  or to award the lesser sentence.  In the  context of the changed law if in a given case  the passing of the death sentence was not called for or  there were  extenuating circumstances to justify the passing of  the lesser sentence then the lesser sentence was awarded and not the death sentence.      Section 354(3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code says:           When the  conviction is  for an offence punishable      with death  or, in  the alternative,  with imprisonment      for life  or imprisonment  for a  term  of  years,  the      judgment shall  state  the  reasons  for  the  sentence      awarded, and,  in the  case of  sentence of  death, the      special reasons for such sentence ’ Under this  provision the  Court is  required to  state  the reasons for the sentence awarded and in the case of sentence of death,  special reasons  are required  to be  stated.  It would thus  be noticed  that awarding  of the sentence other than the  sentence of death is the general rule now and only special  reasons,   that  is   to  say,  special  facts  and circumstances in  a given  case, will warrant the passing of the death  sentence. It is unnecessary nor is it possible to make a  catalogue of  the special  reasons which may justify the passing  of the  death sentence  in a  case. But  we may indicate just  a few,  such as, the crime has been committed by a  professional or  a hardened  criminal, or  it has been committed in  a very brutal manner or on a helpless child or a woman  or the  like. On the facts of this case, it is true that the  appellant had a motive to commit the murder and he did  it   with  an  intention  to  kill  the  deceased.  His conviction under section 302 of the Penal Code was justified but the  facts found were not such as to enable the Court to say that there were special reasons for passing the sentence of death in this case      The High  Court has  referred to  the two  decisions of this Court  namely in  Mangal Singh v. State of U.P.(1)  and in Perumal  v. The  State of  Kerala(2) and  has  then  said "There are no extenuating circumstances in this case and the death sentence  awarded to  Balwant Singh  appellant by  the Sessions Judge is confirmed.. ". As we have said above, even after noticing  the provisions  of section 354(3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code the High Court committed an error in relying upon  the two  decisions of  this Court in which the trials were  held under the old Code. It wrongly relied upon the principle  of absence  or  extenuating  circumstances  a principle which  was applicable  after the  amendment of the old Code from January 1, 1956 until the coming into force of the new Code from April 1, 1974. In our judgment there is no special reason  nor any  has been recorded by the High Court for  confirming   the  death   sentence  in  this  case.  We accordingly allow the appeal on the question of sentence and commute the death sentence imposed upon the appellant to one for imprisonment for life. S.R.                      Appeal allowed, sentence modified.      (1) A.T.R. 1975 S.C. 76.      (2) A.T.R. 1975 S.C. 95. 687

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