Holding

The murder does not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category, so the death penalty is inappropriate and life imprisonment is upheld.

Summary

Gurmej Singh brutally assaulted his brother Jagjit Singh, his brother's wife and son, resulting in three deaths and injuries to three others. The trial court sentenced him to death on three counts of murder under IPC s.302, along with fines and other imprisonment terms. The Punjab High Court declined to confirm the death sentence, prompting the State of Punjab to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the case qualified as a "rarest of rare" offence warranting death, concluding that despite its gruesomeness it did not meet the criteria laid down in Bachan Singh and related precedents, and therefore upheld life imprisonment instead of death. The Court also held that considerations of possible premature release cannot influence the death penalty, and that compensation under CrPC s.357(3) is not payable when a fine is already imposed, though it enhanced the fine payable to the victim's daughter.

Issues considered

The murder committed by Gurmej Singh qualifies as a 'rarest of rare' case justifying the death penalty.
Whether the prospect of premature release of the convicted can be a factor in imposing death.
Whether compensation under Section 357(3) of the CrPC is payable when a fine has been imposed.
Whether the fine imposed can be enhanced.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 357(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 324, s. 326, s. 450

Subjects

death penaltyrarest of rare doctrinemurderlife imprisonmentIPC sections 302 324 326 450CrPC Section 357(3)premature releasecompensationsentencing

Judgment

STATE OF PUNJAB A
v.
GURMEJ SINGH

AUGUST 2, 2002

[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.) B

Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 324, 326 and 450-Penalty of death
sentence-Award of-On facts, quarrel on account of money transactions
between accused and his brother infariating the accused leading to assault C
resulting in death of three family members and injuries to other three
relations-Trial Court holding it to be a gruesome murder committed by the
accused, imposing death sentence-High Court declining to accept the
reference for confirmation of death sentence-On appeal held, it does not fall
in the category of rarest of rare cases to award extreme penalty of death--
Hence order of High Court does not call for interference. D
Criminal Law-Pre-mature release of prisoner-It is considered on
material facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of release and also
on report of officers concerned-There cannot be any presumption about
release or non-release of a prisoner.
E
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 357-Compensatior>-
Award of-Question arises when court imposes a sentence of which fine does
not form a part.

According to the prosecution, a quarrel took place between the
respondent and his brother over money transaction; respondent got infuriated F
when explanation or excuses given to him by his brother did not convince him.
He assaulted his brother and his family members including young children,
as a result of which his brother, brother's wife and their son died and brother's
daughter, father-in-law and wife's sister's daughter were left injured. Trial
Court imposed death sentence on the respondent holding that it was gruesome G
murder committed by him, who did not even spare young children and
assaulted them without any provocation. However, High Court declined to
accept the reference for confirmation of death sentence. Hence the present
ap(leaL

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
427
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A HELD: 1.1. A number of factors are to be taken into account while
imposing penalty of death, for illustration, the motive of the crime, the manner
of the assault, the impact of the crime on the society as a whole, the personality
of the accused,~ circumstances and facts of the case as to whether the crime·
committed. is for satisfying any kind of lust, greed or in pursuance of any
organised· anti-soeial activity or by way of organised crime, drug trafficking
B or thellke or the chances of inflicting the society with a similar criminal act
that is to say vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the
accused in future or commission of murder which may be shocking to the .
conscience. [432-E, F)

C 1.2. In the instant case, the facts and circumstances of the case do not
fall in any of such category or the like. It is no doubt true that the incident is
ghastly and deserves all condemnation, but looking to the principles laid down
in the numerous decisions of this Court the case would not fall in the category
of rare of the rarest cases to award extreme penalty to death. [432-G; 433-A, B)

D Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980) 2 SCC 684; Machi Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1983) SC 957; State through Superintendent of
Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 253; Lehna v. State of
Haryana, (2002} 1 SCALE 273; Dharmendra Singh Alias Mansing Ratansing
v. State of Gujarat, [2002) 4 SCC 679 and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana
[1999) 3 sec 19, referred to.
E
2. Pre-mature release is considered on the material facts and
circumstances prevailing at the relevant time of release. Report of the
concerned officers is also called for and it is after consideration of all the
material that a decision is taken in the matter. Therefore, the submission
that after a few years the case of the respondent-accused is likely to be
F considered for his pre-mature release and in the event of his coming out it
will endanger the life of deceased's daughter cannot be appreciated.
Respondent-accused would not lose his right of being considered for pre-
mature release, which may be considered at the appropriate time in the light
of the facts and circumstances then found prevailing. There cannot be any
G presumption about release or non-release of a prisoner. It would not be a valid
consideration to inflict the extreme penalty. [433-B-D)

