Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P.versusSATTAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 280
- Decided
- 27 February 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the murder constituted a 'rarest of rare' case, restoring the death sentences for Sattan and Upendra and upholding the acquittals of the other accused.
Summary
The case involved the brutal murder of six members of a family, including women and children, by a group of accused persons. The trial court sentenced Sattan and Upendra to death under IPC s.302 read with s.149, while others were convicted under various sections. The Allahabad High Court altered the death sentences to life imprisonment and acquitted some accused, citing mitigating circumstances and lack of direct evidence. The State appealed, arguing that the crime fell within the "rarest of rare" category warranting death and that the acquittals were unsupported. The Supreme Court examined the doctrine of proportionality, the rarest‑of‑rare test, and the evidentiary record, concluding that the mass murder was of such enormity and brutality that death was the appropriate punishment for Sattan and Upendra, while the acquittals of the other accused were upheld. Consequently, the Court restored the death sentences and dismissed the appeals concerning the acquitted persons.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the 'rarest of rare' doctrine to the death sentences of Sattan and Upendra
- Whether the High Court was justified in commuting death sentences to life imprisonment
- Whether the acquittals of the other accused under Section 120B were supported by evidence
- The proper balance of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing under the principle of proportionality
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 366
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307
Subjects
death penaltyrarest of raresentencingproportionalitymass murderacquittalcriminal conspiracyIPC s.302capital punishmentdeterrence
Judgment
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 643
-· f STATE OF U.P. A
v.
SATTAN @ SATYE NORA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 314-315 of 2001)
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
c
Imposition of sentence - Determining factors -
Discussed.
,.. Death sentence - Murder of six members of a family
t including helpless women and children in a brutal manner -
D
Held: Case falls under rarest of rare category - High Court
effed in altering death sentence to life sentence - Criminal
law - Doctrine of proportionality - Administration of criminal
justice - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302.
Penal Code, 1860: E
s.302 - Acquittal by High Court - State's appeal - Held:
Evidence of involvement of acquitted accused not free from
" doubt- High Court was right in acquitting them.
F
In these appeals, State questioned the order of High
Court altering death sentence to life sentence of accused
persons after upholding conviction for killing six
members of a family and order of acquittal of other
accused persons.
G
~
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Security of persons and property of the
643 H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A people is an essential function of the State. It could be
achieved through instrumentality of criminal law.
Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living
law must find answer to the new challenges and the
courts are required to mould the sentencing system to
B meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness
would undermine social order and lay it in ruins.
Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity
must be the object of law which must be achieved by
imposing appropriate sentence. In operating the
c sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective
machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. The
facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature
of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and
committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the
0 conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and
all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which
would enter into the area of consideration. For instance
a murder committed due to deep-seated mutual and
personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an
organised crime or mass murders of innocent people
E would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence.
Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
do more harm to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could
not long endure under such serious threats. It is,
F therefore, the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and
the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.
[Paras 11 and 12] [657-G-H; 658-A-G]
G Sahdeo v. State of U.P. (2004) SCC (Crl.) 1873; Ram
Anup Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 686; Mahesh v.
State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCR 710 and Sevaka Peruma/ etc. v.
State of Tamil Naidu AIR (1991) SC 1463, relied on.
H
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 645
-· ,
2.1. The criminal law adheres in general to the A
principle of proportionality in prescribing liability
according to the culpability of each kind of criminal
conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion
to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case,
presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle B
considerations of culpability that are raised by the special
facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that
punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice
sentences are determined largely by other
considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of c
the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence.
Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of
circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his
crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure
+
from just desert as the basis of punishment and create 0
cases of apparent injustice that are serious and
widespread. [Para 13] [658-G-H; 659-A-C]
2.2. Proportion between crime and punishment is a
goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions,
it remains a strong influence in the determination of E
sentences. After giving due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of each case, for deciding just and
appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the
aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in
which a crime has been committed are to be delicately F
balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in
a dispassionate manner by the Court. [Paras 14 and 15]
[659-D, F-G]
Dennis Councle MCG Dautha v. State of Calfifomia: 402 G
US 183, referred to.
