Holding

The Supreme Court upheld death sentences for Machhi Singh, Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh, while acquitting Mohinder Singh on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Summary

A long‑standing feud between two families in Punjab resulted in a series of five murders on the night of 12‑13 August 1977, killing seventeen people. Machhi Singh and eleven associates were tried in five separate sessions cases; four were sentenced to death and nine to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined (i) the applicability of the “rarest‑of‑rare” doctrine for death sentences, (ii) the reliability of eye‑witness identification under lantern light, (iii) the admissibility of a dying declaration not recorded by a magistrate, and (iv) whether the benefit‑of‑doubt principle should be invoked where the link between an accused and the weapon was doubtful. The Court reaffirmed the guidelines from Bachan Singh, held that lantern light did not impair identification, accepted the dying declaration as reliable, and applied the benefit‑of‑doubt to Mohinder Singh, acquitting him. The death sentences of Machhi Singh, Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh were upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the death penalty is warranted under the ‘rarest‑of‑rare’ rule for the murders committed.
Whether eye‑witness testimony obtained in lantern light is reliable for identification.
Whether a dying declaration not recorded by a magistrate is admissible.
Whether the benefit‑of‑doubt doctrine applies to Mohinder Singh due to lack of proof linking him to the weapon.

Legislation cited

Subjects

death penaltyrarest of raremurderbenefit of doubteye witnessdying declarationIPCCriminal Procedure CodeEvidence Act

Judgment

413
· MACHHl SINGH AND OTHERS
A
v.

STATE OF PUNJAB

July 20, 1983
B
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN
.AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.]

"
Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), Section 302-Sentence-ln1position of death
sentence-ccRarest of ~are casesformula"-Guidelines to be adopted in identi-
fication of rarest of rare cases, explained-Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1_872) Section
c
9-Witnesses indentifying culprits in the light shed by lantern-A}Jpreciation of-_
Dying declaration, non-recording of-Evidenti'ary value-'-Doctrine of benefit of
doubt, when to be invoked.

A feud between two fan1ilies has resulted in tragic consequences.
Seventeen lives were lost in the course of a series of five incidents which
D
· occurred in quick succession in five different villages, situated in the vicinity of
each other, in Punjab, on the night between August 12 and August 13, 1977. The
seventeen perSons who Jost their lives and the three who substained injuries
included men, women and children related to one Amar Singh and his Sister

t Piaro Bai.

In this connection one Mach hi Singh and his eleven companions, close
E
relatives and associates were prosecuted in five sessions cases, each pertaining
to the concerned village in which the killii;igs -took place. Machhi Singh was
the common accused. at each trial. The composition of his co-accused~differed
number-wise and identity-wise from trial to trial At the conclusion of the series
of trials, the accused found guilty were convicted under appropriate provisions. F
Four of them were awarded death sentence; whereas sentence of in1prisonment
for life was imposed on nine of them. They were also convicted for different
offences and appropriate punishment was inflicted on each of them in that
behalf. The ordCr of.conviction and sentence gave rise to five murder references
and fourteen appeals by the convicts before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. Having lost their appeals and the death sentences having been con-
firmed, the appellants have come in appeal by way of special leave. G
The Court considered the following:

(a) What normal guidelines are to be followed so as to identify the
••rarest of rare cases~' formula for imposing death sentence, as spelled out in ff
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980] 2 SCR 864; (b) Reliability of eye wit-
nesses to a crime under ~ight shed by the lantern in a village to identify connect
~n accused to the crime; (c) invocatiori of the doctrine of benefit of doubt;
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (i9$3) 3 s.c.R.
and (d) the effect of non-suminoning the magistrate for recording dying
A declaration.

AiloWing the Crim.inal Appeals Nos. 79/81 and 86/81 and dismissing
the. other appeals, the Court

HELD : 1:1. The extreme penalty of death need not be intlicted except
in gravest cases of extreme culpability. Before opting for the death penalty the
B circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration
alongwith the circun1stances of the •crime'. Life imprisomr.nt is the rule and.
death sentencc·is an exception. In other woi'ds death sentence must be imposed
only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequ~te punish-
ment having regard to the relevant circumstanc~s of the crime, and provided,
and only provided, the option to)mpose ·sentence of imprisonrnent for life
c cannot be conscientiously exercised· having regard to the nature and circum- ·
!::tances of the crin1e and all the relev3.nt circurnsjanCes. A balance sheet of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances 11as to be drawn up and in doing so
the mitigating circun1stances has to be accorded full weightage and a just
balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circum-
stances before the option is exercised. [433 A-E]

D Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980] 2 S.C.C. 684, reiicd on,

1;2. In order to apply these guidelines inter-alia the following
questions may be asked and answeres: (a) rs_there. something uncommon
about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate
and called for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of tile crime such
E that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according
maximum weightage to the mitigating circufnstances which speak in favour
of the offender. [433 E-0] J

1:3. If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in
the light of the aforesaid proposition and taking into ,account the answers to
F the questions posed here in above, the circumstances of the case are ~uch that
death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed io do so. [433 G-H]

2. The villagers living in villages where electricity has not reached as
yet, get accustomed to seeing things in the light shed by the lantern. Their
eyesight gets conditioned and becomes accustomed ·to the situation. Their
powers of seeing are therefore not dimini~hed by the circumstance that the
G incident is witnessed in the light shed by the lantern and not electric light.·
Paucity of light cannot, therefore, improba~lise the commission of the crime
by .the accused. [417 C-:Q]

3:1. When a piece of evidence introduced and relied upon by the
H prosecution itself creates a doubt (a. reasonable doubt) as regards the comp Ii~
city of the accused, even if there are no infirmitieS ih other evidence, the
doctrine of benefit of doubt must be invoked by the ~our{ in favour of the
accused. [422 F-0)
MACHHI SINGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 4i5
In the instant case, though there is no 'infirmity in the evidence of PW
Amar Singh and PW Mohindo to. connect Mohinder Singh to the crime, the A
fact that the second rifle used in the commission of crime having been origi-
nally issued to one Kashmir Singh does not satisfactorily establish the link.

..
[422 B, E-F]
I

y 3:2. \\-'hen the deceased was making good recovery and having regard
, to the condition of J1is health, no danger to his life was. apprehended and
therefore in that fact situation, the magistrate was not ·summoned, no fault B
can legitimately be found on. this score for getting the benefit of doubt in
favour of the accused. Any state1nent made to the police by such deceased
.can be subsequently allowed to be treated as dying declaration and evidence
scanned. [429 G·HJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos.
78-79, 80-84, 85-86, 87 and 88-89 of 1981 and 419 of 1982.
c
Appeals by Special leave petitionB from the Judgment and
Order dated the Ist September, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Murder Reference Nos. 14, 18, 16 and 1979 and 1 of
1980 and·Criminal Appeal Nos. 933. 1176, 935, 977, 978, 972, 992, D
979, 976, 980, 981, 991, 827 and J105,of 1979.

