Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER.versusRESHAMPAL SINGH AND ANR.

Citation
2006 INSC 883
Decided
22 November 2006
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

The Supreme Court held that there is no reason to enhance the life imprisonment awarded by the High Court to a death sentence.

Summary

The trial court convicted Reshampal Singh and another for murder under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to death. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 and additional rigorous imprisonment for default, and upheld a five‑year term with a fine for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The appellants, Babu Singh and another, appealed to the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the punishment back to death. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the High Court's detailed sentencing analysis and found no justification for increasing the punishment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's order of life imprisonment.

Issues considered

  • What standard governs the enhancement of a life imprisonment sentence to death in a murder case under Section 302 IPC?

Legislation cited

Subjects

murderdeath penaltysentencingappealIPCcriminal lawlife imprisonment

Judgment

                           BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER.                                  A
                                          v.
                           RESHAMPAL SINGH AND ANR.

                                NOVEMBER 22, 2006

                    [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]                          B


          Sentencing-Award of death sentence, reduced to life imprisonment by
    High Court-Plea of enhancement of the punishment to death sentence-
    Held: High Court awarded life imprisonment after considering the question       C
    of sentence in detail-Thus, no reason to enhance the punishment to death
    sentence-Pena/ Code, 1860-Section 302.

           Trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to death under section
    302 IPC. However High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence
    to life imprisonment Hence the present appeals.                                 D
            Dismissing the appeals, the court

           HELD : High Court considered the question of sentence in detail. On
    going through the evidence and having considered the facts of the case, there
    is no reason to enhance the punishment of life imprisonment awarded by High     E
    Court to death sentence. [304-D-F)
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1604 of
    2005.
                                        WITH
                                                                                    F
            Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of2005.
         From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24- l 0-2002 of the High Court
    of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. A. No. 616-DB/200 I.
            Amarjit Si~gh and A.P. Mohanty for the Appellants.
                                                                                    G
         Sanjay Jain, Mukesh Kumar, Arun K. Sinha, Ravi P. Mehrotra (A.C.),
    Deepti P. Mehrotra and Garvesh Kabra for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            MARKANDEY KATJU, J. These appeals have been filed against the
                                         303                                        H


I
    304                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A impugned judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated
    24.10.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 616-DB of2001.

            Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

           The trial court by its judgment dated 18.10.200 I convicted accused ·
B   Resham Pal Singh and sentenced him to death under Section 302 of the Indian
    Penal Code, but the High Court while affirming the conviction has reduced
    the sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court has further directed the
    appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo further RI
    for a period of one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The High Court
C   also maintained the sentence of imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine
    of Rs. 1,000/- awarded under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine
    the appellant had to undergo further RI for a period of two months. The
    amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/-, if realized from the appellant was directed to
    be paid to Harpreet Singh, who has lost his parents.

D        In these two appeals the prayer was to enhance the punishment to
    death sentence .

        . We have gone through the evidence and have considered the facts of
    the case.

E          . In our opinion, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
    of the High Court.. The question of sentence has been considered by the High
    Court in detail in paragraph 36 of its judgment and, therefore, we see no
    reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court. Hence, both the
    appeals are dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the High
    Court stands upheld.
F
    N.J.                                                          Appeals dismissed.
                                                                    ,.,


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "murder"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.