Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court of India

Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 14 November, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 298, 2019 (12) SCC 791, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1028, 2019 CRI LJ 1287, (2019) 197 ALLINDCAS 83 (SC), (2018) 15 SCALE 695, (2018) 3 UC 2080, (2019) 107 ALLCRIC 731, (2019) 197 ALLINDCAS 83, (2019) 1 ALD(CRL) 544, (2019) 1 ALLCRILR 438, 2019 (2) KCCR SN 108 (SC), (2019) 4 MH LJ (CRI) 617, (2019) 73 OCR 466, AIR 2019 SC( CRI) 405

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M. R Shah, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N. V. Ramana

                                                            1


                                                                          NON­REPORTABLE

                                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1391­1393 OF 2018
                                [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6454­6456 of 2014]



                         Vijay Kumar                                          .. Appellant

                                                         Versus

                         The State of Jammu & Kashmir                         .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T Leave granted.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment   and   order   dated   06.03.2014   passed   by   the   High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2010, Crl.M.A.No.06 of 2010 and C/W Confirmation No.23 of 2009, the original accused has preferred the present appeals.

Signature Not Verified 2. That the learned trial Court held the accused guilty for Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.11.29 the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   as   well   as   for 16:37:46 IST Reason: 2 offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 448 of the IPC.   That the learned trial Court, while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC,   imposed   the   death   sentence.     The   learned   trial   Court also sentenced the accused­appellant to undergo R.I. for 10 years   and   a   fine   of   Rs.10,000/­   for   the   offence   punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine   to   further   undergo   six   months’   S.I.     The   learned   trial Court   also   sentenced   the   appellant­accused   to   undergo   5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/­ under Section 326 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months’ S.I. The learned trial Court also sentenced the accused for one year R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC   and   S.I.   for   one   year   for   the offence  punishable  under Section 448 of the IPC.  The learned trial Court also ordered that all the sentences to run concurrently.

3. That   by   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the   learned   trial   Court,   while   convicting   the   accused­ appellant   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   302, 3 307,   324,   326   and   448   of   the   IPC.     Feeling   aggrieved   and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the   High   Court   in   confirming   the   death   sentence   while convicting   the   accused   under   Section   302   of   the   IPC   and convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 324,   326   and   448   of   the   IPC,   the   original   accused   has preferred the present appeal.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that, as such, by the   order   dated   19.08.2014,   this   Court   directed   to   issue notice only on the question of sentence.  Therefore, as such, in   the   present   appeals,   now   the   only   question   which   is required   to   be   considered   by   this   Court   is   the   sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court,   while   convicting   the   accused   for   the   offences   under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326 and 448 of the IPC.  4.1       Even otherwise, on a close reading of the evidence on record as well as the judgments of the learned trial Court and the   High   Court,   we   are   satisfied   that   both   the   Courts   had sufficient reasons to conclude that the appellant was guilty for   the   offence   under   Section   302   of   the   IPC.   On   a   close 4 reading of the evidence on record, we are fully satisfied that, in the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving   the   case   against   the   accused   for   the   offences   for which   the   accused   has   been   convicted   and   sentenced.     To bring   home   the   charge,   the   prosecution   has   examined   as many   as   27   witnesses,   including   the   injured   eye­witnesses who have fully supported the case of the prosecution.   That at   about   1.15   a.m.   (in   the   midnight)   of   20.09.2009,   the accused   killed/committed   murder   of   three   minor   children and also seriously caused injury to Jia Lal (PW­3), Kamlesh Kumari (PW­4) and also to Gulshan (the 4th minor child).  In any   case,   as   observed  above,  this  Court  issued  the  limited notice   in   the   present   appeals   on   the   question   of   sentence only,   vide   order   dated   19.08.2014   and,   therefore,   the   only question posed before this Court in the present appeals now is   whether   in   the   present   circumstances   of   the   case,   the learned   trial   Court   was   justified   in   imposing   the   death sentence while convicting the accused under Section 302 of the   IPC,   as   confirmed   by  the  High   Court   by   the  impugned judgment and order?

5

4.2   Shri A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has   vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the   learned trial Court as well as the High Court had committed grave error in imposing the death sentence while convicting   the   accused   for   the   offences   punishable   under Section 302 of the IPC.

4.3   Relying upon the following decisions of this Court, it is vehemently   submitted   by   the   learned   senior   counsel appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   present   case cannot be said to be the rarest of rare case warranting the death sentence.  In support, he has relied upon the following decisions of this Court:­

1) Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684,

2) Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470,

3) Swamy   Shraddananda   (2)   vs.   State   of   Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant   has   vehemently   submitted   that   both   the   learned 6 trial   Court   as   well   as   the   High   Court   have   not   properly appreciated   the   mitigating   circumstances   in   favour   of   the accused.  It is vehemently submitted that the accused is not a previous convict or a professional killer.