2.3. Imposition of sentence without considering its
effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality
a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where
H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
r
A it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping,
misappropriation of public money, treason and other ...
offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency
which have great impact on social order, and public
interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require
8 exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing
meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely
on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences
will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and
against societal interest which needs to be cared for and
c strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
sentencing system. [Para 17) [660-F-H; 661-A]
Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat (1994) 4
SCC 353; Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of WB. (1994) 2
sec 220; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 2 sec 175; .,
D State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey (2005) 2 SCC 712; Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjf;lb (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh
v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 and Devender Pal Singh
v. State of NCT of Delhi (2002) 5 sec 234, relied on.
E 3.1. If upon taking an overall global view of all the
circumstances in the light of the legal propositions and
taking into account the answers to the questions posed
by way of the test for the rarest of rare cases, the
circumstances of the case are such that death sentence
F is warranted, the court would proceed to do so. The case
at hand falls in the rarest of rare category. The depraved
acts of the accused call for only one sentence that is
death sentence. [Paras 24 and 27) [665-E-F; 666-F]
Bantu v. The State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCALE 336, relied
G on.
"
3.2. Murder of six members of a family including
helpless women and children having been committed in
a brutal, diabolic and bristly manner and the crime being
H one which is enormous in proportion which shocks the
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 647
conscious of law, the death sentence awarded in respect A
of some of the accused persons was the appropriate
sentence and the High Court ought not to have altered
it. So far as the acquittal of other accused persons was
concerned, High Court noted that the evidence so far as
their involvement was concerned was not totally free B
from doubt. The High Court analysed the factual scenario
in detail and directed acquittal. There is no reason to
differ from the conclusions of the High Court. In respect
of appellants who were charged under Section 1208, it
was recorded by the High Court that except the suspicion C
which the informant was having in her mind about their
involvement, there was neither any direct nor
circumstantial evidence to fasten the charge of criminal
conspiracy. That being so the High Court was justified in
directing their acquittal. [Para 29] [666-G-H; 667-A-C]
D
Case Law Reference:
(2004) sec (Crl.) 1873 Para 10 relied on
E
c2002) 6 sec 686 Para 10 relied on
(1987) 2 SCR 710 Para 11 relied on
AIR (1991) SC 1463 Para 12 relied on
F
402 us 183 Para 15 referred to
(1994) 4 sec 353 Para 16 relied on
(1994) 2 sec 220 Para 18 relied on
G
(1996) 2 sec 115 Para 19 relied on
(2005) 2 sec 112 Para 20 relied on
(1980) 2 sec 684 Para 21 relied on
H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A (1983) 3 sec 410 Para 22 relied on
(2002) s sec 234 Para 23 relied on
(2008) 10 SCALE 336 Para 28 relied on
8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 314-315 of 2001.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2000 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2140/
1999 & Criminal Appeal No. 2237/99.
c
Ratnakar Dash, Rajiv Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the
Appellants.
M. Karpaga Vinayagam (AC.) for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
by which two Criminal appeals filed by accused Sattan,
E Uppendra, Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari Pal son of
Ram Charan (Criminal Appeal No. 2140of1999) and Criminal
Appeal No. 2237of1999 filed by accused Kripal, Brij Pal, Ram
Pal and Devendra. A reference under Section 366 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') for
F confirmation of death sentence in respect of the accused
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 2140of1999 before the High
Court was made. So far as Sattan, Upendra, Hari Pal son of
Kiran Singh and Hari pal son of Ram Charan are concerned
they were sentenced to two years R.I. each under Section 148
G of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), 10 years
R.I. under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and death
sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 302
read with Section 149 IPC. The appellants in the Criminal
Appeal No.2237 of 1999 were convicted and sentenced to life
H
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 649
[DR. ARJJIT PASAYAT, J.]