3. A reading of Section 357 (3) ofCr.P.C. would show that question of
award of compensation would atise where the Court imposes a sentence of
which fine does not form a part of it. In the instant case, the sentence of fine ·
H was imposed hence question of case awarding any compensation to deceased's
STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMEJ SINGH [BRJJESH KUMAR, J.) 429

daughter under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. does not arise but the amount of fine A
imposed is enhanced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000 on each count. Besides
the amount payable as directed by the Trial Court, the enhanced amonnt of
fine should also be paid to the deceased's daughter. (433-G, 434-F, GI

Rachhpal Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2002( 5 Scale 308,
distinguished. B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 318
of2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 502-DB of 1998. C
Bimal Roy Jad, Pankaj Kumar Singh and Ms. Sunita Pandit for the
Appellant.

Prem Malhotra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D

BRIJESH KUMAR, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State of
Punjab against the judgment and order passed by the Piinjab Higb Court,
declining to accept the reference for confirmation of death sentence, as
awarded against the respondent-Gurmej Singh by the Court of. Sessions. The E
appeal, preferred by the accused Gurmej Singh against his conviction was
however, dismissed upholding his conviction. The sentence, thus was
commuted form one of death to imprisonment for life. The question, therefore,
is confined to the award of the sentence whether it may be maintained as
imprisonment for life or the respondent be sentenced to death as ordered by
the Trial Court. F
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the accused respondent- Gurmej
Singh is brother of the deceased Jagjit Singh. It is said that while in Dubai,
Gurmej Singh had been sending money to his brother Jagjit Singh. Gurmej
Singh had also been running business of dairy farming in the village and used
to give his land on contract basis Jagjit Singh has been living in the village. G
The prosecution case about the occurrence is that on November I, 1993,
at about 11.00 p.m. Gurmej Singh assaulted his brother Jagjit Singh at their
house in village Manuke, as well as wife of his brother Charanjit Kaur, their
son Swaranjit Singh, daughter Gurmeet Kaur and Amarjit Kaur daughter of the
sister ofCharanjit Kaur. PW5 Dalip Singh, who is father-in law of the deceased H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Jagjit Singh and father of Charanjit Kaur, happened to be satying there on that
day at the house of Jagjit Singh. He got up on hearing the commotion and
asked Gurmej Singh not to assault, upon which Gurmej Singh assaulted Dalip
Singh as well. It is further said that since the handle of the kirpan got broken,
Gurmej Singh picked up a dah and continued the assault with the said dah.
The witnesses raised alarm and other people arrived at the spot. As a result
B of the assault three persons died viz. Jagjit Singh his wife Charanjit Kaur and
Swaranjit Singh, their son. Dalip Singh, Gurmeet Kaur-minor daughter of Jagjit
Singh and Amarjeet Kaur-daughter of sister ofCharanjit Kaur, received injuries.
Thereafter, report was lodged any PW-5 Dalip Singh the complainant and after
usual investigation, respondent- Gurmej Singh and his wife both were charge-
C sheeted. After the trial, respondent-Gurmej Singh was convicted under Section
302 IPC on three counts for the three murders and sentenced to death on each
count with a fine Rs. 5000 also on each count , in default of payment of fine,
to go rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The other sentences which
have been awarded, are as follows:

D I. Under Section 326 of the Indian Sentenced to undergo rigorous
Penal Code for causing grievous imprisonment for two years and
hurt to Gurmeet Kaur to pay a fine of Rs. 3000 and in
default of payment of fine to
undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two months.
E
2. Under Section 326 of the Indian Sentenced to undergo rigorous
Penal Code for causing grievous . imprisonment for two years and
hurt to Amarjit Kaur to pay a fine of Rs. 3000 and in
default of payment of fine to
F undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two months.

