Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's commutation of the death sentences to life imprisonment, finding that the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" standard.

Summary

The accused Kamaljit Singh and Manjit Singh, who were in an illicit relationship with Bhinder Kaur, the wife of Sewa Singh, murdered Sewa Singh and his three sons after the family harassed Bhinder Kaur. The trial court sentenced the two accused to death, while the High Court altered the death sentences to life imprisonment, holding that the case did not qualify as a "rarest of rare" offence. The State of Punjab appealed, arguing that the murders were brutal and warranted capital punishment. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework for sentencing, the "rarest of rare" doctrine, and the mitigating circumstances presented. It concluded that life imprisonment was an appropriate punishment and that the High Court's reasons for altering the sentence were cogent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the life sentences.

Issues considered

Whether the facts of the case satisfy the "rarest of rare" criteria for imposing the death penalty under Section 354(3) of the CrPC.
Whether the High Court erred in commuting the death sentences awarded by the trial court to life imprisonment.
Whether the mitigating circumstances presented justify a sentence of life imprisonment instead of death.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 354(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

death penaltyrarest of raremurdersentencingmitigating circumstancesIPCCrPCcapital punishmentappeal

Judgment

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 864
;...

A STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
MANJIT SINGH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 786-789 of 2003) -
MAY 28, 2009
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARIVIA AND DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN, JJ.)

Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence - Alteration of, to
c life imprisonment - Justification of - On facts, held: Both the
accused persons had illicit relationship with the third accused,
who was wife of one of the deceased - The accused lost their
balance when she narrated her woes and the harassment
caused to her by her husband and sons - They entered the
D house and killed.husband of third accused and thereafter went
to Gurdwara and killed three sons - This behaviour on part
of accused showed that they acted in the manner being driven
more by infatuation and also being devoid of their sense on
coming to know about the ill treatment meted out to the third
E accused - Though act was gruesome but it was result of
human mind going astray, for which, they were adequately
punished - Life sentence awarded to all the three accused
persons by High Court upheld- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.354(3) - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r.w. s.1208.
F Prosecution case was that the accused persons
developed illicit relations with 'BK', the third accused. Her
husband and sons did not like this and restrained
accused persons from coming to their house. 'BK' did
not like this and toltf to the accused persons about _._
G maltreatment meted to her. On fateful day, the accused
persons killed her husband and sons. The trial court
convicted them under ss.302134 IPC and awarded death
sentence. On appeal, High Court altered the death
sentence to life sentence. Hence appeals by the State
H 864
• /
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANJIT SINGH & ORS . 865
~ ,.
challenging alteration of sentence. A

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. With regard to the quantum of·punishment
to be awarded to persons found guilty of offences dealt
with in the IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure confers B
a wide discretion on the court in the matter· of awarding
f appropriate punishment by prescribing the maximum
punishment and in some cases both the maximum as
well as the minimum punishment for the offence. Though
no general guidelines are laid down in the Code for c
awarding punishment, generally the judicial discretion of
the court is guided by the principle that the punishment
should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
having regard to the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances vis-a-vis an accused in each case. In such D
situation, the obligation of the court in making the choice
r of death sentence for the person who is found guilty of
murder becomes more onerous indeed. [Para 12] [871-E-
H; 872-A]
E
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, relied
on.
~

Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 19,
l\ referred to. F

2. On the question of awarding the sentence for the
offences for which life imprisonment as well as the death
sentence is prescribed, sub-section (3) of Section 354
CrPC enjoins that in the case of sentence of death, G~
~
special reasons for such sentence shall be stated.
Whether the case is one of the rarest of the rare cases is
a question which has to be determined on the facts of
each case. The choice of the death sentence has to be
made only in the rarest of the rare cases and that where
H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A culpability of the accused has assumed depravity or
where the accused is found to be an ardent criminal and
menace to the society; where the crime is committed in
an organized manner and is gruesome, cold-blooded,
heinous and atrocious; and where innocent and
B unarmed persons are attacked and murdered witho_ut any
provocation. [Paras 13 and 17] [872-A-B; 873-E-G]

Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5, relied ~
on.

