http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 812-814  of  1999

PETITIONER: SUBASH CHANDER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHAN LAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/03/2001

BENCH: K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

(With Crimina Appeal Nos.815-16,819-20,817-18,821-22,980,1017/99 Crl.A.No.298/2001)

J U D G M E N T

SETHI,J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Legends  reveal  and  the  people believe  that  in  the ancient  Indian  society  Bhagwan   Krishna  took  birth  to reprieve the suffering humanity from the terror let loose by the  demon  named  Kansa.   The   birth  of  Lord   Krishna, Janmasthami,  is  celebrated every year to  commemorate  the birth of truth for elimination of repression and atrocities. Ironically,  thousands  of years thereafter, on the  day  of Janmasthami  in  the year 1992, the  accused,  unfortunately named  Krishan,  along with others, became a devil and  like vultures  pounced  upon  the  family  of  Bhagwan  Ram,  the deceased.   After  committing a ghastly crime,  the  accused persons  left the scene of occurrence, satisfied with  their design  of  killing  the  whole of  the  family.   To  their misfortune, two of the injured survived who appeared against the  accused as PWs 2 and 3.  The deceased included  Bhagwan Ram, his son Sunder Ram, and Chando Devi, his mother.  Spree of  killing was resorted to, for eliminating the prosecution witnesses  against some of the accused persons who  earlier, on  25th June, 1987, had committed the crime of murder of Om Prakash, another son of Bhagwan Ram.

   Apparently  with the police connivance, the charge-sheet was  filed  against  accused Krishan Lal  and  four  others, namely,  Bikar  Singh,  Mangu  Singh,  Major  Singh  and  Om Prakash,  the later four being not even named in the FIR  or in  the  statements of PWs 2, and 3, recorded under  Section 161  of  the  Criminal Procedure Code.  It was only  on  the judicial intervention that ultimately charge-sheet was filed against  12 persons including the convicted appellants.  The trial court concluded that offences under Sections 302, 307, 148,  450 read with Sections 149, 120B and Section 307  read with  Sections 149 and 120B IPC had been proved against  the accused  persons, namely, Krishan Lal(A1), Mangu  Singh(A2), Bikar  Singh(A3),  Major Singh(A4), Vishu(A6),  Banwari(A7),

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Prithvi(A8),  Bri  Jal(A9), Dhokal(A10), Bhagirath(A11)  and Het  Ram(A12).   One  of  the accused  persons,  namely,  Om Prakash(A5)  was, however, acquitted.  Upon conviction,  the trial  court  awarded  death  sentence to  all  the  accused persons  who  were  convicted under Section  302  read  with Sections  149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and fine  of Rs.25,000/-  each.   All  the convicted  persons  were  also sentenced  to  life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-  each for  the  commission of the offence under Section  307  read with  Sections  149  and  120B  IPC,  seven  years  rigorous imprisonment  with a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offences punishable  under Section 450 of the IPC.  They were further sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-  each for the offence punishable under Section 148 and  6  month rigorous imprisonment and a fine of  Rs.1000/- each  for  the offence under Section 27 of the  Indian  Arms Act.   It was further directed that after recovery of  fine, the  full  amount be paid as compensation to injured  Subash Chander  (PW2).   Reference was made to the High  Court  for confirmation  of the capital sentence awarded to the accused persons.   Feeling aggrieved all the convicted persons filed appeals  in  the  High Court.  The State did  not  file  any appeal against the acquittal of Om Prakash, accused.

   All  the four appeals filed by the convicted persons and the reference arising out of the judgment of the trial court were  disposed of by a common judgment now impugned in these appeals.   The High Court upheld the conviction of convicts, namely,   Krishan  Lal(A1),   Vishnu(A6),  Bhanwari(A7)  and Prithvi(A8)   but  commuted  the   death  sentence  to   the imprisonment  for life.  Their appeals against the sentences in relation to other offences were rejected.