6.            Per   contra,   Ms.   Fauzia   Shakil,   learned   counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court.     It   is vehemently   submitted   that   both   the   learned   trial   Court   as well   as   the   High   Court   have   in   detail   considered   the mitigating   circumstances   pointed   out   by   the   accused. However, considering the fact that the accused committed the murder of three minor children  who, as such, were sleeping and also caused the serious injury on the 4th minor child and also caused serious injuries to Jia Lal and having found that the   act   of   the   accused   was   brutal   and,   thereafter,   after considering   the   balance   sheet   of   the   aggravating   and mitigating   circumstances,   the   learned   trial   Court   has imposed   the   death   sentence,   which   is   rightly   confirmed   by the High Court.   It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present case can be said to 7 be the rarest of rare case warranting death sentence.  Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1 at para 87, it is requested to dismiss the present appeals.  In the alternate, it is submitted that if this Court is of the opinion that the present case may not   fall   within   the   category   of   rarest   of   rare   case   and   the death sentence is to be substituted to life imprisonment, it may be suitably observed that the life means till the natural death   of   the   appellant   and   that   the   appellant   shall   not   be entitled to remission.

7.   Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the   accused   as   well   as   the   State   on   the   question   of   death sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by   the   High  Court  and considering  the totality  of  the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions in the cases of Bachan Singh (supra) and Machhi Singh (supra) and in Swamy Shraddananda  (supra),  we are of the opinion that the present case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare   case   warranting   death   sentence.     We   have   considered each of the circumstances of the crime as well as the facts 8 leading   to   the   commission   of   the   crime   by   the   accused. Though,   we   acknowledge   the   gravity   of   the   offence,   we   are unable   to   satisfy   ourselves   that   the   case   would   fall   in   the category of rarest of rare cases.  The offence has undoubtedly been committed which can be said to be brutal but does not warrant death sentence.   It is required to be noted that the accused, as such, is not a previous convict or a professional killer.  There was a matrimonial dispute and the accused was of   the   opinion   that   Jia   Lal   and   his   wife   Kamlesh   Kumari refused   to   extend   any   helping   hand   to   the   accused   for bringing   his   wife   back.     From   the   material   on   record,   it appears that, that was the motive for the accused to commit the offence and eliminate the family of Jia Lal.   Jia Lal was the   co­brother   and   Kamlesh   Kumari   was   the   sister­in­law. As has been born out from the record, they were the persons who   were   instrumental  in arranging  the  marital  ties of  the accused.  Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances and   the   motive   which   led   to   commit   the   offence   by   the accused   and  considering  the decisions of this  Court in  the cases of  Bachan Singh  (supra)  and  Machhi Singh  (supra) and in Swamy Shraddananda (supra), we think that it will 9 be in the interest of justice to convert the death sentence into life   sentence   till   the   death   the   of   the   accused   and   without remission.     So   far   as   imposing   the     sentence   of   life imprisonment   without   remission   is   concerned,   we   are supported   by   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  V. Sriharan  (supra)   by   which   while   approving   the   earlier decision in the case of Swamy Shraddananda (supra), this Court has held that, while converting the death sentence to life, it can be said to be a special category of sentence and, therefore,   imposing   the   life   sentence   without   remission   is permissible.  In the case of V. Sriharan (supra), this Court in paragraph 178 held as under:

“178. We   hold   that   the   ratio   laid   down   in  Swamy Shraddananda (2) [Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 113]  that  a  special category  of sentence; instead of death   can   be   substituted   by   the   punishment   of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and   put   that   category   beyond   application   of remission   is   well   founded   and   we   answer   the   said question in the affirmative.”

8. Thus,   while   confirming   the   impugned   judgment   and order   passed   by  the   High  Court convicting  the accused for 10 the   offence   punishable   under   Sections   302,   307,   324,   326 and 448 IPC, the following order is made: 

“These   appeals   arising   out   of   the   impugned   judgment and order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the High Court in Criminal   Appeal   No.05   of   2010,   Cr.M.A.No.06   of   2010 and C/W Confirmation No.23 of 2009 filed by the original accused   are   disposed   of   by   commuting   the   death sentence   to   one   of   life   imprisonment   and   the   death sentence imposed by the trial Court and, subsequently, confirmed by the High Court, is converted into life i.e. till the   natural   death   of   the   appellant.     It   is   specifically clarified   that   the   appellant   shall   not   be   entitled   to remission.”  

9. The present appeals are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

…………………..……………………J. (N. V. RAMANA) …………………………………..…….J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) ………………..……………………J. (M. R SHAH) New Delhi, November 14, 2018