C 3. Both the respondents behaved in a most cruel
manner, killed four persons while they were asleep.
Three, out of the four deceased persons, were murdered
within the precincts of a Gurdwara. But, there were
certain mitigating circumstances in the case which
D cannot be lost sight of. Both the respondents, as is
disclosed from the records, had illicit relationship with
. the third accused, who was wife of one of the deceased
and when she narrated her woes and the harassment,
both the accused persons, lost their balance and acted
E in a cruel manner by entering into the house of deceased
in the dead night and killing in the house and other three
sons in the Gurdwara. Thereafter, they also gave threat
to everybody outside the house by stating that they have
killed those persons and, therefore, no one should dare
F to come near them. This behaviour on the part of the
accused-respondents would show that they acted in the
manner being driven more by infatuation and also being
devoid ot'their sense on coming to know about the ill
treatment meted out to 'BK'. Though the act of the
G accused is a gruesome one but it was a result of human
mind going astray. No doubt, they acted in a ghastly
manner for which, they were adequately punished. The
High Court gave its reasons for not awarding the death
sentence. Keeping in view entire facts and circumstances
H of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANJIT SINGH & ORS. 867

.+,
altering and converting capital sentence to a sentence of A
life were found to be cogent and reasonable. Therefore,
the life sentence awarded to all the three accused
persons by the High Court stands uphela. [Para 19] [87 4-
A-G]
B
Case Law Reference:

(1999) 3 sec 19 referred to Para 9

(1980) 2 sec 684 relied on Para 11

(1983) 3 sec 470 relied on_ Para 11 c
(1989) 3 sec s relied on Para 16

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 786-789 of 2003.
D
From the Judgment.& Order dated 12.02.2001 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Murder Reference
No. 4 of 2000,. Criminal Appeal No. 262-DB of 2000, 271-DB
of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No. 272-DB of 2000.
E
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey and H.S. Sandhu for the
Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. In these criminal F
appeals the issue that arises for our consideration is whether
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
maximum penalty of death sentence is called for or life sentence
which is awarded to the respondents by the High Court would
meet the ends of justice. G
~-

2. One Sewa Singh, the deceased, was the Municipal
Commissioner of Municipal Committee, Sirhind City. He also
used to recite Kirtan in the Gurdwara Sahib whereas his son
Rachhpal Singh alias Happy, lnderjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh,
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A were also working as Sewadars in Gurdwara Bara Sirhind,
- which was quite near the house of Sewa Singh. Kamaljit Singh
and Manjit Singh were previously working as Sewadar in the
Gurdwara. While working as such they had developed illicit
relations with Bhinder Kaur, the wife of Sewa Singh, the
B deceased. The said illicit relation became known to Sewa
Singh, the deceased, and his son Rachhpal Singh alias Happy
and they did not appreciate the said illicit relationship and
sometimes used to beat Bhinder Kaur and told her in specific -·
terms not to indulge in such activities. They also restrained
c accused Kamaljit Singh and Manjit Singh to come to their
house. Bhinder Kaur did not like the aforesaid attitude of her
family and was also fed up with the harassment caused to her
and told about such mal-treatment and harassment caused, to
the accused Kamaljit Singh and Manjit Singh. Having known
about the attitude and mal-treatment being meted out to Bhinder
0
Kaur, they came on the fateful day of 26.6.1994 to the house
of Sewa Singh when he was sleeping in his house whereas his
son Rachhpal' Singh alias Happy was sleeping in the Gurdwara
Bara Sirhind. Having reached the house of Sewa Singh, the
E accused Kamaljit Singh armed with Kirpan and accused Manjit
Singh armed with Khanda, killed Sewa Singh in his house
whereas the remaining three persons namely Rachhpal Singh
alias Happy, lnderjit Singh and Kuldip Singh were killed in the
Gurdwara by them.

F 3..Consequent to the aforesaid murders, a First Information
Report (for short 'the FIR') was registered bearing FIR No. 46,
on 26.06.1994 at about 2.30 a.m. on the statement of Joginder
Singh who approached the Police Station, Sirhind and got
recorded the FIR to the effect that he was working as an
G electrician and had been living near Gtirdwara Bara Sirhind and -
that on the intervening night of 26.06.1994, when he was
sleeping in his house, at about 1.30 a.m. he heard a noise from
the house of Sewa Singh, the deceased which was located
quite near his house, he went outside and saw that the light in
H front of the house of lnderjit Singh was on and two Sikh youths
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANJIT SINGH & ORS. 869
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
I
...
~ armed with Kirpans stained with blood were shouting that they A
had finished Sewa Singh, the deceased, his son Rachhpal
Singh alias Happy and their supporters and they would not
spare anybody who comes to their help. It was also stated in
the FIR that he along with other neighbours went to the house
of Sewa Singh and found him dead. They left Bhinder Kaur near B
the dead body and went to the Gurdwara Sahib where they
found other three persons murdered namely Rachhpal Singh
( alias Happy, lnderjit Singh and Kuldip Singh. While Rachhpal
Singh alias Happy and lnderjit Singh were lying murdered in
the room of the Gurdwara Sahib, Kuldip Singh was found killed c
in the Varandah of the Gurdwara.

