http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GAYASI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/03/1981

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1160            1981 SCR  (3) 268  1981 SCC  (2) 712        1981 SCALE  (1)579

ACT:      Penal Code-Crime  against public  servant  for  reasons arising out  of performance  of official  duty-No reason for commuting death sentence to lesser sentence.

HEADNOTE:      The deceased  Bhagwan Singh  who was working as an Amin put the  appellant’s lands  to sale  for recovering  certain arrears. The appellant and his two companions Mool Chand and Daya Ram  lay in  wait for  the deceased while he was on his way back  home. Daya  Ram first  fired three  shots  at  the deceased as  a result  of which  he fell  down.  Immediately thereafter the  appellant emerged  with a  sword and chopped off the head of Bhagwan Singh.      The appellant was convicted under section 302 read with section 34,  I.P.C.  and  sentenced  to  death.  The  second accused was still absconding.      On the question of sentence ^      HELD: There  is no reason for commuting the sentence of death to  the lesser  sentence of imprisonment for life. The deceased had to perform his ministerial duties as an amin in putting the land to sale. He bore no personal grudge against the appellant  nor had  he anything  to gain  for himself by selling the  appellant’s lands.  Such crimes  against public servants for  reasons arising out of the performance by them of their  public duties  must be  put down with a firm hand. [269E]      The fact  that the  second accused  was absconding does not reduce the gravity of the appellant’s offence. [269D]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 362 of 1979.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated 28.2.79  of the  Allahabad High  Court at Allahabad in Crl. Appeal No. 3500/78 and murder reference No. 33/78.      S. K. Bisaria for the Appellant.      H. R. Bhardwaj and R. K. Bhatt for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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

    CHANDRACHUD, C.  J. The  appellant’s land was auctioned on December  26, 1976  in a  revenue sale  held  to  recover arrears of  land revenue.  On the  same day, the land of one Mool Chand  was also sold for a similar reason. The deceased Bhagwan Singh, who was 269 an Amin,  acted as  an officer of the Court in effecting the aforesaid sales.  After  the  sale  proceedings  were  over, Bhagwan Singh was returning home on a bicycle, with his peon Shripat, who is examined in the case as P.W.4 The appellant, Mool Chand and the latter’s son Daya Ram lay in wait for the deceased and while he was passing along on his bicycle, Daya Ram fired  three shots  at him; two out of these hit Bhagwan Singh, as  a result  of which  he fell  down. A split second thereafter, the  appellant emerged  with a sword and chopped off the  neck of Bhagwan Singh. Daya Ram is still absconding but the  appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under section 302  read with  section 34 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to  death. He was also convicted under section 307 of the  Penal  Code.  The  sentence  of  death  having  been confirmed by  the High  Court, the  appellant has filed this appeal by  special  leave.  The  leave  is  limited  to  the question of sentence.      We see  no reason  for commuting  the sentence of death imposed  upon  the  appellant  to  the  lesser  sentence  of imprisonment for  life. The fact that Daya Ram is absconding does not  reduce the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant. Bhagwan  Singh had  but performed his ministerial duty as  an Amin in putting the appellant’s land to sale. He bore no  personal grudge  against the  appellant nor  had he anything to  gain for  himself by  selling the  lands of the appellant and  of Daya  Ram. Such  crimes committed  against public servants  for reasons  arising out of the performance by them  of their  public duties must be discouraged and put down with  a firm  hand. We, therefore, confirm the sentence of death passed on the appellant and dismiss the appeal. P.B.R.                                     Appeal dismissed. 270