   Not  satisfied  with  the judgment of  the  High  Court, Subash  Chander, (PW2) has filed two sets of appeals bearing Nos.812-814  of 1999 and 815-816 of 1999 praying for setting aside  the order of acquittal and awarding of death sentence to  the  convicted persons as was done by the  trial  court. The  four  convicted accused have filed two sets of  appeals bearing  Criminal Appeal Nos.817-818 of 1999 and 819-820  of 1999  praying  for  their  acquittal by  setting  aside  the conviction  and sentence awarded to them by the trial  court and  the  High Court.  Criminal Appeal Nos.821-822 of  1999, 1017 of 1999, 980 of 1999 and 290 of 2001 have been filed by the  State  of  Rajasthan seeking quashing of the  order  of acquittal  and for award of death sentence to the  convicted persons.   It  may be noticed, at this stage,  that  Subhash Chander  in his appeals has not challenged the acquittal  of the   accused  persons,  namely,   Bikar  Singh(A2),   Mangu Singh(A3), Major Singh(A4) and Om Prakash(A5).  The State of Rajasthan  has, however, prayed for setting aside the  order of  acquittal relating to Bikar Singh, Mangu Singh and Major Singh, as well.

   We  have  heard  the  learned counsel  for  the  parties appearing  in  the case at length and propose to dispose  of all these appeals by this common judgment.

   The facts of the case, as unfolded during the trial, are that  the families of Bhagwan Ram, deceased and Krishan Lal, accused  ("A1")  had  an  old enmity.  Om  Prakash,  son  of Bhagwan Ram was murdered on 25th June, 1987 by A1 along with Vishnu  (A6), Bhanwari (A7), Prithvi (A8) and one Gopi  Ram. Bhagwan  Ram, his sons Sunder Ram and Subhash Chander  (PW2) had  been  cited as eye-witnesses in that case.  During  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

pendency of the trial A1, A6, A7 and A8 had been released on bail.  A6 is the brother and A7 and A8 are uncles of A1.

   On  the  intervening  night  of  21/22nd  August,  1992, Subhash  Chander (PW2), his father Bhagwan Ram, his  brother Sunder  Ram,  his grand-mother Chando Devi, his  sister  Raj Kumari  and  his maternal uncle Chandu Ram were sleeping  in the  courtyard  of the house when at about 1o Clock  in  the night  the aforesaid four accused along with Brij Lal  (A9), Dhokal  (A10),  Bhagirath (A11) and Het Ram  (A12)  intruded into  the  house  and started indiscriminate firing  on  the sleeping  family members of Bhagwan Ram.  On hearing the gun shots,  Subhash Chander(PW2) woke up and he saw in his house A1,  A6,  A7,  A8,  A9, A10, A11 and A12.   Krishan  Lal  A1 exhorted  others  to spare no family member of Bhagwan  Ram, deceased.   He fired gun shots from his pistol which hit the bone  of the right side hip and abdomen of Subhash  Chander. When  he (PW2) ran from the place of occurrence to save  his life,  another shot was fired at him.  His father,  brother, grand-mother  and  sister also suffered gun  shot  injuries. During  the  spree  of gun shots, the accused  persons  were calling  each  other by their names.  When the accused  were standing  in  the  courtyard of the house  of  the  deceased persons, PW2 had came out of his room with torch and flashed it  on  them  which  confirmed  the  identification  of  the accused.   When everybody belonging to the family of Bhagwan Ram fell after receiving gun-shot injuries, A1 declared that the  work  is over, whereafter the accused persons left  the place.   PW2  came  out  of the room and  saw  that  due  to sustaining  of  various  injuries,   the  condition  of  his grand-mother was serious, whereas his father and brother had died.   After  the  accused fled away, PW2  along  with  his sister Raj Kumari (PW3) went to the house of Mani Ram who is his  father-in-law  and narrated him the whole story.   Mani Ram  and his son took PW2 and his sister(PW3), in their jeep and  got them admitted in the hospital.  On the basis of the statement  of  PW2  FIR No.279/92 was registered  at  Police Station Pili Banga and investigation commenced.

   During  the investigation PWs2 and 3 were got  medically@@     JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ examined.   Empty  cartridges of copper, empty shells of  12@@ JJJJJJJJJ bore  dot-gatte,  rubber, live cartridges,  pellets,  lathi, gandasi,  blood smeared earth and plain earth were recovered and  sealed by the investigating agency.  Inquest report and Panchayatnama of the dead bodies of Bhagwan Ram, Chando Devi and Sunder Ram were prepared.  Post mortem was got conducted on  the  dead  bodies.   Blood stained  clothes  of  Subhash Chander (PW2) and Raj Kumari (PW3) were also seized.