R. L. Kohli and R. C. Ko/iii for the Appellants.

Harbans Singh and D. D. Sharma for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THAKKAR, J : Protagonists of the "an eye. for an eye"
philosophy demand "death-for-death". The 'Humanists' on the,,
other hand press for the oiher extreme viz., "death-in-no-case". A
. synthesis has emerged in 'Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab(') wherein
F
the "rarest-of-rare-cases" formula for imposing death sentence in a
murder case has been evolved by this Court. Identification of the
·guidelines spelled out in 'Bachan Singh' in order ·to determine
whether or not death sentence .should be imposed is one of the
problems engaging our attention, to which we will address ourselves G
in due course.

A feud between two families has resulted in tragic consequences.
Seventeen lives were lost in the course of a series of five incidents
whic)l occurred in quick succession in five different villages, situated H
in the vicinity of each other in Punjab, on a night one would like

\1) (I980J 2 $.C.C. 684.
416 SUPREME COUllT REPORTS ti 983) 3 S.C.R.
to forget but cannot forget, the night between August 12 and August
A 13, 1977. The seventeen persons who lost their lives· and the three
who sustained injuries included men, women and 'children related
to one Amar Singh and his sister Piaro Bai.

In this connection one Machhi Singh and his eleven com·
panions. close relatives and associates were prosecuted in five sessions .
B cases, each pertaining to the concerned village in which the killings
took place. Machhi Singh wa~ the common accused at each
trial. The composition of his co-accused differed number wise
. and identity-wise from trial to trial. At the conclusion of the
series of trials the accused found guilty were convicted under
c appropriate provisions. Four of them were awarded death
sentence, whereas sentence of imprisonment for life was im-
posed on nine of them. They were also convicted for different
offences and appropriate punishment was inflicted on each of them
in that behalf. The order of conviction and sentence gave rise
to five murder references and fourteen appeals by the convicts
D before the High Court of Punjab and Haryaiia. The High
Court heard every .individual appeal separately, but disposed
of the group of appeais by a common Judgment for the sake of
convenience. The present group of appeals is directed against the
aforesaid judgment rendered by the High Court. We will treat each
of the appeals compartmentally, and separately, on its own merits,
E
on the basis of the evidence recorded at the trial in each sessions
case giving rise to the respective appeal. But for the sake of
convenience we will dispose of the appeals by this common judgment.
In order to avoid confusion, the occurrence in each village will be
adverted to in the same manner in which the High Court has done
F viz., Crime No. I, IIA, IIB, III~ IV and V.

Motive:_:
The aspect regarding motive has been discussed exhaustively
in the third paragraph of the elaborate judgment rendered by the
G High Court. We need not set out this aspect at length or examine
it in depth This aspect need not therefore be adverted to in the
context of each crime over and over again so as to avoid avoidable
repetition. Suffice jt to say that reprisal was the motive for the
commission of the crime.
H Common Criticism :
The niost serious criticism pressed into service by learned
counsel for the appellants in each of the appeals is common.
MACHHI SINGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 417

Instead of dealing with the identicaf criticism, in the identical
manner, repeatedly, in the context of each matter; we propose A
to deal with it at this juncture. The criticism is this. It was
a idark night.. Electricity had not yet reached the concerned village
at the material time. In each crime the appreciation of evidence
regarding identification has to be made in the context of ·the
fact-situation that a lighted lantern was hanging in the co~rt-yard
where the victims were sleeping on the cots. The light shed by. the
B
lantern cannot be considered to be sufficient enough (such
is the argument) to enable the eye witnesses to identify the
culprits. This argument has been rightly rebuffed by the Sessions
Court and the High Court, on the ground that villagers living in
villages where electricity has not reached as yet, get accustomed to c
seeing things in the light shed by the lantern. Their ,eyesight gets
conditioned and becomes accustomed to the situation. Their powers
of seeing are therefore not diminshed by the circumstance that the
incident is witnessed in the light shed by the lantern and not electric
light. Moreover, identification did not pose any serious problem as
the accused were known to the witnesses. In fact they were embroiled D
·in a long standing family feud. As the culprits had not covered
their faces to conceal their identity. it was not difficult to identify
them from their facial features, build gait etc. Light shed by the
lantern was enough to ena,ble the wjtnesses to identify the culprits
under the circumstances. E
The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Sessions Court
and the High . Court in this behalf does not, therefore, call for
interfernce at the hands of this Court on this score.

Now we will address ourselves to the facts pertaining to the F
individual app!'als.

CRIME No. I.
th~ occurrence giving rise to the proceedings culminating in
the appeal before this Court took place at Village Alahi Baksh Badia G
at abont 8.30 p.m. on August 12, 1977. Four members of the
household of PW Amar Singh became the target of the assailants
and lost their lives in the course of the murderous attack. The four
victims were the wife and three sons of PW Amar Singh viz., (I}
Biban Bai (aged about 45); (2) Gurcharan Singh (aged about 15); H
(3l Jagtar Singh (aged about 10) and (4) Balwant Singh
(aged about 9). As luck would have it Amar Sin(<,h the head of th~
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 S.C.R,

house.hold and his 10 years old daughter, PW Mohindo, escaped the
A murderous assault and survive.a to tell the tale of the ghastly murder
in the Court. Evidence of PW Amar Singh shows that on the
unfortunate night, he and the members of the household were sleep·
ing in the courtyard. There was a lighted lantern in the courtyard
which was placed on the small boundary wall of the kitchen.
B P. W.. Ainar Singh was sleeping on one cot. PW Mohindo, his
daughter who survived the attack, was also sleeping in the same cot.
Next to him was another cot on which his wife Biban Bai was
sleeping. And an infant child was sleeping with her on the same cot.
His two sons, Gurcharan Singh and . Kulwant Singh, were sleeping
together on another cot just nearby. P.W. Amar Singh suddenly woke
c up on hearing the noise of the barking of a dog since he was half
awake being apprehensive of some trouble because of a murder
case which was pending in a criminal' court against his relations.
Amar Singh sprang up on hearing the MiSe and instinctively went
inside, where some sarkana reeds were heaped, and concealed
himself there. He was peeping from his place of hiding and was
D
able to see what was happening. Barely had he done so when he
espied the five appellants, who were known to him, enter the court-
yard. Appellant Machbi Singh and appella·nt Mohinder Singh were
each armed with a ·rifle. Their three companions viz., Appellant
Bhajan Singh, Kashmir Singh, and, Chinna Singh, were armed with
E kirpans. Appellant Machhi Singh' fired a shot at Biban Bai, who
was lying on·the cot.· At the same time appellant Mohinder Singh
fired a shot at Balwant Singh who was lying on a cot. Appellant
Machhi Singh then fired another shot at Jagtar Siugh and yet another ·
shot at Kulwant Singh. Appellant Mohinder Singh on his part
fired a shot at Gurucharan Singh. It is the version of P.W. Amar
F Singh that his daughter P. W. Mohindo managed to get beneath the
cot on which he was previously lying while the assailants were
firing at the different victims. The three companions of appellants
Machhi Singh and Mohinder Singh,. namely, Kashimir Singh,
Chinna· Singh, and, Bhajan Singh, gave kirpan blows which were
G aimed at the head of Biban Bai who had already ~een injured. by
rifle shots. The kirpan blows did not fall on the head of Biban Bai
but struck the upper surface of the table which was lying nearby.
Thereafter all the five culprits fled from there with their respective
weapons After day break PW Am·ar Singh left the house in order
H to lodge a report of the occurrence with P.W. 31 Head Constable
Wassan Sin~h,
MACHHI SINGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 419