_,, •
imprisonment under Section 120 B IPC alongwith appellants A
in Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 1999 accused Mukesh,
Dhirendra, Rakesh, Naresh and Pappu also faced trial. Out of
them Pappu and Naresh died during the pendency of trial while
Mukesh, Rakesh and Dhirendra absconded and trial so far as
they are concerned were separated. One Rajveer was also B
charged in terms of Section 1208 alongwith appellants in
Criminal Appeal No. 2237 of 1999. The Criminal Appeal
No.2237 of 1999 was allowed and conviction of Brijpal, Ram
Pal and Devendra was set aside. So far as Criminal Appeal
No.2140of1999 is concerned the conviction as recorded was c
maintained. Death sentence imposed was altered to life
sentence. In the present appeals State has questioned
alteration of the death sentence to life sentence in respect of
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2140of1999 and the acquittal
-I:
as recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 2237 of 1999 as D
maintained; While upholding the conviction of accused Sattan
and Upendra directed acquittal of Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh
and Hari Pal son of Ram Charan.
2. According to learned counsel for the State the only
appropriate sentence in a case of this nature was death E
sentence and the High Court erred in altering it to life sentence
after upholding the conviction. Similarly, in respect of the
acquittal in the case of the appellants in separate Criminal
Appeal Nos.2237 and 2140 of 1999 is concerned, it is
submitted that the High Court has not indicated any reasons F
as to why the conviction as recorded by the Trial Court suffered
from any infirmity to warrant interference.
3. Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned Amicus Curiae
. supported the judgments of the High Court. G
4. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as
follows:
In the night between August 30 and 31, 1994 at about
H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A 12.30 five persons of Sheo Pal's family were gunned down in
his house in village Saloni within the area of police station
Bahadurgarh, Ghaziabad. Four others were injured, out of whom
Neetu also succumbed to his injuries later on. This massacre
was reported at the police station on the same night at 2.55
B A.M. by one of the survivors, Smt. Bala, PW 1 widow of
deceased Shiv Singh. With the registration of case police came
into action and the Investigating Officer promptly rushed to the
place of occurrence and recorded the statements of Smt. Bala,
Neetu and Km. Guddi who all had received injuries in the course
c of ghastly incident. Inquest proceedings were held in respect
of dead bodies of five persons, namely, Sheo Pal Singh, Smt.
Kunti Devi, Shiv Singh, Manjeet and Khushal who were reported
to have been shot dead by the assailants while asleep inside
their house. Their dead bodies were sent for postmortem
D examination. The investigating Officer Shri Ram Babu Tiwari,
P.W.9 also prepared site plan, Ex.Ka 48 after making spot
inspection of the place of occurrence. Injured Neetu was sent
for medical examination. Under the order of the Investigating
Officer S.I. Shri D.K. Sharma collected samples of blood
through memo Ex. Ka 26 from near the dead body of Kunti
E Devi. Similarly, samples of blood were collected from near the
dead bodies of other deceased persons through memos Ex.
Ka. 27 to Ex. Ka.3. The bed sheet lying on the cot of deceased
Shiv Singh was also taken into possession through memo Ex.
Ka. 3. The electric bulbs which are alleged to be giving light at
F the time of incident were also inspected and Memo Ex. Ka. 32
was prepared. The Kurta of Injured Guddi v1hich was stained
with blood and had pellet marks was taken into possession
through memo Ex. Ka.33. The pieces of blood stained bandh
of cot of deceased Manjeet and Khushal were also taken into
G possession through memo Ex. Ka. 34. The Investigating Officer "
also found empty cartridges, bullet and wads at the scene of
occurrence. They were also taken into police custody through
EX. Ka.35. He also interrogated Madhu and Rikku and other
villagers. A raid was made on the house of accused Mukesh,
H
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 651
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
..... i
Sattan and Guddu but they were not found. During investigation A
complicity of other accused persons also came to light that they
had hatched conspiracy for the commission of the crime in
question. Some of the accused persons were arrested while
others surrendered in court and after completion of investigation
charge sheet was prepared against all the accused persons B
who had been either arrested by him or has surrendered in
court and also against Upendra alias Guddu, Pappu, Dheeraj
and Devendra who were then still absconding. Later on
accused Pappu alias Amarjeet and Rajveer were also arrested.