   On  7.2.1992  A1  voluntarily  appeared  in  the  police station  and  was  arrested.  He produced a pistol  and  two@@                    JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ cartridges  of 315 bore which were taken into police custody@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ as  evidence.  A1, A2 and A3 were arrested on 11.9.1992.  A5 was arrested on 22.9.1992.  On completion of investigation a challan  was produced against Krishan Lal (A1), Bikar  Singh (A2),  Mangu  Singh  (A3), Major Singh (A4) and  Om  Prakash (A5).   The  investigating agency found the other 7  accused persons  not involved in the case which included A6, A7  and A8.  Even though the accused, apparently with the connivance of  the  police, attempted to mislead the court by filing  a case  against A2 to A5, yet their attempt was foiled by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

court,  who after hearing the arguments on protest  petition filed  by Subhash Chander (PW2) took cognizance against  all the remaining 7 suspect persons and summoned them as accused in  the  case.   After committal, the accused  persons  were charged for the various offences under the Indian Penal Code and  the  Indian Arms Act.  The accused persons  denied  the charges  and  claimed  trial.   To   prove  its  case,   the prosecution  examined  12 witnesses and relied upon  various documents exhibited as Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-80.

   In  his  statement  recorded under Section  313  of  the Cr.P.C.,  Het  Ram (A12) submitted that he was innocent  and@@                JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ that  he along with Om Prakash, Sheshkaran and Kashi Ram had@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ gone  to  Sardarpura at 8.00 a.m.  on the day of  occurrence and  returned home at 12.30 in the night after leaving Kashi Ram  in his village.  Bhagirath (A11), Dhokal (A10) and Brij Lal (A9) pleaded alibi.  Banwari Lal (A7) stated that on the fateful  night he was in the Dhani of Lado Ram at Chak 6 LKS as Lado Ram had died.  Vishnu (A6) submitted that on the day of  Janmasthami he had gone to Ganganagar and for the  night he  stayed  there in the house of Krishan son of Bhola  Ram. Other  accused persons pleaded innocence and took a plea  of total  denial.   In  their   defence,  the  accused  persons produced  10  defence  witnesses and relied  upon  documents marked Exhibit D-1 to D-7.

   The  trial  court convicted all the accused persons  and sentenced  them  to death whereas the High  Court  convicted@@            JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ only  four  appellants vide the judgment impugned  in  these@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ appeals,  as  noticed  earlier.   After  going  through  the statements  of witnesses and the record produced in the case we  have come to the conclusion that there did not exist any evidence  against A2 to A5 of whom A5 was rightly  acquitted by  the trial court and A2 to A4 by the High Court.  We have noticed  with  pain that the aforesaid four accused  persons were  impleaded  not only to mislead the court but  also  to provide  protection  to  the real culprits being  sure  that ultimately  no  court could convict and sentence any of  the aforesaid  four  accused persons.  Mr.Ranjit Kumar,  learned Senior  Counsel  appearing  on behalf  of  Subhash  Chander, appellant has been fair to concede that there is no evidence against  the  aforesaid  accused  persons  warranting  their conviction  and  sentence.   We,   therefore,  confirm   the acquittal  of the aforesaid accused persons and dismiss  the appeals  filed  by the State against the acquittal of A2  to A4.   Out of the Accused Nos.9 to 12, Dhokal (A10) is stated to  have  died  during the pendency of these  appeals.   The trial  court  had convicted and sentenced A9 to A12  on  the basis  of  the statements of PW2 Subhash  Chander.   Finding that  his version of occurrence, in so far as those  accused persons  are  concerned,  was not supported  by  Raj  Kumari (PW3), High Court acquitted them.  It is true that the names of  A9  to  A12 are mentioned in the FIR lodged by  PW2  and reiterated  by him in his deposition in the trial court  but Raj  Kumari (PW3) categorically stated that after  receiving the  gun shot injuries she, along with Subhash Chander (PW2) had  hidden themselves in the room and when Subhash  Chander came  out of the room with torch, gun shots were again fired at  him  which  forced  him to return back.   At  that  time "Krishan,  Vishnu,  Banwari, and Prithvi were  calling  each other  by their names and said that work is over, let us go.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