Seven persons were prosecuted in connection with this incident.
Five of them have been acquitted. Only two of the original seven A
accused, viz., Appellants Machhi Singh and Mohinder Singh have
been convicted for murder and sentenc~d to death. We pr~pose to
deal with the appeals preferred by them separately.

Appellant Machhi Singh :
, B
As far as Machhi Singh is concerned the finding of guilt re-
. corded by the Session Court' and affirmed by the High Court rests
on the testimony of two eye witnesses viz., P.W. Amar Singh and his
10 year· old daughter P.W. Mohindo. Evid.ence has also been adduced
to establish that one of the rifles used in the course of the murderous
assault liad been issued to ll;,1achhi Singh in his capacity as an officer
c
of Punjab Homeguards. The evidence of the ballastic expert estab·
lishes that the said rifle had been recently used and some of the
empty cartridges found from the scene of the occurrence. were fired
from this rifle. This evidence is further corroborated by the evidence
pertaining to the recovery of the rifle at the instance of appellant D
Machhi Singh which has been accepted by the Sessions Court and the
High Court.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence
of the two ·eye witnesses name!)", P.W. Amar Singh and P.W.
E
Mohindo was not such as could be implicity relied upon, and the
rest of the evidence was neither sufficient, nor satisfactory enough, to·
hring home the guilt to appellant Machhi Singh.

The Sessions Court and High Court have accepted the evidence
of P. W. Amar Singh and his daughter P.W. Mohindo after close and F
careful scrutiny of the same. We do not think that there is any
justification to take a different view in regard to the assessment of
their evidence. The presence .of Amar Singh and his daughter
· Mohindo at the scene of occurrence is natural inasmuch as the
occurrence took place at the house of Amar Singh. Counsel for the G
appellant has assailed the finding recorded by the Sessions Court and
affirmed by the High Court by pressing into service the argument that
as there was only one lantern 'burning in the courtyard, and as it was
a dark night, it being the 14th day of the second half of the lunar
· month, Amar Singh and Mohindo could not have identified the H
culprits. It is no doubt true that it was a night preceding the
'amavashya'. All the same the evidence clearly 'hows that a lamp
was burning in the courtyard. This aq1ect bas already been . deal\
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1_983) 3 S.C.R.

·with a short while ago. For the reasons indicated in the course of
A the earlier discussion we think that the concurrent view taken by the
Sessions Court and the High Court that there was sufficient light to
enable the identification of the culprits must be affirmed. Besides, it.
is a pure question of appreciation of evidence which cannot be
reagitated before us. Even so we have considered on our own the
evidence on the point and we are satisfied that the view taken by the
B · Sessions Court and the High Court is unexceptionable.

Counsel for the appellant next contended that the evidence
pertaining to the recovery of the rifle and the evidence adduced by
the prosecution in order to establish that one of the rifles used in the
c ·course of the occurrence was issued to appellant Machhi Singh in his
capacity as an officer of the Punjal) Homeguards was not satisfactory
and reliable. The Sessions Court and the High Court have accepted
the prosecution evidence in this behalf. We have on ·our own perused
the evidence and we see no reason to disbelieve t!ie evidence
connecting appellant Machhi Singh with the weapon of offence
D (Ex. P-18). The evidence of P.W. 15 Shri Yashpal, Platoon Com-
. mander of Punjab Homeguard, is supported by entry Ex 32/A
in the Register relating to the issuance of arms and. ammunitions to
the volunteers of the Homeguards. The evidence of P.W. 32 Narinder

E
Singh, Quarter Master of Punjab Homeguards, conclusively estab-
lishes that the rifle ·was issued to, appellant Machhi Singh. The
i
evidence shows that appellant was personally known to the witness.
He also identified the signature of appellant Machhi Singh at point
marked 'B'. It may be mentioned that in the course of his state-
ment under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant
Machhi Singh admitted that the signature at Ex. P.W. 32 A was his
F signature. Of-course according to him the said. signature had been
obtained by the police under coercion, Unless we hold that the·
Investigating Officer and the Officers of the Homeguards had entered
into a conspiracy to concoct evidence against Machhi Singh, this
evidence cannot be disbelieved. There is no warrant for such an
assumption. Their evidence is otherwise flawless and has remained
G unshakan. We therefore see no reason to disbelieve the testimony
of P.W. 32 (Quarter Master Narendra Singh) and P.W. 15 (Platoon
Commander Yashpal). On a close and careful scrutiny ofthc
evidence on this point the Session's .Court and the High Court have --'..'
rightly reached the conclusion to the effect that rifle Ex. P -18 was '
H issued to appellant Machhi Singh in his capacity as a member of the
Punjab Homeguards on Feberuary 12, 1977 and that the said rifle
ilnd the ammunition had remained with appellant Machhi Singh ever
MACHHI SINGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 421

since. On a close scrutiny of the evidence on this point is unassail-
able and the view taken by the Sessions Court and the High Court A
is unimpeachable.' The rifle in question, Ex. · P-18, and some live
· cartridges were recovered in pursuance of a statement made by

...
y appellant Machhi Singh. The evidence of P.W. 18 shows that the
statement leading to the di~covery of the aforesaid weapon was made
by appellant Machhi Singh. The evidence also shows that appellant
Machhi Singh led the police party which was accompained by inde-
pendent witnesses to the place from where rifle Ex. P-18 and live
cartridges were recovered. The Sessions Court and the High Court
have accepted this evidence and we do not. see any reason to dis-
believe the same. Thus the evidence clearly shows that appellant
Machhi Singh had used the rifle by which shots were fired at ,the
c
victims .anil that he was directly responsible for the killings. The
order of conviction is therefore unassailable and must be confumcd.
We will deal with the qeestion of sentence at the fag end, of the
judgment.
D
Appellant Mohinder Singh :

So far as appellant Mohinder Singh is concerned the evidence
connecting him with the crime falls into two parts. The first pa,rt of
the e.vidence comists of the evidence of P.W. Amar Singh and P.W.
Mohindo" Both of them have implicated appellant Mohinder Singh, E
appellant Machhi Singh (whose case we have dis.cussed a moment
ago), and the other three appellants. The criticism levelled in the
context of appellant Machhi Singh has been repeated in the context
of the evidence connecting appellant Mohinder Singh with the crime.
We have already evaluated the evidence of these two eye witnesses. F
We need not therefore reiterate the same reasoning in the context of
appellant Mohinder Singh for repelling the ·criticism on. this score.