4. After registering the FIR the police started investigation
during the course of which they arrested Kamaljit Singh, Manjit
Singh. Bhinder Kaur was also arrested. After completion of the
investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the D

f
aforesaid accused perS('l'lS. The court framed charges against
the accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC read with
Section 120-B IPC, for causing death of Sewa Singh, Rachhpal
Singh alias Happy, lnderjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh.
E
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined its
witnesses whereas the defence did not produce any witness.
The trial court, after conclusion of the trial and on appreciation
.... .. of the evidence on record, passed a judgment and order finding
both the accused persons namely, Kamaljit Singh and Manjit F
Singh guilty of the offences under Section 302 read with
Section 120-B IPC and sentenced both of them to death with
direction that they be hanged by the neck till death subject to,
however, the confirmation by the High Court. As regards
Bhinder Kaur, it was held by the trial court that she was one of
G
the co-conspirator for killing Sewa Singh and his son Rachhpal
Singh @ Happy. The trial court, after taking into consideration
that now she is left all alone in the family and that she never
intended that lnderjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh be done to

- death, sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life under
H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A Section 120-B IPC read with Section 302 IPC.
,+ f=
~

6. Since in respect of two of the accused persons death
sentence was awarded, reference was made to the High Court
for confirmation of the death sentence. On the other hand, all
the three accused persons filed separate criminal appeals
B
before the High Court.

7. All the aforesaid three criminal appeals and the
reference were taken up together for consideration and after
., .. _
appreciation of the evidence on record, the High Court upheld
c the order of conviction passed against all the three accused
persons. The High Court, however, after considering the facts
and circumstances of the case held that the case in hand cannot
be called as rarest of the rare cases. It was held by the High
Court that both the appellants (respondents herein) who have
D been sentenced to death do not .deserve capital punishment.
Consequently, their sentence of death was converted into a
sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. i
10,000/- each.

8. The State of Punjab being aggrieved by the aforesaid
E
order of alteration of the sentence of the two accused persons
namely Kamaljit Singh and Manjit Singh filed the present
appeals on which the notice was issued. The appeals were·
listed for hearing and we heard the appeals with the assistance
of Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Punjab.
-+ ......
F
9. It was submitted before us by the counsel appearing for
the appellant-State that it was a brutal murder of four persons
by the two accused and, therefore, the High Court was not
justified in converting the death sentence awarded by the trial
G court into the imprisonment for life. He also submi'tted before
us that reliance of the High Court on the decision of this Court ...
in Om Prakash v. State of H8ryana [(1999) 3 SCC 19] is
misplaced. It was submitted by him· that death of four persons
in the present case was one of the aggravating causes. There
H being other factors such as the nature of offence, manner, ..
/
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANJIT SINGH & ORS. 87~
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-t

motive and other aggravating factors surrounding the case A
which when considered together would definitely make out a
case of rarest of rare case.

10. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant-State, we have examined B
the records and relevant case laws.

r 11. The Supreme Court has held succinctly in several
decisions that for a case to be regarded in the rarest of rare
category, fact situation has to be exceptional, like after
committing one offence another offence is committed so as to c
cover up the first offence. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
,,... [(1980) 2 SCC 684] this Court for the first time used this category
(rarest of rare) for awarding death penalty. However, the
Bachan Singh (supra) decision did not elaborate the criteria
for identifying "rarest of rare" cases. In Machhi Singh v. State D
of Punjab [(1983) 3 ~CC 4 70] this Court laid down the
guidelines for the application of the "rarest of rare" rule to
specific cases. The guidelines were couched in fairly broad
terms that relate to several considerations such as: "Manner of
commission of murder", "Motive for the commission of murder'', E
"Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime",
"Magnitude of crime" and "Personality of victim of murder".

..... j.
12. With regard to the quantum of punishment to be
awarded to persons found guilty of offences dealt with in the
IPC, the Code confers a wide discretion on the court in the
F
matter of awarding appropriate punishment by prescribing the
maximum punishment and in some cases both the maximum
as well as the minimum punishment for the offence. Though no
general guidelines are laid down in the Code for the purpose
of awarding punishment, generally the judicial discretion of the G
_.
court is guided by the principle that the punishment should be
commensurate with the gravity of the offence having regard to
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances vis-a-vis an
accused in each case. In such situation, the obligation of the
H.
court in making the choice of death sentence for the person who
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