It was also revealed that accused Upendra alias Guddu was c
in jail after having been arrested in a case under Gangster Act.
Similarly, accused Dheeraj was in jail in connection with case
Crime No. 628 of 1993 under Section 307 1.P.C.
Smt. Bala (PW.1) who is alleged to have herself received
injuries during the course of incident got the first information D
report Ex. Ka. I scribed by Km. Guddi, her niece. Km. Guddi is
also alleged to have sustained injuries during the course of the
same incident but she was murdered before she could be
examined in the trial court as a witness.
E
The case as set out in the first information report in short
was that some incident had occurred in the year 1986 between
family members of complainant and accused Mukesh and
Guddu sons of Rajveer and the matter was reported at the
' police station from complainant's side. A case was proceeding F
in court at Hapur some time before the present incident and
the police had raided the house of accused Mukesh. Mukesh
and Guddu, came"to the house of Sheo Pal Singh and gave
threats to them saying that they had not done good by getting
his house raided. The accused persons were thus bearing G
enmity with Sheo Pal and others.
•J
It was further alleged in the report lodged by Smt. Bala that
in the night between 30/31 August, 1994 at about 12.30 A.M.
Mukesh and Guddu of her own village carrying country made
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A pistols with them and accused Sattan of village Lohari also r ...
having a country made pistols alongwith 4-5 unknown persons
who were also having weapons like pistols, Dalkati, Lathi etc.
entered into her house. At that time electric bulbs were emitting
light inside and out side the house. The family members of her
B Jeth, Sheo pal Singh were sleeping on cots outside the house.
She herself (Smt. Bala) was resting inside the house, while her
husband Shiv Singh was sleeping on the roof. The accused
persons after making entry into the house immediately started
hurling abuses by name to her Jeth Sheo Pal Singh saying that
C he was acting as an informer to police, hence he and his family
would be eliminated completely. Hearing it Sheo Pal got up and
started running but he was chased by accused Mukesh and
Sattan and was shot dead in the Gher of Devendra. Mukesh
and Sattan then said that entire family should be finished and
thereafter accused persons killed Kunti Devi, wife; of Sheo Pal,
0
Khushal son of Sheo Pal and Manjeet son of Shiv Singh. They
also injured Neetu son of Sheo Pal, Guddi, daughter of Sheo
Pal Singh and baby Kapil about 3 years old son of Shiv Singh.
Mukesh and Sattan with his associates climbed over the roof
and murdered her husband Shiv Singh on the cot on which he
E was sleeping. ·on hearing the sound of firing, villagers were
awakened and when they tried to come near the first
informant's house, accused persons made indiscriminate firing
and said that if any one dared to come nearer he would be shot
dead and further that if anyone of them would give evidence
F he would meet the same fate as that of deceased persons. On
the threats given by accused persons villagers retreated to their
houses and closed their doors. The firing incident caused a
panic in the village and the miscreants left the scene of
occurrence brandishing their weapons.
G
Before adverting further it may be relevant to place the
following pedigree in order to show that all the deceased and
injured persons were members of same family.
H
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 653
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Hukum Singh A
I
Sheo Pal Shiv Singh
(Deceased) (Deceased)
B
Wife Kunti Devi Wife Smt. Bala (PW1)
(Deceased) (Injured)
' I I
I
I Manjeet Kapil
I
~~~~~~~~~~
(Deceased) (Injured) c
Khushal Guddi Neetu
(Deceased) (Injured) (Injured and died later on)
From the above pedigree it would be evident that all the
nine members of family of Hukum Singh were present and D
sleeping in their houses when this ghastly incident occurred.