The second part of the evidence connects appellant Mohinder
Singh with the second rifle which was used in the course of the
commission of the crime. The Sessions Court and the High Court G
have accepted the evidence on both these points. Counsel for the
appellant has challanged the validity of the finding recorded by the
Sessions Court and the High Court on these two points. In our
opinion the most important evidence. from this stand point is the
evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to establish that H
appellant Mohinder Singh was in possession of the weapon of offence
namely, the second rifle which was used by the culprits. Counsel is
right in his submission that ; the evidence OD this point does not
,
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 3 s.c.R.
satisfactorily establish the link. In fact the evidence shows that the
second rifle used in the commission of the crime was originally
issued to one Kashmir Singh. Thus a doubt is created in regard to
the identity of the culprit who fired the second rifle.

Admittedly, the weapon.in questiol! was not issued to appellant
B Mohinder Singh. The weapon alongwith ammunition (20 rounds)
was originally issued to P. W. 27 Kashmir Singh by Punjab Home-
guards 'B' Company on 16th October 1974. The official records
evidence ·this fact. There is no record to show that this rifle was
returned by PW 27. The. evidence PW 27 that one Kaka Ram'
a Platoon Commander of Homeguards, had taken back the rifle and
c the ammunition from him and handed over the same to appellant
Mohinder Singh a few days before 13th April 1977 in ·the presence
of PW 27 has.been disbelieved by the Sessions Court. The High
Court has not given any convincing reason to justify taking a diffe-
rent view. Thus the link between the weapon · of offence and
D appellant ~ohinder Singh is not established. In· fact the evidence
shows that it was issued to PW 27 some 3 years before the occur-
rence. Even if the prosecution evidence is accepted at its face value
it does not establish that the weapon was with' appellant Mohinder
Singh at any point of time proximate to the point of time of the
offence. Under the circumstances: we are unable to agree with the
E High Court that appellant Mohinder Singh was in possession of
the weapon of offence at the point of time of the offence. In view of
this lacuna in the evidenee we are unable to hold that the second rifle
which was used in the commission of the crime was fired by
appellant Mohinder Singh.
F
This dimension gives rise to a dilemma. A piece of evidence
introduced and relied upon by the prosecution itself creates a doubt
· (a reasonable doubt) as regards the complicity of the appellant.
Though-we do not see any infirmity in the evidence of PW Ainar
G Singh, and PW Mohindo, in view of this factor, which speaks in
favour of the appellant, we must invoke the doctrine of benefit of
doubt. We accordingly accord the benefit of reasonable doubt to
Appellant Mohinder Singh. The order of conviction and sentence,
in so far as he is concerned must therefore be set aside. ·We accor- -~,
dingly acquit Appellant Mohinder Singh and direct that he be set
H at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in the context
<;>f some other or<jer,
MACHHI SINGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 423
,(
Crime No. II A & II B :
II A
At about 9-10 p.m. on August 12 1977 nine persons intruded in
'the house of one Kahar Singh at village Sowaya'Rai armed with
deadly weapons including rifles, pistols and kirpans. They killed' two
inmates of the household (Smt. Ohamobai and Smt. Rajobai) and
injured the third one (Smt. Nankobai) by gun shots.

II B

From there, they straightway proceeded to a place known as
'Kho Kunjuka' situated at a distance of about two furlongs from the- :c
· said village. They forcibly intruded into the house of one ·Bishan
Singh. They attacked the inmates of the· home and killed Bishan
Singh, Snit. Paro, and her child Balbir Singh; by firing rifle . shots.
·pw 2 Hakam Singh was lying on a cot outside the coumpound of
the houe of. Bishan Singh. He was apprehensive of his life and fled
from there. Two . of the culpurits viz., Machhi Singh, and Jagir lD
Singh, chased him and fi,red·· at him. As .a result of this Hakam
Singh sustained gun shot injuries.

In connection with these two incidents the appellants were tried
by the Sessions Court for various offences. The Sessions Cour; convic- ~E
ted the appellants for an offence under Sec. 302 LP. C. read with Sec.
149 I.P.C. _as in its view it ,was established beyond reasonable doubt
that the nine appellants had formed an 1mlawful assemably with the
~.y common object of commiting murder of Smt. Ghamobai, Smt. Raj-
obai, Smt. Parobai and Balbir Singh. The appellants were ·also
found guilty .of an attempt to commit the murder of PW 20 Nan- ·;p
kobai, and, PW 22 Hakam Singh, who sustained injuries by gun shots
in the course of these incidents, ·but who survived the murderous
assaults to narrate the version of the incident before tJ\e Court. The
Sessions Court imposed death penalty on three of the, appellants, ,
viz., Machhi Singh, Kashmir Singh, and Jagir Singh. The remain· ;G
ing six were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for· life. The High
Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence and dismissed
)---- the appeals preferred· by the appellants.

II A H
So far as the first incident is concerned the conviction
of the appellants rests on the testimony of three witnesses viz.,
424 SUPREME COURT REPORrs [1983) 3 s.c.!l.

