STATE OF U.P.versusNAREN.DRA & ORS.

                          .. _, . [2014] 14 .S.C.R. 1354 ,


A                                 STATE OF U.P.          1

                                          v.                        '   ,,\.



                               NAREN.DRA &ORS,
       ,., . (CriminalAppeaiNos.1551-1554.of2008)
B
                              SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
       [M. Y. EQBAL AND PIN.AKI CH.ANDRA GHOSE; JJ.]
             •.   '   '
        Penal Code, 1860: ss.3021149 ~Dispute over land'"'
  Murder- Conviction and death sentence by trial court- High
C Court converted death sentence to life imprisonment on the
  ground that the case did not fall under rarest of rare case -
  Held: In the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence
  adduce.d by the prosecution side," there is no reason to
  interfere with the view of the High Court - Sentence -
D Commutation of sentence.
          ·Dismissing the appeals, the Court
       . HELD: The High Court opined that considering the
  overall circumstances of the case, this case does not
E fall within the category of rarest of rare case and it cannot
  be said that imprisonment for lesser sentence of life term
  altogether foreclosed. The High Court observed that
  compassion in sentence is also a key factor and it allows
  the scars to heal. Longevity of incarceration may make
F them see reason. Passage of time may make them
  ponder over the crime they had committed. This might
  arose in them a feeling of remorse and repentance.
  Dismissing the Criminal Reference and partly allowing
  accused persons' appeals, the High Court converted the.
G death sentence awarded to the accused into·
  imprisonment for life. There is no reason to disagree with .
  the view'. by the High Court in reducing the de~th . '"~
  sentencEHnto life imprisonment. [Paras 5, 7][1357-C-E, · •b
                                         -.  - -.  •  ,   -' +1. v .._' -n1
  G-H]· ·. c, ··                                             ·        ·
                                                                       ·., .'V

H
                                        1354
           STATE OF U.P. v. NARENDRA &ORS.                       1355


    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal                    A
Appeal No(s): 1551-1554 of 2008
       From the Judgment and Order dated 27-05-2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2181, 1997, 2027, 2129, 2936, 2903 of 2004 and
Criminal Reference No. 7 of 2004.                                 B
   · Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Ms .. Pragati Neekhra; Abhisth
Kumar, Som Raj Choudhury, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Mukesh K. Giri, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Saryaya
Krishna, Mahender P.S. Tomar, Jabar Singh, Advs. for the          C
Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. These appeals by special leave by
the State are directed against the common judgment and order D
dated 27'h May, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature
atAllahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2181, 1997, 2027, 2129,
2936 and 2903 of 2004 and Criminal Reference No. 7 of 2004
(for confirmation of death sentence of accused Manoj, Sonu,
Umesh, Tej Pal and Narendra), whereby appeals of accused E
Dinesh and Sheo Pal was allowed acquitting them of the
charges and appeals of accused Manoj, Sonu, Umesh, Tej
Pal and Narendra were partly allowed converting their death
sentence to life imprisonment.
        2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present F
 case are that one Pushplata alias Guddy (PW-1) lodged a
 report at Police station Deoband, Saharanpur that there was
·a dispute and enmity betWeen her husband Dr. Rajveer Singh
 and brother-in-law Rajpal Singh with regard to a land and •
 litigation which was pending in the Court. Due to said enmity, G
 on 3.6.2Q01 at about 7.00AM Manoj, Sonu alias Ajay, Umesh
 and Sunlf armed with cour:itry made pistols and Tej Pal, brother
 in-law"of Son-u, Narendra, son-in-law of Rajpal Singh armed
 with knives came to her house and killed her husband, sons
 Manish and Ashish and her brother Viriod with fire arms and H
1356       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 14 S.C.R..


 A knives. She stated that she along with her mother, brother Amit
   and several other persons witnessed the occurrence. Inspector
   Arnrit Lal (PW-5) reached at the place of occurrence and
   instructed S.I. Azad Singh Chauhan (PW-6) to prepare the
   inquest memos. He prepared the site plan and recorded the
 B statement of informant Pushplata, witnesses Arn it Kurnar;Anar
   D~vi and Ram Singh (PW-2). He also collected the blood
   stained earth, plain earth, bed sheet, plain cement, empty
   cartridges and prepared the recovery memos. After conducting
   the postmortem of the deceased Rajbir, Manish,Ashish and
.c Vinod on 3.6.2001, Dr. R.R. Gahlot (PW-3), Medical Officer,
   S.B.D. Government Hospital, Saharanpur opined that thedeath
   was caused by shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante
   mortem injuries,~The investigating Officer after obtaining
   permission from District Magistrate, Saharanpurfiled charge-
 D sheet in. the court under Section 25 of Arms Act against the
   accused.. Manoj, Sonu@Ajay and Umesh .
         3. The trial court framed charges under Sections 148,
   452, 302/149 and 302/120-B against Manoj, Sonu, Umesh,
   Tejpal, Narendra, Rajpal, Dinesh and Shiv Pal. Accused
 E Manoj, Sonu alias Ajay and Umesh were further charged under
   Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution, in order to prove
   its case, examined ten witnesses out of which PW1 and PW-
   2 are ·the eye witnesses of the occurrence. Whereas the
   defence examined five witnesses.
 F
         4. During the course of trial accused Rajpal expired,
   hence the case was dropped against him and trial of remaining
   accused continued. The trail court by its order dated 31.3.2004
   passed in S.T. Case No.885 of 2001 convicted the accused
 G Manoj, Sonu, Umesh, Tej Pal and Narendra under Section 302/
   149 IPC and sentenced to death, under Section 148 IPC
   sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I. for
   short) for three years and under Section 452 IPC sentencing
   them to undergo RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in
   default of payment affine.RI. for three months: Accused Manoj,
 H
            STATE OF U.P. v. NARENDRA& ORS.                       1357
                    [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

  Sonu and Umesh were further convicted under Section 25 of A
· the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two
  years. Accused Dinesh and Shiv Pal were convicted under
  Section 302/120-B, IPC and sentenced to undergo
  imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default
  of payment affine R. I. for one year:                             B
      5. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the accused
 preferred appeals before the High Court of judicature at
 Allahabad. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
 and analyzing the evidence, the High Court opined that
 considering the overall circumstances of the case, this case C
 does not fall within the category of rarest of rare case and it
 cannot be said that imprisonment for lesser sentence of life
 term altogether foreclosed. The High Court observed that
 compassion in sentence is also a key factor and it allows the
 scars to heal. Longevity of incarceration may make them see D
 reason. Passage of time may make them ponder over the
 crime they had committed. This might arose in them a feeling
 of remorse and repentance. Dismissing the Criminal
 Reference and partly allowing accused persons' appeals, the
 High Court converted the death sentence awarded to the E
 accused Manoj, Sonu, Umesh, Tej Pal and Narendra into
 imprisonment for life. Appeals of accused Dinesh and Sheo
 Pal were allowed and they were acquitted of all the charges.
      6. Hence, the present Appeals by Special Leave               F
 preferred by the State.
        7. We have heard Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior
 counsel appearing for the State and Ms. Sandhya Goswami,
 learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We have given
 our final consideration in the matter and have gone through all G
 the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced
 by the prosecution side. We do not find any reason to disagree
 with the view taken by the High Court in reducing the death ·
 sentence into life imprisonment.
                                                                 H .
1358          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014) 14 S.C.R.

 A·          8. For the reasons above stated, we don't find any merit
       in these appeals and the same are dismissed. ·


       Devika Gujral.                                Appeals dismissed.