The  fact of going was said by Krishan".  At the trial,  the court  observed  that  "while identifying correctly  to  the accused  persons namely Krishan, Banwari, Vishnu and Prithvi the  witness stated that these are the 4 accused persons who fired  gun  shots".  PW3 has been categoric in stating  that only  four  accused,  namely,  A1, A6, A7 and  A8  were  the persons  who had come on the spot and fired gun shots.   She has  neither named any other person nor identified the  rest of  the  accused  persons in the court.  She  has  not  even stated   that  the  aforesaid   four  accused  persons  were accompanied  by any other person also.  By referring to  the statements  of  PWs2  and 3 the Division Bench of  the  High Court observed:  "A critical examination of the testimony of two  eye-  witnesses PW2 Subhash Chandra and PW3 Raj  Kumari shows  that  as  regards the four accused  persons,  namely, Krishan,  Vishnu, Banwari and Prithvi, there is no  variance in  the testimony of these two eye-witnesses.  The testimony of   PW3   Raj   kumari  has   not  been   shaken   in   the cross-examination  and,  therefore,  on  the  basis  of  the testimony  of Raj Kumari corroborated by PW2 Subhash Chandra these  4  accused persons can be held to be present  at  the scene of occurrence and it can be safely held that they have used   gun  shots  as  alleged  by  this  witness   and   as corroborated  by  PWe Subhash Chandra.  In relation  to  the other  four  accused persons, namely, Dhokal, Brij Lal,  Het Ram and Bhagirath a doubt is created as to whether they were in  fact  present or not because had they been  present  Raj Kumari  would have definitely named them.  May be that  they were present and Raj Kumari had missed their presence but if an  injured witness misses to name the four accused  persons then such absence goes in favour of the accused persons and, therefore,  notwithstanding  the  testimony of  PW2  Subhash Chandra  the presence of these four accused persons is  held to  be  doubtful.  May be that they were not present on  the scene  of  occurrence at the time of the incident.  In  this background of doubt, it can be said that the presence of the four  accused  Krishan, Vishnu Banwari and Prithvi  is  held proved.   Presence of four accused Dhokal, Brij Lal, Het Ram and Bhagirath is held doubtful."

   We  also  agree with the conclusions arrived at  by  the High  Court regarding the role played by A9 to A12 and  find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed in  their  favour by giving them the benefit of doubt.   The appeals  filed by Subhash Chander and the State in so far as A9 to A12 are concerned, are dimissed.

   Both  the  trial court as well as the High  Court  have, upon  appreciation  of evidence, concurrently found  accused Krishan  Lal (A1), Vishnu (A6), Bhanwari (A7), Prithvi  (A8) guilty  of  the  offences  with  which  they  were  charged. Involvement  of  the  aforesaid  accused  persons  is  fully established  by  the testimony of Subhash Chander (PW2)  and Raj  Kumari (PW3).  Subhash Chander (PW2) has stated that on the  day  of occurrence he, along with other members of  the family,  was  sleeping  in the courtyard of his  house.   On hearing the sounds of gun-shot firing, he woke up along with others  and  saw A1, A6, A7 and A8 along with others  firing with  their  weapons.  A1 fired pistol shots which  hit  the witness.   A1 exhorted others that nobody from the family of Bhagwan Ram should escape.  When the witness tried to escape by  running  towards his room, he was again fired  at.   Raj Kumari  (PW3)  also sustained bullet injuries.  He  saw  the accused  persons in the torch light and also recognised them

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

as  they  were  calling  each  other  by  their  names.   In consequence of the gun shot injuries Bhagwan Ram, Sunder Ram and  Chando  Devi  died.  The crime is stated to  have  been committed  on  account  of the enmity, with  the  object  to eliminate  the  prosecution  witnesses   cited  against  the accused  in  the murder case pertaining to the death of  the brother  of  the witness, namely, Om Prakash.  To  the  same effect  is the statement of Raj Kumari.  The High Court  has accepted  the testimony of both the witnesses so far as  A1, A6,  A7  and  A8  are  concerned.   Learned  Senior  Counsel appearing  for the aforesaid accused persons could not point out  any  material  infirmity  in  the  depositions  of  the aforesaid  witnesses  which  could  persuade us  to  take  a different view.  Upon analysis of the evidence and the other relevant  record  produced in the case, we have no doubt  in our  mind regarding the involvement of the aforesaid accused persons  for  the  offences with which  they  were  charged, convicted and sentenced.