A
PW 16 Kaka Ram, PW 21 Bagicha Singh, and PW 20 Smt.
Nankobai. Out of these three witnesses, the ~vdence of PW 20 Nan-
-
kobai is of great significance inasmuch as she had herself sustained
an injury by gun short on her head. The fact that Smt. Nankobai
sustained gun shot injury in the course of this transaction is satisfac-
torily established by the medical evidence. Now PW 20 was an inmate
of the H;ousehold of Kehar Singh. Her presence at the house
B was therefore natural. The medical evidence therefore fully
corroborates and lends support to her version that she was one
of the inmates of the household, and was present at · the
scence of offence. Her presence at the time of the offence
_cannot therefore be - disputed. She being an injured witness
c ·her evidence is entitled to great weight. There is an inbuilt
gurantee that she was an eye witness to the incident. Her evidence
·convincingly establishes that tbe appellants were the persons who
-had intruded in the house of Kehar Singh and committed the crime
resulting in the death of Smt. Gamobai and Smt. Rajobai, both
of whom succumbed to the injuries infticted on them. Her testimony
further establish'es that she herself was injured by the rifle shots in
the course of the incident by appellant. Kashmir Singh. It was a
matter of sheer luck that PW 20 did not succumb tci the injuries
and survived to till the ,tale. There is no reason to doubt or disbel-
ieve her testimony. It is no doubt true that sh: had remained
E . unconscious for five or si,x days before she regained consciousness
at the hospital. But then her evidence· clearly shows that she had
sustained the injury only' after Smt. Gamobai, and Smt. Rajobai
were shot dead by the assailants. It was only after she sustained
·the injury that she became unconscious. Her evidence that she had
witnessed the murderous assault on snit. Gamobai and Sm. Rajobai
F ;md had identified the assailants has remained unshaken and has
been accepted by the Sessions Court and the High Court. There is
no valid reason to take a different view. The argument about
insufficiency .of light has already been negatived. The evidence of
PW 20 is therefore sufficient to uphold the order of conviction recor-·
G ded by the courts below. Furthermore, ·there is ·the evidence of
PW 16, Kaka Ram, and PW 21, Bagicha Singh. PW 16 occupies
a house in the neighbourhood. , He came out from the house .upon
hearing the report of fun fire. He was standing outside the house
and had witnessed the incident. He had identified the appellants as
H the culprits. His evidence is reinforced by PW 21 Bagicha Singh
who was sleeping on the roof of the adjoining house. He had also
· witnessed t)le incif,\ent and identifief,\ · the assailants. They are not
MA.CHHI SINGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 425
shown to· be interested witnesses who would concoct a story. ·why
should they do so ? In fact they were exposing themselves to ·consi- ·
derable risk. On probabilities, therefore, it is least likely that these
two witnesses would falsely implicate the appellants. Their evidence
has been accepted by the Sessions Court and the High Court. We
see no teason to do otherwise, The finding of guilt recorded by the
Sessions Court and the High Court in regard to this incident must
therefore be unhesitatingly confirmed, B

(II B)

In-so-far as the second incident is concerned, the most
c
important witness is PW 22 Hakam Singh, inasmuch as ·he himself
had sustained injuries by gun shot in the course of the incident in
question That he was present at the time of the occurrence and
had witnessed the incident is therefore incapable of being disputed. (

It is difficult to believe that PW 22 who was himself chastd by the n
assailants and was injured by gun shots would implicate persons
other than the real culprits. His evidence further shows that two
of the culprits viz., appellant Machhi.Singh and appellant Jagir Singh
had chased him and fired the shots at him which caused injuries to
him. The medical evidence fully supports -his testimony and estab-
lishes that'he had sustained gun shot injuries in the course of this
E
incident. The evidence of this ,witness alone is sufficient to bring
liome the guilt to the appellants, even if one were to exclude from
consideration the evidence of PW 16 Kaka Ram and PW 41 Bagicha
' Singh. There i~ however·, no reasons to do ·so. Both of them have
testified on oath that they had. witnessed the incident. They are F
not shown to be interested witnesses there is no reason why they
should falsely implicate the appellants and expose themselves to the
obvious risk ,arising therefrom: The Sessions Court and the High
Court were perfectly justified in accepting and acting upon the
testimony of these two witnesses whose evidence lends further
strength and support to the evidence of the injured wi.tness viz., G
PW 22 Hakam Singh. The stock criticism that the culprits could .
. not have been identified in the light of the lantern which .was hanging
~ in the courtyard, has already been dealt with and repelled earlier.
We are therefore unable to acced~ to the argument advanced by
H
the learned counsel for the appellants. The finding of guilt and the
order of conviction must /therefore be confirmed.· As regards
sentence, the sentence of imprisonment of life imposed on six of the
426 SUl'RBMll CoURT REPORTS (1983) i s.C.t\.

appellants and the other sentences imposed on them have to be
consequently confirmed. Their appeals will stand dismissed.
So far as appellants Machhi Singh, Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh
are concerned, the Sessions Court has imposed death sentence on
each of them. The High Court has confirmed it. On our
part, we will deal ·with the question of sentence imposed on them ~
B- in the concluding 11art of our judgment. · ·

Crim~ No. Ill

' One Wanjar Singh (65) and his grand son Satnam Singh (16)
were killed by gun shots in the course of this incident at the house
ofWanjarSingh in village Mamujoa at about II p.m. on the night
of August 12, 1977. The only inmate of the house who escaped
was PW 16 Smt. Sabban, the wife of Wanjar Singh who was
narrated her story in the following manner :-
D
She was sleeping in the· courtyard of her house. At about 11
p.m. she woke up and saw appellant Macbhi Singh armed with rifle,
and bis two brothers, appellant Chbina Singh and appellant Kashmir
Singh, armed with Kirpans, standing near the feet of Satnam Singh
who was sleeping on the cot. These three were accompanied by '
E Al>pellants Mohindcr Singh and Bhajan Singh who were armed with
rifle and a kirpan respectively. Appellant Kashmir Singh flashed a
torch at Satnam Singh. Thereupon appellant Macbhi Singh fired
two shots both of which hit Satnam Singh. M ohinder Singh fired
two shots at her husband Wanjar Singh who was sleeping on a cot
F nearby. Wanjar Singh and her grand-son Satnam Singh died on the
spot on their cots. She shouted for help and began to cry. The
Appellants, who were about to leave, turned back. Appellant
Machhi Singh fired a shot at her which missed her but hit .her
bullock (which was tied in the courtyard) on its right leg. The
witness raised an alarm and cried for help. But no one clime during
G. the night. At dawn Chowkidar Sardar Ram came to the.spot. She
requested him to remain near the dead bodies. She herself proceeded
to police-station Gur Mar Sahay and lodged .F.J.R. Ex. PW 10/B.

The presence of Smt. Sabhan at her own house at night time is
H, but natural. Her husband and her grand-son have been killed. She ·
is the Jone survivor of the household. Her evidence therefore
assumes great importance. It is inconceivable that the witness, who
hlACJiHI Sl~GH V. PUNIA((Tha/ckar, J.) 427
has lost her husband, as also her grand son, would implicate persons
other than the real culprits.· The only argument pressed into service A
was the stock argument regarding insufficiency of light. It was
negatived by the courts below. We have already dealt with and
negatived this argument for reasons indicated earlier. Her evidence
furthermore shows that appellaut Kashmir Singh hiid flashed his
torch at her husband (Wanjar Singh) and at her grand-son (Satnam B
Singh). That she herself remained alive to tell the tale was a stroke
of luck. The appellants had shot at her but the rifle shot hit the
bullock instead of hitting. her. The culprits were naturally, in a
hurry to get away. They would not have waited to ascertain
whether she was hit. Her evidence remains unshaken. The Courts
below have, therefore, rightly considered it to be creditworthy and c
safe for being acted npon. And yet with regard to appellant
Mohinder Singh who is alleged to have' nsed the second rifle, the
matter stands on a somewhat different footing. The evidence
connecting the appellant with the rifle in question in the present case
is the very same evidence that we have disbelieved in the context of
D
cdme No. I. Official records show, and it is the case of the prose-
cution itself, that the rifle was issued to PW 15 Kashmir Singh on
16th October 1974. The evidence adduced in order to show that it
was taken back and handed over to appellant Mohinder Singh a few
days before 13th April 1977 does not inspire confidence. We agree
with the reasoning of the Sessions Court. We· need not repeat the E
reasons which we have set out at some length in the course of dis-
cussion pertaining to crime No. I. Suffice it to say that the doctrine
of benefit of doubt requires to be invoked on the facts of tliis case.
We accordingly allow the appeal of Mohinder Singh, set aside the
order of conviction and sentence passed against him, and direct that
he be set at liberty forthwith nnless he is required to be detained in F
some-other connection.

