Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, holding that felonious propensity alone does not satisfy the "rarest of rare" test for capital punishment.

Summary

Krishan, already serving life imprisonment for a prior murder, was convicted of murdering his brother‑in‑law Ranbir inside District Jail, Sonepat, using a spade. The trial court sentenced him to death, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the death penalty was justified under the "rarest of rare" doctrine, noting that the offender's prior murder (felonious propensity) cannot be the sole basis for capital punishment. The Court found that, although the appellant had a prior murder conviction, the present case did not meet the threshold of rarity required for death. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, while maintaining a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Issues considered

Whether the death penalty is warranted in the present case under the "rarest of rare" principle.
Whether an offender's prior murder conviction (felonious propensity) can alone justify a death sentence.
Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderdeath penaltycommutationfelonious propensityrarest of rare doctrineIPC 302sentencingSupreme Court

Judgment

t

A KRIS HAN
v.
STATE OF HARYANA

MAY 1, 1997

B [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)

Indian Penal Code, 1866:

Ss.302-Murder-Accused while undergoing /ife imprisonment imposed
C upon him in an earlier murder case, committed murder of his brother-in-law,
an under-triaf-Trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to
death-High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence-Held, felonious
propensity of an offender is a factor which requires consideration while
dealing with the question of imposition of sentence of death but that cannot
be the sole basis for such sentence as all other factors relating to the
D commission of the crime including motive, manner and magnitude have also
to be taken into consideration-The instant case, in the circumstances, is not
one of the rarest of the rare cases where sentence of death should be
imposed-The se/lfence of death is commuted and accused is awarded
imprisonment for life-Sentence of fine is maintained.
E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
91of1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.96 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 592 - DB/95 and Murder Ref. No. 8 of
1995.
F
Satyapal Khushal Chand for the Appellant.

Prem Malhotra (NP) for the Respondent.

The following order of the Court was delivered :
G
Consequent upon dismissal of his appeal by the High Court Krishan,
the appellant herein, stands convicted under Section 302 I.P .C. and sen-
tenced to death for committing the murder of Ranbir, his brother-in-law,
on October 23, 1994 inside District Jail, Sonepat, where the former was
H undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life and the latter was an
1156
n

KRISHAN v. STATE 1157

under-trial prisoner. A
According to the prosecution case on the fateful day at or about
10.45 A.M. when the deceased was getting himself shaved by Ram Phal
(P.W.3), who is a barber by profession and at the material time was serving
a sentence, in Barrack No. 3 of the Jail, the appellant came there with Kassi
(spade) in his hand and inflicted two successive blows on the head of B
Ranbir, with whom he had a property dispute as a result of which he fell
down and started bleeding profusely. Ram Phal raised an alarm which
attracted the attention of Head Constable Som Nath, who was on duty
nearby. Ram Phal and Som Nath chased the appellant who had fled away
in the meantime with the kassi, and nabbed him with great difficulty. They C
snatched the kassi from him and put him inside Barrack No. 4. They then
went to Shri Ashok Kumar (P.W.4), Assistant Superintendent of the Jail
and narrated the incident and also handed over the kassi to him. Shri
Kumar then arranged a vehicle to shift Ranbir to the General Hospital,
Sonepat. There Ranbir was examined by Dr. R.R. Mittal (P.W.1) and he
found the following : D
"1. Incised wound in front of the left pinna extending upto mid-line
of vault of skull which was 12 x 1 ems. x bone deep. Fresh bleeding
was present and brain matter was coming out of the injury and
E
2. Incised wound on the skull from its middle to parieto-temporal
region measuring 10 x 1 ems. x bone deep with fresh bleeding.
Brain matter was coming out of the injury. X-ray was advised in
respect of skull and surgical opinion was sought."

According to.the doctor, both the aforesaid injuries could be caused F
by a sharp-edged weapon like kassi. The doctor sent a rnga (ext. PB) to
In-charge, Police Post General Hospita\, Sonepat, at 12 noon.