•·
A is found guilty of murder becomes more onerous indeed.
13. On the question of awarding the sentence for the
offences for which life imprisonment as well as the death
sentence is prescribed, sub-s.ection (3) of Section 354 CrPC
enjoins that in the case of sentence of death, special reasons
B
for such sentence shall be stated. As already noted, the
provision was elaborately discussed by this Court in Bachan
Singh (supra). The Court pointed out the change in the policy
of sentencing in following manner: (SCC p. 734, para 151)

c "1q1. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 marks a sig,nificant shift in the legislative policy
underlying the Code of 1898, as in force immediately ......
before 1-4-1974, according to which both the alternative
sentences of death or imprisonment for life provided for
D murder and for certain other capital offences under the
Penal Code were normal sentences. Now, according to the -I
changed legislative policy which is patent on the face of
Section 354(3), the normal punishment for murder and six
other capital offences under the Penal Code, is
E imprisonment for life (or imprisonment for a term of years)
and death penalty is an exception."

14. For ascertaining the existence or absence of special
reasons in the context, it was observed that though, in a sense, -1 J"(

to kill is to be cruel and, therefore, all murders are cruel, yet
F such cruelty may vary in its degree of culpability and it is only
when culpability assumes the proportion of extreme depravity
that special reasons can legitimately be said to exist. It was
emphasized that life imprisonment was the rule and death
sentence was an exception and that death sentence must be
G imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an
altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant '-
circumstance of the crime and provided that the option to
sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the
H crime and all the relevant circumstances.
.
• STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANJIT SINGH & ORS.
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
873
t
15. In Machhi Singh (supra) a three-Judge Bench of this A--
Court having considered the guidelines laid down in the above-
"" -noted case added that the following two questions might be
asked and answered as a test to determine the rarest of rare
case in which death sentence could be inflicted: (SCC p. 489,
para 39) B

"(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which
renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and
calls for a death sentence?

(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is c
no alternative but to impose death sentence even after

·- according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in favour of the offender."

16. Further, in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar [(1989) 3 D
sec 5] it was laid down that unless the nature of the crime and
the circumstances of the offender reveal that the criminal was
a menace to the society and the sentence of life imprisonment
would be altogether inadequate, the court should ordinarily
impose a lesser punishment and not the extreme punishment
E
of death which should be reserved for exceptional cases only.

17. The above discussed legal principles have been
,..,. t followed consistently in numerous judgments of this Court.
Whether the case is one of the rarest of the rare cases is a
question which has to be determined on the facts of each case. F,
It needs to be reiterated that the choice of the death sentence
has to be made only in the rarest of the rare cases and that
where culpability of the accused has assumed depravity or
where the accused is found to be an ardent criminal and

,,. .. .t
menace to the society and; where the crime is committed in
an organized manner and is gruesome, cold-blooded, heinous
G

and atrocious; where innocent and unarmed persons are
attacked and murdered without any provocation.
18. Reverting back to the present case, it is no doubt true
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. ;..
I

+
A that both the respondents behaved in a most cruel manner, killed
four persons while. they were asleep. Three, out of the four
deceased persons, were murdered within the precincts of a
Gurdwara. But, there are certain mitigating circumstances in the
case which cannot be lost sight of. Both the respondents, as
B is disclosed from the records, had illici, relationship with the
third accused namely Bhinder Kaur and when she narrated her
woes and the harassment, both the accused persons, as it
appears from the record, lost their balance and acted in a cruel
manner by entering into the house of Sewa Singh-deceased
c in the dead nigh~ and killing Sewa Singh in the house and other
three sons in the Gurdwara. Thereafter, they also gave threat
to everybody outside the house by stating that they have killed
_,,,,.
those, persons and, therefore, no one should dare to come near
them. This behaviour on the part of the accused-respondents
would show that they acted in the manner being driven more
D
by infatuation and also being devoid of their sense on coming
to know about the ill treatment meted out to Bhinder Kaur. -1
Though the act of the accused is a gruesome one but it was a
result of human mind going astray. No doubt, they acted in a
ghastly manner for which, in our considered view, they have
E
been adequately punished. The High Court has given its
reasons for not awarding the death sentence and also relied
upon a Supreme Court decision for the purpose.
_.
.......
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, keeping in view
F entire facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons given
by the High Court for altering and converting capital sentence
to a sentence of life are found to be cogent and reasonable.
We do not intend to interfere with the said judgment and order
passed.by the High Court. Therefore, the life sentence awarded
G to all the three accused persons by the High Court stands
~
upheld. .,...
20. In the result, the appeals stand dismissed.

H
D.G. Appeals dismissed.
....