In so far as the rest of the appellants are concerned, the
evidence of this witness has been accepted and Acted upon by the
Sessions Court and the High Coµrt, and we do not see any reason G
to do otherwise. Under the circumstances the finding of guilt
recorded by the Sessions Court and the High Court for the aforesaid
offence against the other appellants must be confirmed. Turning to
the question of sentence, a death sentence has been imposed on
Machhi Singh·. We will consider the question as to whether death H
sentence is called for in the concluding part of our judginent. In so
far as the rest of the appellants are concerned, the sentence of.
;

428 SUPREME .COURT REPORTS {1983] 3 s.c.R.
imprisonment for life and the other sentence imposed on ei.ch of
A them must be confirmed. Their appeals ·wm therefore stand
dismissed.

CrltM No. IV

The incident occurred at Village Kamrewala at about I a.rn. on
B
the nighfbetween 12th August and 13th August 1977. Mohinder
Singh, aged·about 32, the brother of Amar Singh, was shot dead,
The F.I.R. was lodged within half an hour at about 1.30 a.ro. by
Piaro Bai wife of victim Mohinder Singh. The evidence of l'iaro
Bai shows that one Jaggar Singh was a guest at their house on that
c night Her husband Mohinder Singh was sleeping on one cot. The
guest, PW 4 Jaggar Singh, was sleeping on another cot nearby him.
The witness herself was sleeping on a cot alongwith her two children
in the courtyard. A lighted lantern was hanging on a peg on. the
wall. At about I a.m. someone from outside the house shouted for
her husband. She woke him up and told him about it. Her husband
D was in the process of sitting up on the cot when five persons intruded
into the comtyard. Only one of the five intruders (Machhi Singh)
was known to her. The remaining four were not known to her,
One of them was ·armed with .a rifle and tlie rest were armed i~ith
kirpans. Appellant Machhi Singh fired a rifle shoi which hit her
E husband near the shoulder. Her husband succumbed to the injury
on the spot. The culprits thereafter left the house. She proceeded
to the police station at Jalalabad acconipanied by PW Harnam Si:ngh
and lodged the F .LR. at 1.30 a.m.

The evidence of PW 2 Piaro Bai and PW 4 Jaggar Singh is
F reliable and trustworthy and can be safely acted upon in order to
bring home guilt to Appellant Machhi Singh .. Her presence at her
own )louse at night time is but natural. The evidence of PW 4 Jaggar
Singh also corroborates the evidertce regarding her presence and the
occurrence. PW 2 h,as not implicated by name anyone other than
Appellant Machhi Singh in her F.I.R. Her evidence is to the effoct
that the companions of appellant Machhi Singh were not known to
her. This shows that she is a conscientious witness. The usual
argument regarding inadequacy of light must be rejected for the
reasons indicated earlier. In this case the F.I.R. was lodged within -J
I half an hour of the occurrence. The evidence of PW 4 who was a '
guest at the house fully corroborates the testi1nOf\Y of PW 2. T.ile
evidence shows that his statement was recorded at 4 o'clock in the
night, that is to say within three liours of the occurrence. His
I

MAt!Illl SINGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 429
evidence also shows that appellant Machhi Singh had fired the rifle
shot. This evidence has been rightly accepted and acted upon by A
the Sessions Court and .the High Court. We see no reason to
dislodge this concurrent finding of fact. We must therefore confirm
the finding of guilt recorded by the Sessions Court as affirmed by
· the High ·Court in so far as appellant Machhi Singh is concerned.
We will deal with the question of sentence at a subsequent stage.
n
Crime No. V.

At about 3.30 a.m. on the night between August 12 and August

.
13, 1977 five miscreants armed with deadly weapons effected forcible
entry in the house of one Ujagar Singh at village D~ndi Khur. They
attacked the inmates and killed his sister Palobai, 35, and four near·
c
' relatives of Palibai viz : (I) her father-in-law Sahib Singh, 70, (2)
her mother-in-law Mattobai, 60, (3) her husband Jit Singh, 35, (4)
last named Jit Singh's cousin 'Mukhtiar Singh, '25. Out of these
five victims, three died on the spot, whereas, two viz : Sahib Singh
and Mukhtiar Singh, sustained rifle shot injuries, and died at the D
hospital some five days later on August 16, 1977 and August 18, 1977
respectively. The incident occurred at about 3.30. a.m. and the
F.I.R. was lodged within about six hours at 9.30 a,m. by PW 37
Ujagar Singh. ·

E
The order of conviction (passed by the Sessions Court and
affirmed by tbe High Court) is inter-alia based on the dying declara-·
tion of Mukhtiar Singh. He was fired at and .injured soon after
midnight in the early morning of August 13. He was removed to
hospital on that very day. His police statement .(which has. been
subsequently treated as a dying declaration) was recorded on the F
16th i.e. three days after the assault. He died on the 18th, two days
later. The evidence shows that' he was in fit condition to make a
statement and his statement was truly and faithfully recorded. His
statement has been considered to be genuine and true by the Sessions
Court and the High Court. We are of the same opinion. It is true
that the dying declaration has not been recorded by a magistrate.
G
But then the evidence shows that Mukhtiar Singh ,;,as making good
recovery and having regard to the condition ·of his health, no danger
to his life was apprehended. It was in this situation that a magis-
trate was not summoned. Thus, no fault can be legitimately found
H
on this sco~~· · Besides, the only question of importance now is as
regards the creditworthiness of the statement which has been
recorded. Since this statement has been found to be genuine and
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS lt983'.I 3 s.c.R.
true nothing can detract from its value. The evidence prc,vided by
A the dying declaration is by itself good enough to support tile order
of col)viction. But this is not all. Also availabie is the evidence of
PW 37 Ujagar Singh and his daughter-in-law, Munibai (PW 38).
The evidence of these two witnesses lends full cofroboration to the
dying declaration of the victim, and has been rightly relied upon by
B the Sessions Court and the High Court. We have no reason to view·
the evidence askance. The presence of these two witnesses in the
household was natural. Their evidence shows that on hearing the
report of gun they had concealed themselves behind a herd of cattle
·and had witnessed the incident from there. We have no .:eason to
dis~gree with the view of the Sessions Court and the High Court
c that their evidence is reliable, There is no substance in the argument
that the culprits could not have been identified as the light shed by
the lantern· was not adequate to enable identification. We have
already spelled out our reasons for repelling this contenti•Jn. The
•
finding of guilt is thus fully supported by evidence, We ac,:ordingly
confirm the same unhesitatingly. Two of the five appellants (viz:
D
Machhi Singh and Jagir Singh) have been sentenced to death. We
will deal with the question of sentence in so far as they are concerned
after a shortwhile. In regard to the remaining three, viz : Phuman
Singh, Jagtar Singh and Kashmir Singh son of Wadhawa Singh, the
sentence imposed by the courts below for the offence under Sec. 302
E. read with 149 of IPC; and other offences, must be confirmed. Their
appeals will stand dismissed.