   Mr.Ranjit Kumar, Senior Counsel who appeared for Subhash Chander,  (PW2)  vehemently argued that the trial court  was@@           JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ not  justified in commuting the death sentence and  awarding@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ the  life imprisonment to the aforesaid accused persons.  He has  submitted that the present case was one which could  be termed  as  rarest of the rare case warranting  the  extreme penalty imposable upon them under law.  It is contended that mere  fact  that some of the accused persons were  acquitted could not be made a ground for converting the death sentence into  the life imprisonment.  The manner in which the  crime was  committed on the helpless sleeping members of a  family and  design  of  the accused to eliminate the  whole  family justified  the grant of death sentence.  The reason given by the  High  Court for not awarding the death  sentence  being vague  and irrelevant, the judgment impugned to that  extent is  sought to be modified.  In support of his contention the learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court  in Nirmal Singh & Anr.  v.  State of Haryana[1999 (2) Scale  133),  State  of U.P.  v.  Dharmendra  Singh  &  Anr. [1999  (6) Scale 113], Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Chauhan v. State  of  Assam [JT 2000 (8) SC 430] and Narayan  Chetanram Chaudhary  & Anr.  v.  State of Maharashtra [JT 2000 (10) SC 78].

   There is no denial of the fact that the accused convict- appellants,  who  were earlier involved in the murder of  Om Prakash,  son  of  Bhagwarn Ram left no  stone  unturned  to eliminate  the  whole family of said Bhagwan  Ram  including three eye-witnesses in that case, namely Bhagwan Ram, Sunder Ram  and  Subhash Chander.  It is also established that  the aforesaid  accused  persons  attacked the deceased  and  the injured  at  the  dead  hour of the  night  when  they  were sleeping being incapable of defending themselves.  The means adopted in execution of the evil designs speak of the mental condition  of the accused persons whom the trial court found to have been involved in the commission of a crime termed by it  as  rarest  of the rare cases.  The  High  Court,  while commuting  the  death sentences, appears to have  completely ignored  various  pronouncements of this Court dealing  with the  yardsticks  to  be  adopted while  awarding  the  death sentence.   Merely because 8 persons, convicted by the trial court,  were  acquitted, by itself cannot be termed to be  a justified ground for commuting the death sentence.  However, as the High Court, presumably on general conspectus and upon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

consideration  of  facts  of the case,  found  that  accused persons  should not be awarded with death sentence, we  feel that  for  interfering  with the discretion  of  the  court, further  exceptional  grounds are required to be  made  out. When two views are possible about the quantum of sentence, a view  which favours the grant of life in comparison of death is  generally accepted.  But for the exercise of the  powers by  the  High Court in commuting the death sentence  we  had some  reservations  about  the  sentence  awarded  vide  the impugned  judgment but in view of the exercise of discretion in  commuting  the  death sentence we are  not  inclined  to interfere  with the sentence awarded to the accused  persons specially   Vishnu  (A6),  Bhanwari   (A7),  Prithvi   (A8). Mr.Ranjit Kumar, Senior Counsel alternatively contended that if  a desperate accused like Krishan Lal (A1) is not awarded death  sentence,  he  is likely to eliminate  the  remaining family  members of Bhagwan Ram, as is evident from his  past conduct  and behaviour.  It is submitted that to protect the lives  of innocent surviving family members of Bhagwan  Ram, it  is necessary to atleast deprive Krishan Lal (A1) of  his life.   We  feel  that the apprehensions  expressed  by  the senior  counsel  are  not without substance Faced  with  the situation  Mr.U.R.  Lalit, Senior Counsel appearing for  the@@                                                     JJJJJJJJ aforesaid  respondents  submitted that instead of  depriving@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Krishan Lal (A1) of his life, the Court can pass appropriate orders  to  deprive  the  aforesaid accused  person  of  his liberty throughout his life.  Upon instructions, the learned Senior  Counsel  submitted  that the said  Krishan  Lal,  if sentenced  to  life  imprisonment,  would  never  claim  his pre-mature  release  or commutation of his sentence  on  any ground.   We record such a submission made on behalf of  the said  accused, upon instructions.  Section 57 of the  Indian Penal  Code provides that in calculating fractions of  terms@@                                          JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ of  punishment of imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ equivalent  to  imprisonment for 20 years.  It does not  say that  the transportation for life shall be deemed to be  for 20  years.   The  position at law is that  unless  the  life imprisonment   is  commuted  or   remitted  by   appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of law applicable in the  case,  a  prisoners sentenced to life  imprisonment  is bound  in  law to serve the life term in prison.   In  Gopal Vinayak  Godse  v.  The State of Maharashtra & Others  [1961 (3)  SCR 440], the convict petitioner contended that as  the term  of  imprisonment  actually served by him  exceeded  20 years,  his further detention in jail was illegal and prayed for  being set at liberty.  Repelling such a contention  and referring  to  the judgment of the Privy Council  in  Pandit Kishori  Lal  v.   King Emperor [1944 (1) 72 LR  I.A.]  this Court  held:  "If so, the next question is whether there  is any  provision  of  law  whereunder   a  sentence  for  life imprisonment,  without  any formal remission by  appropriate Government,  can  be  automatically  treated as  one  for  a definite  period.  No such provision is found in the  Indian Penal  Code, Code of Criminal Procedure or the Prisons  Act. Though  the  Government of India stated before the  Judicial Committee  in  the case cited supra that, having  regard  to s.57  of  the Indian Penal Code, 20 year’s imprisonment  was equivalent  to  a sentence of transportation for  life,  the Judicial Committee did not express its final opinion on that question.  The Judicial Committee observed in that case thus at p.10:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