.3. Under Section 324 of the Indian Sentenced to undergo rigorous
Penal Code for causing simple imprisonment for one year and
hurt to Gurmeet Kaur to pay a fine Rs. 2000. In default
G of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two
months.

4. Under Section 324 of the Indian Sentenced to undergo rigorous
Penal Code for causing simple imprisonment for one year and
H hurt to Amarjit Kaur to pay a fine of Rs. 2000. In
STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMEJ SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.) 431
• 1 5. Under Section 324 of the Indian default of payment of fine, to A
Penal Code for causing simple hurt undergo rigorous imprisonment for
to Dalip Singh .two months.

Sentenced to undergo rigorous
6 Under Section 450 of the Indian
imprisonment for one year and to
Penal Code for trespassing in the
house of Jagjit Singh
pay a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default B
of payment of fine to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two
months.

Sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to C
pay a fine of Rs. 3000 and in default
of payment of fine to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two
months.
Wife of Gurmej Singh, however, has been acquitted. D
On facts none of the parties raised any dispute before us, since the
matter was confined to sentence to be awarded to respondent - Gurmej Singh.
In this view of the matter motive of the crime assumes importance. According
to the prosecution case the two brothers used to quarrel on account of money
transactions. According to P.W.5-Dalip Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased E
Jagjit Singh, he had gone to village Manuke on November I, 1993, reaching
there at about 5.00 p.m., at that time also the two brothers were quarrelling.
P. W.5-Dalip Singh, however, persuaded them not to fight and get the matter
settled through panchayat within a day or two. Gurmej Singh is said to be
very much annoyed with his brother and had been planning to assault him.
On return from Dubai, whenever Gurmej Singh is said to have enquired about F
money sent from Dubai, it is said that the deceased has been telling that the
money was spent on the house. It infuriated Guurmej Singh, which ultimately
became the cause of the assault, as a result of which three persons died and
another tlJree got injuries as indicated above.
G
The Trial Court while considering the question of sentence held that it
was a gruesome murder committed by the respondent, who did not even spare
the young children and assaulted them without any provocation and it needed
a deterrent punishment. According to the Trial Court, it was one of those rare
of rarest cases in which sentence of death would only meet the ends of
justice. The High Court, however, observed that in view of the decisions of H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP, 1 S.C.R.

A the Supreme Court in the cases of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980)
2 SCC 684, Machi Singh's Ors. v. State ofPunjab, AIR (1983) SC 957 and State
through Superintendent of Police, CBI/ SIT v. Nalini and Ors., [ 1999) 5 SCC
253, it could not be said to be rare of rarest cases, so as to call for penalty
of death.

B We have given our an anxious consideration to the submissions made
on behalf of the. parties. We have also taken note of the decisions referred
to by the High Court in its judgment, as also relied upon by the counsel for
the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention
to a decision reported in (2002) 1 SCALE 273 Lehna v. State ofHaryana also.
Yet another case on the point is reported in [2002) 4 SCC 679 Dharmendra
C Singh Alias Mansingh Ratansing v. State of Gujarat. The principles laid
down in the cases of Bachan Singh and Machi Singh (Supra) have also been
discussed and considered in the above noted decision of this Court and it
has been held that sentence of imprisonment for life is normally to be awarded
in murder cases. Penalty of death sentence is awarded only in exceptional
D , cases. In the case of Machi Singh (Supra), this Court observed that extreme
penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme
culpability. In the case of Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, [1999) 3 SCC 19,
where the accused a member of paramilitary force had killed seven members
of a family, was not awarded extreme penalty for the reason that he had been
labouring under the strain that the accused and the members of his family had
E been suffering due to injustice being meted out to them by the family of the
deceased. It was considered to be a mitigating circumstance in that case. A
number of factors, which are to be taken in to account while imposing penalty
of death, for illustration are the motive of the crime, the manner of the assault,
the impact of the crime on the society as ~ whole, the personality of the
p accused, circumstances and facts of the case as to whether the crime committed
its, for satisfying any kind of lust, greed or in pursuance of any organised
anti-social activity or by way or organised crime, drug trafficking or the like
or the chances of inflicting the society with a similar criminal act that is to
say vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the accused
in future or commission of murder which may be shocking to the conscience.
G We feel that the facts and circumstances of this case, do not fall in any of
such category or the like as indicated above. The accused-respondent had
been demanding and asking about the money from the deceased Jagjit Singh,
which was sent to him by the respondent from Dubai. It appears that the
explanation or excuses which were being given by the deceased did not
H convince him and the dispute inter-se and mistrust between the two brothers
STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMEJ SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 433

