Sangeet & Anr vs State Of Haryana

1. In these appeals, this Court issued notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded to the appellants. They were awarded the death penalty, which was confirmed by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellants in these appeals against the order of the High Court should be awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful implementation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973.

The facts:

2. In view of the limited notice issued in these appeals, it is not necessary to detail the facts. However, it may be mentioned that as many as six persons (including the appellants) were accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and the Arms Act, 1959. They were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by his judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2004/2009 of the offence of murder (Section 302 of the IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 of the IPC), rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (Section 148 of the IPC), house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death (Section 449 of the IPC) read with Section 149 of the IPC (every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of a common object). Five of the accused were convicted of an offence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959. Except the appellants, all of them were given a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and payment of fine. The appellants, as mentioned above, were sentenced to death.

3. The Trial Judge found the accused guilty of having committed the murder of Ranbir, Bimla (his wife), Seema (wife of Amardeep) and Rahul the three-year-old child of Amardeep and Seema and grandson of Ranbir.

4. The Trial Judge found that accused Ram Phal believed that Amardeep’s family had performed some black magic which led to the death of his (Ram Phal) son Ved Pal soon after his marriage. Apparently, with a view to take revenge, Ram Phal and the other accused committed the crimes aforementioned.

5. The Trial Judge found that the bodies of Ranbir, Bimla (his wife) and Seema (wife of Amardeep) had bullet injuries and other injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon called ‘Kukri’. The body of Seema was also burnt from below the waist. As far as Rahul (a three-year-old boy) is concerned the upper portion of his head was blown off by a firearm injury. Amardeep also had a grievous injury but he survived and was the star witness for the prosecution. On these broad facts the Trial Judge convicted the appellants and others.

6. Thereafter, the Trial Judge heard the convicts under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the question of sentence. In his brief statement, appellant Sandeep stated that he is married and has a five-year- old daughter and aged parents to look after. Appellant Narender also gave a brief a brief statement that he is not married and has aged parents to look after. The Trial Judge considered the judgments of this Court, inter alia, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. Thereafter, by his order dated 18th November, 2009 the Trial Judge handed down the sentences mentioned above.

7. The Trial Judge found that the crime committed by the appellants was brutal in nature. As far as Narender is concerned he had blown off the upper portion of the head of three-year-old Rahul, son of Amardeep by the use of a firearm. As far as Sandeep is concerned, even after giving a gun shot injury on the head of Seema he poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. Taking note of the fact that the entire family of Ranbir (except Amardeep) was wiped out by the accused in a brutal and merciless manner, the Trial Judge held that the crime committed by them fell in the category of the rarest of rare cases, inviting the death penalty. The death sentence awarded to the appellants was however, subject to confirmation by the Punjab & Haryana High Court to which a reference was separately made.

8. The Punjab & Haryana High Court by its Judgment and Order dated 21st July, 2010 in Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009 confirmed the death sentence.

42. B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 85 was a case where the convict was found guilty of rape, murder and robbery. The crime was carried out in a depraved and merciless manner. Two days after the incident, the local public caught him while he was attempting to escape from a house where he made a similar attempt to rob and assault a lady. There was nothing in law to show that the convict was guilty of the second offence in as much as no trial was held. There were some recoveries from his house, which indicated that the convict had committed crimes in other premises also. Again, there was nothing in law to show that he was found guilty of those crimes. On these facts, despite the guilt of the criminal not having been established in any other case, the convict was found incapable of rehabilitation and the death sentence awarded to him was confirmed.

55. Swamy Shraddananda and some of the decisions referred to therein have taken us to Phase III in the evolution of a sound sentencing policy. The focus in this phase is on criminal law and sentencing, and we are really concerned with this in the present case. The issue under consideration in this phase is the punishment to be given in cases where the death penalty ought not to be awarded, and a life sentence is inadequate given the power of remission available with the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. In such a situation, what is the punishment that is commensurate with the offence?

Procedural check on arbitrary remissions:

(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.

(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with:

Substantive check on arbitrary remissions:

77. Therefore, Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. has application only in two situations: (1) Where a convict is to be given “additional” remission or remission for a period over and above the period that he is entitled to or he is awarded under a statutory rule framed by the appropriate Government or under the Jail Manual. (2) Where a convict is sentenced to life imprisonment, which is for an indefinite period, subject to procedural and substantive checks.

79. This re-engineered calculation can be made only after the appropriate Government artificially determines the period of incarceration. The procedure apparently being followed by the appropriate Government is that life imprisonment is artificially considered to be imprisonment for a period of twenty years. It is this arbitrary reckoning that has been prohibited in Ratan Singh. A failure to implement Ratan Singh has led this Court in some cases to carve out a special category in which sentences of twenty years or more are awarded, even after accounting for remissions. If the law is applied as we understand it, meaning thereby that life imprisonment is imprisonment for the life span of the convict, with procedural and substantive checks laid down in the Cr.P.C. for his early release we would reach a legally satisfactory result on the issue of remissions. This makes an order for incarceration for a minimum period of 20 or 25 or 30 years unnecessary.

Conclusion:

In any event, there is little or no uniformity in the application of this approach.

3. In the sentencing process, both the crime and the criminal are equally important. We have, unfortunately, not taken the sentencing process as seriously as it should be with the result that in capital offences, it has become judge-centric sentencing rather than principled sentencing.

5. The grant of remissions is statutory. However, to prevent its arbitrary exercise, the legislature has built in some procedural and substantive checks in the statute. These need to be faithfully enforced.

7. Before actually exercising the power of remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. the appropriate Government must obtain the opinion (with reasons) of the presiding judge of the convicting or confirming Court. Remissions can, therefore, be given only on a case-by-case basis and not in a wholesale manner.

81. Given these conclusions, we are of the opinion that in cases such as the present, there is considerable uncertainty on the punishment to be awarded in capital offences – whether it should be life imprisonment or death sentence. In our opinion, due to this uncertainty, awarding a sentence of life imprisonment, in cases such as the present is not unquestionably foreclosed. More so when, in this case, there is no evidence (contrary to the conclusion of the High Court) that Seema’s body was burnt by Sandeep from below the waist with a view to destroy evidence of her having been subjected to sexual harassment and rape. There is also no evidence (again contrary to the conclusion of the High Court) that Narender was a professional killer.

82. Therefore, we allow these appeals to the extent that the death penalty awarded to the appellants is converted into a sentence of life imprisonment, subject to what we have said above.

November 20, 2012