Delhi District Court
Sc No. 50/12. State vs . Jagbir Singh & Another. on 23 December, 2014
SC No. 50/12. State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Another.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
Session Case No. 50/2012.
FIR No. 221/2004.
PS Najafgarh.
U/s 302/324/323/34 IPC.
State.
Vs.
1.Jagbir Singh, S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh, R/o RZ1, New Roshan Pura, Paprawat Road, Najafgarh, Delhi.
2. Ranbir Singh, S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh, R/o RZ1, New Roshan Pura, Paprawat Road, Najafgarh, Delhi. ... Accused.
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2014 Arguments advanced on : 22.12.2014 Date of order on sentence: 23.12.2014 Page No. 1 of 7.
SC No. 50/12. State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Another.
:: ORDER ON SENTENCE :: Present: Sh. V.K.Swami, ld. Addl. PP for State.
Both the convicts produced from JC.
Sh. Satish Tamta, ld. Counsel for both the convicts.
1. Vide judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by this Court, both the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/324/323/34 IPC.
2. I had heard arguments on the point of sentence on 22.12.2014 and have perused the entire record, carefully.
3. Ld. Addl. PP for State had submitted that maximum sentence may be awarded to the convict considering the gravity of offence in question, cruelty of the convict in causing the death of deceased and also in view of the fact that, one innocent life has been lost, due to premedidated common intention of both the convicts. He had further stated that convict do not deserve any leniency.
4. It was submitted by the ld. counsel for convicts that both the convict are of young age. It was further submitted that the convicts have young wives and old aged parents to support and the convicts are the sole bread earners for Page No. 2 of 7.
SC No. 50/12. State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Another.
their family. It was further urged on behalf of the convicts that they are first time offenders and there is no previous conviction or involvement of these convicts in any other case. It was further argued that the convict belong to poor family and they have to take care of their widowed old aged mother and lenient view may be taken against them, as it is not a rarest of rare case.
5. As per Section 302 IPC, the punishment prescribed is death, or imprisonment for life, and fine. As per Section 323 IPC, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. As per Section 324 IPC, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
6. All murders are gruesome and cruel. No doubt in the present case, the convicts in furtherance of their common intention, had committed the murder of deceased, in a brutal and inhuman manner, as a result of which an innocent life was lost. After the initial scuffle on trivial Page No. 3 of 7.
SC No. 50/12. State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Another.
issue, the convict Ranbir went back to his shop and came back to spot with a ice picker and exhorted that Dariyao Singh (deceased) be done away with. He asked coconvict Jagbir to catch hold of Dariyao Singh and Jagbir caught hold of Dariyao Singh from behind and Ranbir gave two ice picker blows on the chest (vital part) of Dariyao singh, puncturing his both lungs, which resulted into his death. The said act was premeditated and shows the short temper and cruel nature of both the convicts.
7. It is well settled law that the death penalty can be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases. To this effect was another case reported as AIR 1983 Supreme Court Page
629. It was observed in Bachan Singh's case (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 898) that a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking life through laws instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative as above is unquestionably foreclosed. Further, in case reported as 1999 Criminal Law Journal Page 4552 Supreme Court, State of Rajendran, where wife and two children of the accused were burnt in the hut, the penalty of death sentence imposed upon the convict was Page No. 4 of 7.
SC No. 50/12. State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Another.
commuted to imprisonment for life, considering that the case did not represent one of the rarest of rare cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Shankar Kisanrao Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra", Criminal Appeal No. 362363 of 2010, had discussed the entire case laws on the said aspect.
8. Considering the totality of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and in view of the aforesaid case laws, I am of the considered opinion, that this case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, which warrants death sentence. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances, for the offence u/s.302/34 IPC, the convicts Jagbir Singh and Ranbir Singh are hereby sentenced to imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ each out of which compensation of Rs. 75,000/ each shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Dariyao Singh. The convicts shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each in case of default of payment of fine.
9. For the offence u/s.324/34 IPC, the convicts Jagbir Singh and Ranbir Singh are hereby sentenced to simple Page No. 5 of 7.
SC No. 50/12. State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Another.
imprisonment for a period of one year each alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each, out of which compensation of Rs.5,000/ each shall be paid to injured Puran Mal. The convicts shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each in case of default of payment of fine.
10. For the offence u/s.323/34 IPC, the convicts Jagbir Singh and Ranbir Singh are hereby sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each, out of which compensation of Rs. 800/ each shall be paid to other injured Krishan Kumar. The convicts shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each in case of default of payment of fine.
11. Benefit of Section 427/428 CrPC be given to both the convicts.
12. Copies of judgment and order on sentence, be supplied to both the convicts, free of cost, immediately.
13. A copy of order on sentence be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent, for information and compliance. Page No. 6 of 7.
SC No. 50/12. State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Another.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 23.12.2014.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 7 of 7.