Death Sentence

Having dealt .with the appeals on merits from the stand:iioint
F of proof of guilt and validity or otherwise of the order of conviction.,
we now come face to face with t)le problem indicated when the
curtain was lifted, namely, the application of the raresl:-of-rare-
cases rule to the facts of individual cases in the conte~.t of the
relevant guidelines. Some reflections on the question ,,f death
penalty may appropriately be made before we tackle the said question·
G in the perspective of the present group of appeals.

The reasons why the comm unity as a whole does· not endorse
the humanistic approach reflected in "death sentence-in-no-case"
doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic
H
edifice is constructed on the foundation of "reverence :for life"
principle. When a member of the community violates this very
principle by killing another member, the society may not foe! itself
MACHl!I SINGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 431
b6und by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be
realized that every member of the community is able to live with A
safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the
protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law
enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of
being brought to book operates as a deterrent to those who have no
........Y· scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the B
community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When
- ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by 'Killing' a member of
the community which protects the murderer himself from being
killed, or when the community feels that for the sake of self preserva-
tion the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the
protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community c
will not do so in every case. It may do so (in rarest of rare cases)
when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the
holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespec-
tive of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of·
retaining death penalty. The community may enterain such a senti- '
D
ment when the crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for,
or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or
abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for instance :

I Manner of Commissipn of Murder

When the murder is comitted in an extremely brutal, grotesque, E
diabolical.-revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and
extreme indignation of the community. For instance,

·~ (i) When the house of the victim is set aflame with the
end in view to roast him alive in the house.
F
(ii) When the [victim is subjected to inhuman acts of
torture or cruelty in order to bring about his or her
death.
•
G
(iii) When the body of the victim is c?ut into pieces or his
body is dismembered in a fiendish manner.

II Motive for Commission of murder
ff
When the murder is committed for a motive which evince total
depravity and meanness. For instance when (a) a hired assassin
commits murder for the sake of money or reward (2) a cold blooded.
43i SUPREME COURT jlEPORTS it983} 3 s.c.R.
murder is committed with a deliberate design in order· to : inherit
A . property or to gain control over property of a·ward or a person under
the control of the murderer or vis-a-vis whom ·the muderer. is in ·a
dominating position or in a position of trust. (c) a murder is
committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland. '''

'B III · Anti Social or Socially abhorrent nature _of the crime ',-'

(a) When murder of a Scheduled Caste or minority •community
. etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances
which arouse_ social. wrath. For instance wlieu such a crime. is
committed in order to terrorize such persons and frighten them 'into
fleeing from a plac~ or in order to depriv~ them of, or make' th~m
with a view to reverse past injustices, and in order 'to restore- the
social balance.

-(b) In ~as~s of 'bride burn in~' and what ar~ known :as . 'dowry-
.deaths' or -when murder'is committed in: order to remarry for the_
D sake or'extracting dowry once again or. to marry another woman on
acco~nt of infatuation. - . ' '

IV Magnitude of Crime .

When the crime is enormous in proportion._ For instance' when
-.E multiple murders say of all or almost all the members of a family or a
large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality,
. 'are committed.: ; · · ' ' '· - · · · - .; · · J
,_, .~ r :

V Personality of Victim af murder
-! -
· -F When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child ·_who could·
-· '-, not have or has not provided even an excuse, much less a provocaticin, --,
for murder•. (b) a helpless woman or a person rendered ·helpless by
old age or infirmity (c) when the victim is a person, vis:a vis· whom
the murderer is in a position of domination or trust (d)_ when the
'G victim is a public figure generally loved and respected by the com-
munity for the services rendered by him and ~he murder_ is committed
_for political or similar reasons other than personal reasons.
, - ' ,.I
In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh's
case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of
H each individual case where the ques_tion of imposing of death
sentences arises. The following ·propositions emerge from 'Bacha,n -
Singh's case :
MACHHI SINGH v. PUNJAB (11zakkar, J.) . 433

· (i) the extreme penalty of death need . not be inflicted: .
.except in gravest cases of extreme culpability; A
(ii) Before opting for ihe death penalty the ci~cumstances ·
of the 'offender' also require to be taken into con-
sideration alongwith the circumstances of the 'crime'.·
B
(iii) 'ure imprisonment is the ·rule and death se~tence i•
.. all exception.' fn other. words death . sentence must
be imposed only_when life imprisonment appe~rs to
be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard .
to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and pro-·
vided, and only provided the option to impose sen- c
tence of imprisonment' for life cannot be con-
scientiously· exercised havingregard to the nature
alld circumstances of the crime alld all the relevant
circumstanCes.
'
, (ivf. A balancesheet of aggravating and mitigating circum- D
stances has .to be ·drawn up ·and__ in doing so the·
mitigating circumstances has to . be . aecorded full
weightage and a just balance. has to be . struck .
· between the aggravating and the mitigating circum-
stances before the option is_ exercised. - · E
In order to apply these guidelines inter-alia .the following
questions may be asked arid answered : ·

(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which
.F
r-. renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate
• and calls for a death sentence ? ·
. . : , 1- . . .
(b) ·Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is
llo alternative but to impose death sentence even after
/
according maximum weightage to the mitigating G
Circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
•
If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances
in the light of the aforesaid proposition and taking into account the ·
H
answers to the questions_ posed here· in above, the circumstances of
the case are such tha_t death sentence is warranted,· the court would
.. proceed to do so.··

..
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 S.C.R.

In the present group of ·appeals we are now concerned with
A the death sentence imposed on appellants (i) Machhi Singh (ii)
Kashmir Singh; (iii) Jagir Singh by the Sessions Court as confirmed
by the High Court.