Four were of Shiv Singh's family and rest belonged to Sheo
Pal's family. All of them sustained injuries. Smt. Bala, Baby
Kapil and Km. Guddi survived but before statement of Guddi
could be recorded at the trial she was also murdered. Baby E
Kapil was a child of about three years old. Thus the prosecution
was left with no alternative except to examine at the trial Smt.
Bala, the sole sLrviving member of the above two families.
At the trial from the prosecution side in all nine witnesses F
were produced. Smt. Bala (PW 1) widow of deceased Shiv
Singh corroborated the facts stated by her in the FIR and further
added that the assailants were ten in number, out of whom she
identified Mukesh, Guddu, Rakesh, Naresh, Pappu, Sattan,
Haripal son of Kiran Singh, Haripal son of Ram Charan,
Dhirendra alias Dheeraj. She further stated that Rakesh and G
Dhirendra were having Balkati and rest had country made
pistols. She also testified that Sheo Pal, his wife Kunti Devi,
his son Khushal, her Husband Shiv Singh and her son Manjeet
were murdered on the spot by the assailants with their
H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A respective weapons, Neetu son of Sheo Pal, Km. Guddi, Baby ~
...
Kapil and she herself also suffered injuries at the hands of the
accused persons. She further stated that had the matter
between accused and deceased persons been not got
compromised by accused Kripal, Rajveer, Devendra, Brij Pal
B and Ram Pal, the incident in question would not have occurred.
In this way it was suggested that the aforesaid accused persons
hatched a conspiracy with the actual assailants to get the entire
family of Sheo Pal and Shiv Singh wiped out. She is the only
eye witness examined at the trial.
c As noted above, the trial court found the evidence of the
witnesses to be credible and cogent and directed conviction
and imposed death sentence, so far as the Sattan, Upendra,
Hari Pal son of Kiran Singh and Hari pal son of Ram Charan
are concerned. It also found that the accusations relating to
D Section 120B of the Act have been established so far as the
Kripal, Brij Pal, Devendra are concerned. The High Court
analysed the evidence to hold that the accusations so far as
the Sattan, Upendra, are concerned have been established. But
further held that this was a case where there were certain
E mitigating circumstances which warranted alteration of the
death sentence to life sentence.
The mitigating and extenuating circumstances pointed out
to take the view are as follows:
F "(i) that number of casualties cannot be sole criterion for
awarding death sentence;
(ii) that though in a criminal case compromise was filed,
the police however at the instance of deceased Sheo Pal
G raided the house of accused Mukesh and Guddu alias
Upendra and this excited the accused to commit the
alleged crime;
H
(iii) that PW 1(smt. Bala) the sole eye witness did not
assign specific role to each of the two accused- -
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN@ SATYENDRA & ORS. 655
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
... A
respondents;
(iv) that according to FIR story, the three named accused
persons along with 4-5 others committed the crime and
therefore, possibility of unknown persons having taken the
active part could not be ruled out; B
(v) that there is nothing on record to show that accused-
respondents Sattan alias Satyendra and Guddu alias
Upendra acted in a brutal and cruel manner while
committing the crime;
c
(vi) that there is nothing on record to show that K. Guddu
was murdered during pendency of the case by the present
accused-respondents, so that there could be no evidence
against them;
D
(vii) that the assailants did not do away with Smt. Bala (PW
1) Km. Guddi (17 years), baby Kapil (3 years) and a child
to screen the offence;
(viii) that the assailants showed mercy on Smt. Bala and
did not cause any harm to her; and E
- .i
(ix) that respondent Sattan alias Satyendra was a young
boy of 20 years of age at the time of incident."
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances the High F
Court came to an abrupt conclusion that on consideration of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances the case does not
fall within the category of rarest of rare cases.
6. Learned amicus Curiae appearing for the accused G
persons on the other hand submitted that six circumstances
were highlighted by the High Court.
7. Motive was not clearly established. No specific roles
have been ascribed. Ocular and medical evidence did not fit
H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A in. There is no crime record of any of the accused persons and
it cannot be said that they cannot be reformed. Two views are
.