   "Assuming  that the sentence is to be regarded as one of twenty  years, and subject to remission for good conduct, he had  not  earned  remission  sufficient to  entitle  him  to discharge  at  the  time  of his  application,  and  it  was therefore  rightly  dismissed,  but in  saying  this,  their Lordships  are  not  to  be taken as  meaning  that  a  life sentence must and in all cases be treated as one of not more than  twenty  years,  or  that the  convict  is  necessarily entitled to remission."

   Section  57 of the Indian Penal Code has no real bearing on the question raised before us.  For calculating fractions of   terms   of  punishment   the  section   provides   that transportation  for life shall be regarded as equivalent  to imprisonment  for  twenty  years.   It  does  not  say  that transportation for life shall be deemed to be transportation for  twenty  years for all purposes;  nor does  the  amended section  which substitutes the words "imprisonment for life" for "transportation for life" enable the drawing of any such all-embracing  fiction.   A sentence of  transportation  for life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as transportation   or  imprisonment  for   the  whole  of  the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life."

   In  State of Madhya Pradesh v.  Ratan Singh &  Ors.[1976 (3) SCC 470] this Court held that a sentence of imprisonment for  life does not automatically expire at the end of the 20 years,   including  the  remissions.    "The  sentence   for imprisonment  for life means a sentence for the entire  life of  the prisoner unless the appropriate Government choses to exercise  its discretion to remit either the whole or a part of  the  sentence under Section 401 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure",  observed the court.  To the same effect are the judgments  in Sohan Lal v.  Asha Ram & Others [1981 (1)  SCC 106],  Hagirath  v.  Delhi Administration [1985(2) SCC  580] and  the latest judgment in Zahid Hussein & Ors.v.  State of West  Bengal  & Anr.  [Writ Petition (Crl.)  Nos.274-277  of 2000 decided on 15.3.2001].

   Agreeing  with the plea raised by the senior counsel  of the  convict-respondents and in view of the circumstances of the  case particularly awarding of lesser punishment by  the High  Court, we are not inclined to award death sentence  to any  of the accused persons.  While dismissing their appeals we  confirm  the  conviction  and sentence  awarded  to  the aforesaid  accused persons, namely, Krishan Lal (A1), Vishnu (A6), Bhanwari (A7), Prithvi (A8).

   However,  in  the  peculiar circumstances of  the  case, apprehending  imminent danger to the life of Subhash Chander@@               JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ and  his  family in future, taking on record  the  statement@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ made  on behalf of Krishan Lal (A1), we are inclined to hold that  for  him  the  imprisonment  for  life  shall  be  the imprisonment  in prison for the rest of his life.  He  shall not  be  entitled  to any commutation or  premature  release under  Section  401  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure, Prisoners  Act,  Jail  Manual or any other statute  and  the Rules  made  for  the purposes of grant of  commutation  and remissions.

   In  view  of  what  has  been  stated  hereinabove,  the conviction  and  sentences  awarded  by the  High  Court  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

Krishan  Lal (A1), Vishnu (A6), Bhanwari (A7), Prithvi  (A8) are  upheld  with the rider that Krishan Lal (A1),  for  the rest of his life, shall remain in prison.

   All  the  appeals  filed  by  Subhash  Chander,  accused persons  and  the  State  are dismissed with  a  rider  that Krishan  Lal (A1) shall remain in prison for the rest of his life.