Machhi Singh :
B The High Court in its extremely well considered judgment has
assigned the following reasons for imposing death .Penalty on
appellant Machhi Singh in the . context of each of ·the six crimes.
We can do no better than to quote the said reasons ·in the very words
employed by the High Court in the context of each crime : '
c
Crime No. 1 (Cr/. Appea/No. 78-79/81, Common)

"Machhi Singh .killed Biban Bai and Jagtar Singh wl.ereas
M ohirider Singh killed Balwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh which
has attracted on them death penalty. Now the circumstances of the
D case do reveal that it was a cold-blooded murder and the victims
were helpless and undefended. And what was their fault, except
that they were the immediate family of Amar Singh. The offence
committed was of an. exceptionally depraved and heinous character.
The manner of its execution and its design would put it at the level
E of extreme atrocity and cruelty. The deceased' woman and her chil-
dren had offered no offence to Machhi Singh and Mohinder Singh."

CRIME N0.11 (Cr/ Appeal No.80-84/81 Common)

"We have found that two innocent helpless wolllen named
F Ghamo Bai and Rajo Bai were brutally killed in a helpless and defe-
. nceless state in their own house and similarly a veteran couple namely
Bishan Singh and his wife Paro Bai were killed by Machhi Singh and
Jagir Singh appellants in similar circumstances. The crime committed
carries features which could be utterly horrendous especially when we
know the weapons and the manner of their use. The victims could
G offer no resistence to the accused appellants. The law clamour,; for
a sterner sentence; the crime being heinous, atrocious and cruel."

CRIME NO. I II (Cr!. Appeal No. 85-86/81, Common)
H
"An· old man Wanjar Singh and young man Satnam Singh
were put to death for which Machhi Singh \',las sentenced to death
fQr comII\ittin(! the mllrder of the latter and Mohinder ~ingh was
•

MACHHI srnGH v. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 435

sentenced to death for committing the murder of the former.
These two defenceless and helpless men were put to death while A
asleep. The crime was gruesome and cold-blooded revealing the
· propensity of the accused appellants to commit murder."

CRIME NO. JV(Crl. Appeal No. 87/81, Common}
B
"A young man named Mohinder Singh, a bread-earner of the
family, was put to death by Machhi Singh while asleep in his blissful
abode. The crime was pre-mediated and hair-raising to the society
at large in the sequence of which it came to be committed creating a
great risk of serious bodily harm and death to many persons."
c
CRIME NO.V (Cr/. Appeal Na. 88-89/81. Common)

"Sahib Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Manto Bai, Palo Bai and Jita
Singh were killed by five men including · Machhi Singh and Jagir
Singh appellants. Both these appellants pursued a course of utter
cruelty and atrocity, Not only were the crimes cold-blooded, calcul· D
ated and gruesome in features, these had beeen committed while
spreading horror of a killing spree. They put to death a young newly
married couple and rendered a young woman a widow. The
helpless state of the victims and the circumstances of the case lead
·us to confirm the death sentence."
E
· Jagir Singh :

Insofar as appellant Jagir Singh is concerned death sentence has
, .,. been imposed on him by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the
High Court in relation to Crime No. JlA-B and V. The High
Court has observed thus in the context of the relevant crime:
F

CRIME NO. I IA & B (Cr/. Appeal No. 80-/J4/81. Common)
,
"We have found that two innocent helpless women named
Ghamo Bai and· Rajo Bai were killed in a helpless and defen· G
celess · state in their own house and similarly a veteran couple namely
· Bishan Singh and his wife Paro Bai were killed· by Machhi Sinah
and Jagir Singh appellants in similar circumstances. The crime
committed carries features which could be utterly horrendous especi·
ally when we know the wepons and their manner of use. The victims H
could ·offer no resistence to the accused appellants. The law
clamours for a sterner sentence; the crime being henious, atrocious
and cruel."
•

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19S3] 3 S.C.lt

CRIME NO. V(Crl. Appeal No. 88-89/81. Common)
A
"Sahib Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Manto Bai, Palo Bai and Jita
Singh iverc killed by five men including Machhi Singil and Jagir
Singh appellants .. Both these appellants pursued a course of utter
cruelty and atrocity.· Not only were the crimes cold-blooded calcu-
lated· and gruesome in features, these had been committed while
B spreading horror of a killing spree. They put to death a young
newly married couple and rendered a young woman a widow. The
helpless state of the victims and tbe circumstances of the case lead us
to confirm the death sentence." ·

C Kashmir Singh: S/o Arjan Singh

In so far as appellant Kashmir Singh s/o Arjan Singh is con-
cerned death senteI\ce has been imposed on him by the Se.ssions Court
and confirmed by the High Court for the following reason> :
"Similarly, Kashmir Singh appellant caused the death
D of a child Balbir Singh aged six years.while. asli:ep, a
poor defenceless life put off by a depraved mind reflecting
grave propensity to commit murder."

We are of the opinion that insofar as these three ap;,ellants are
E concerned the rarest of rare cases rule prescribed in Bachan Singh's
case (Supra) is clearly· attracted and sentence of death is called
for. We are unable to persuade ourselves that a ·sentence of
imprisonment for life will be adequate in the circumstances of the
crime. We therefore fully uphold the view concurrently .taken by
the Sessions Court and the High Court that extreme penalty of
' "' '
F death requires to be imposed on appellants (I) Machh't Singh (2)
Kashmir Singh son of Arjan Singh (3) Jagir Singh. We accordingly
confirm the death sentence imposed on them and dismiss their
appeals.

In _the result we pass the following order :
G
I:
Appeals preferred by appellant Mohinder Singh being Cr!. ~
Appeals Nos. Cr!. 79/Sl & 86 of 1981 are allowed. The ot'der of
H conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts in so far as he is ·
concerned are set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless
he is required to be detained in connection with some other offence
or in connection with some other orders authorizing his detenti~n,
MACHH! SINGH V. PUNJAB (Thakkar, J.) 437

. II: •
A
In regard to the rest of the appeals by the rest of the appeliants
the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts are
confirmed and all the appeals shall stand dismissed. The sentence
of imprisonment under various counts and sentence imposed on· the
concerned appellant in allied appeals will run concurrently. ·
B
III:
The death sentence imposed on the appellants named hereafter
viz (i) Machhi Singh (ii) Kashmir Singh s/o Arjan Singh; (iii) Jagir
Singh, having been confirmed, the sentence shall be. executed in
accordance with law. C
IV:

Death sentence has separately been impos.ed on Appellant
Machhi Singh in all the matters. By the very nature of things the
sentence will be deemed to have been executed in all the cases if it D
is- executed once.·

V:
Appellants in Crl. A. No. 419/82 viz. (i) Phuman Singh.
(ii) Jagtar Singh; and (iii) K~shmir Singh s/o Wadhawa Singh who E
are on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court on September
15, 1982 sha}l surrender to their bail bonds in order to undergo
the sentence imposed by the lower courts and confirmed by this
Court. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Such of the other
appellants, if any, who are on bail shall surrender in order to under-
go the sentence imposed by the lower conrts as confirmed by this F
Court and their bai I bonds shall stand cancelled. ·

S.R. Crl. Appeals 79/BI and86/81
· allowed & other appeals dismissed.