has been widening leading to the heinous crime in which three lives were lost A
and three other persons were left injured. It is no doubt true that the incident
is ghastly and deserves all condemnation, but looking to the principle laid
down in numerous decisions of this Court referred to above the case would
not fall in the category of rare of the rarest cases to award extreme penalty
of death. The view taken by the High Court does not call for any interference B
in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that after a few years
the case of the respondent is likely to be considered for his pre-mature
release, as he has been in jail for a period of eight years and in the event of
the respondent coming out, it will endanger the life of Gurmeet Kaur, the
daughter of Jagjit Singh. Who was injured in the incident. We fail to appreciate C
the argument. Pre-mature release is considered on the material facts and
circumstances prevailing atthe relevanttime ofrelease. Report of the concerned
officers is also called for and is after consideration of all the material that
necessary decision is taken in the matter, therefore in our view this ground
advanced by the learned counsel of the appellant has no force and respondent D
would not lose his right of being considered for premature release, which
matter indeed may have to be considered at the appropriate time in the light
of the facts and circumstances then found prevailing. There cannot be any
presumption about release or non-release of a prisoner. It would not be a valid
. consideration to inflict the extreme penalty.
E
The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the surviving victim namely the daughter of Jagjit Singh may be awarded
some compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In support of his submission he has also referred to a decision of this Court
in [Criminal Appeal Nos. 767-769 of2001] Rachpal Singh's Anr. v. State of
Punjab, decided on July 23, 2002. In the said case this Court allowed F
compensation under Sub-section (3) of Section 357 Cr. P.C. to the victims but
it would not applicable in the present case since a sentence of fine has also
been imposed. A reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 357 would show that
question of award of compensation would arise where the Court imposes a
sentence of which fine does not form apart of it. The decision in Rachhpal G
Singh (Supra) does not take any contrary view nor holds that compensation
may be awarded over and above the sentence office. A perusal of Sub-
section (3) of Section 357 Cr. P.C. would make the position clear.

The provision reads as under:
"357. Order to pay compensation-(3) when a Court imposes a sentence, H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A of which fine does not form a part, Court may, when passing judgment,
order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such
amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has
suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused
person has been so sentenced.''

B In the present case sentence of fine has also been imposed, as indicated
in the earlier part of this judgment .Out of the fine, a sum of Rs. I 000 each
had been ordered to be given to the three injured persons namely Dalip Singh,
Amarjit Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur. The balance amount is to go to the legal heirs
of Jagjit Sin$h. We had heard the learned counsels for both parties on this
C aspect. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Gurmeet Kaur lost
both her parents as well as her brother in the incident and now she is alone
and would have become of marriageable age or may have to start some work
of her own. She would need some money. In case she cannot be compensated,
the amount of fine may be enhanced to some extent. Learned counsel for the
respondent has, however, submitted that out of seven acres of land belonging
D to his father, same has been divided into three equal shares and some of it
is also under mortgage and he has got two daughters and a son and his wife.
He has also submitted that whenever respondent was released on parole he
met Gurmeet kaur and his wife also keeps on going to meet her. Their relations
are normal and cordial. If that is so, nothing better can be thought of in the
E prevailing circumstances. However, we are not considering for awarding any
compensation to Gurmeet Kaur under Section 357 (3) Cr. P.C. but the amount
of fine imposed, can in any case be reasonably enhanced.

Therefore, while declining to impose penalty of death in place of
imprisonment of life on respondent-Gurmej Singh as prayed on behalf of the
F appellant-the State of Punjab and dismissing their appeal and upholding
sentence of life imprisonment on all three counts under Section 302 IPC,
enhance the amount of fine from Rs. 5000 to Rs.20000 on each count. Besides
the amount payable as per the directions of the Trial Court, the enhanced
amount of fine shall also be paid to Gurmeet Kaur, daughter of Jagjit Singh.
We also modify sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and
G enhance it to two years rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine
on each count.

Subject tci the modifications indicated in the preceding paragraph, the
appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

H N.J. Appeal dismissed.