On receipt of a telephone message from the city Police Station, S.I.
Ami Singh (P.W.8), who was then posted as in-charge Police Post, Gohama
Road, Sonepat, first went to General Hospital, Sonepat, where he came to G
learn that Ranbir Singh had since been referred to Medical College &

-- Hospital, Rohtak. Thereafter, he came to District Jail, Sonepat, where
Chander Singh (P.W.7) made a statement (Ext. PG) regarding the incident.
He forwarded the said statement for registration of a case and took up
investiga_tion. There-after, S.I. Ami Singh recorded the statements of Ram H
•
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A Phal, Som Nath and Ashok Kumar under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He took
possession of the Kassi (Ext. Pl) from Ashok Kumar and seized some
blood stained earth from the place of incident. He also prepared a rough
site plan (ext. PI).

In the night intervening 26/27th of October, 1994 the Investigation
B Officer received a message fro111 Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak that
Ranbir Singh had since died. dn receipt of this message, S.I. Ami Singh
reached there along with H.C. Ohara Singh and Constable Suresh Kumar
and conducted inquest proceedings (Ext. PX). He then sent the dead body
for post mortem examination. Post·mortem examination was conducted by
C Dr. A.P. Sharma (P.W. 10) in Civil Hospital, Rohtak and he noted two
stitched wounds on his person corresponding to the medico-legal report.
According to the doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The appellant who was already lodged in District Jail, Sonepat as a
D· convict in some other murder case was put under arrest by S.I. Ami Singh.
On 23.10.1994, S.I. Ami Singh had deposited the Kassi Ext. P.1 duly sealed
in a packet and another packet containing blood stained earth with the
Moharrir Malkhana Randhir Singh and on 16.11.1994 the said Head Con·
stable Randhir Singh handed over the same duly intact to the said Con·
E stable Vinod Kumar for being delivered at the Forensic Science Laboratory ·
(F.S.L.) and the said constable delivered the same there duly intact on the
same day. Subsequently, report from the F.S.L., Madhuban vide Ext. PP.
was received to the effect that there was human blood on the kassi
(Ext.P.1) and the blood stained earth lifted from the spot. On completion
of investigation. the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and
F in due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him
and stated that he had been falsely implicated. He took the stand that on
the date of the incident he was on duty at the Sabzi Panja in Jail and came
G to the Barrack on hearing the alarm of whistles issued by the Lambardar
on duty and then came to know that Ranbir was lying injured. He further
stated that on seeing him injured, he started dressing him and while he was
still dressing him, he himself became unconscious and thereafter regained
consciousness in the hospital.
--
H To sustain the charge levelled against the appellant the prosecution
KRISHAN v. STATE 1159

principally relied upon the ocular version of Ram Phal (P.W.3) and A
Chander Singh (P.W. 7), the warden of the jail. Both the learned Courts
below found that the above two witnesses were natural, probable and
independent witnesses and there was no reason to disbelieve them. As their
evidence stood amply corroborated by the medical evidence and the First
Information Report, which was promptly lodged, the Courts below
recorded their respective findings against the appellant.
B

We have for ourselves perused the entire evidence on record and see
no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the learned
Courts below as they have been arrived at on a detailed and proper
appraisal of the evidence and arc based on cogent and convincing reasons. C
The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. must therefore be
upheld.

Coming now to the sentence we find that the principal reason which
weighed with the Courts below to hold that the extreme penalty of death
was called for, was that earlier the appellant had committed a murder for D
which he was serving the sentence of life imprisonment at the material time
and that he committed another murder while he was released on parole.
Undoubtedly, felonious propensity of an offender is a factor which requires
consideration while dealing with the question of imposition of the sentence
of death but that cannot be made the sole basis for such sentence as all
other factors relating to the commission of the crime including motive,
E
manner and magnitude have also to be taken into consideration. Taking an
overall view of the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case we
do not feel that this is one of the rarest of the rare cases where the
appellant should be sentenced to death. We, therefore, commute the
sentence of death imposed upon the appellant for his conviction under F
Section 302 l.P.C. to imprisonment for life, but maintain the sentence of.
fine of Rs. 5,000 and the sentence to be undergone in default of payment
thereof. The appeal is thus disposed of.

R.P. Appeal disposed of