-
possible. There was considerable lapse of time. It is to be noted
that according to the High Court the mitigating circumstances
show there is no criminal record of any of the accused persons.
B There was no overt act attributed to each of the accused
persons and the number of deaths cannot be a criteria to
decide as to whether death sentence or life sentence to be
imposed.
8. According to learned Amicus Curiae, incident was of
c the year 1992, the death sentence was awarded in 1999 and
by the impugned judgment which is of the year 2000, alteration
have been directed and at this length of time there should not
be any interference.
D 9. Before dealing with the position in law as highlighted
by this Court relating to rarest of rare categories where death
sentence can be awarded, submissions made by learned
Amicus Curiae to show existence of mitigating circumstances
need to be noted. It is stated by learned Amicus Curiae that
E motive is not clearly established. This is contrary to the
conclusions of the High Court. In fact, the High Court has treated
that an entire family was eliminated and if the evidence of Smt. ,__
Bala (PW 1) is considered reliable and trustworthy, the
inadequacy and insufficiency of motive pales into significance
F and recedes behind the curtain. So far as the specific overt acts
are concerned, it is to be noted that apart from the accused
persons who faced trial three of these persons, namely,
absconding accused Mukesh Dhirendra and Rakesh were
-
described as accused. Six persons were killed. It is not
expected that a lady witnessing such a massacre would note
G
the details.
10. This court has observed in Sahdeo v. State of U.P.
[2004 SCC (Crl.) 1873] that though in the particular facts of the
case the death sentence was converted to imprisonment for life,
H yet it cannot be said that accused persons cannot be awarded
•'
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 657
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Jo i death sentence in cases where the conviction was recorded A
under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. So far as the
alleged discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular
evidence is concerned, it is to be noted as rightly done by the
High Court that the incident occurred around mid night when
six murders were committed one after another. In such B
circumstances it was practically not possible for any witness
to ascribe pin pointed role or the kind of weapons with which
blows were given. In an incident when killing of so many
persons took place, it would be difficult for a witness to
remember with precision the kind of weapon used by a c
particular accused. It is to be noted that evidence of the
witnesses are not liable for rejection on the hypothetical so
called medical discrepancy. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the respondent that when number of death is not the
determinative factor and since the High Court about eight years 0
back has altered the conviction, the life sentence may be
·clarified to be one for 20 years as have been done in some
cases for example in Ram Anup Singh v. State of Bihar
[2002(6) sec 686].
11. The law regulates a social interests, arbitrates E
conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and
property of the people is an essential function of the State. It
could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law.
Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law
must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are F
required to mould the sentencing system to meet the
challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine
social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and
stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which
must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. G
Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should
meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his
"Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law
continues to be - as it should be - a decisive reflection of
social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery "
or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation
sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered
with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given
circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner
B in which it was planned and committed, the motive for
commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature
of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are
relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
For instance a murder committed due to deep-seated mutual
c and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an
organised crime or mass murders of innocent people would call
for imposition of death sentence as deterrence. In Mahesh v.
State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCR 710), this Court while refusing to
reduce the death sentence observed thus:
D "It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused
to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such
evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser
punishment for the accused would be to render the justicing
system of the country suspect. The common man will lose
E faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and
appreciates the language of deterrence more than the
reformative jargon."
12. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate
F sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and
society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is,
therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in
which it was executed or committed etc. This position was
G
illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v.
State of Tamil Naidu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).
13. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of
proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability
H of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN@ SATYENDRA & ORS. 659
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in A
each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more
subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the
special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that
punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice
sentences are determined largely by other considerations. B
Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that
are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of
keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic
results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a
departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and c
create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and
widespread.
14. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal
respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains
a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The D
practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is
now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure
from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the
law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction
drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty E
of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be
a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in
fact, quite apart from those considerations that make
punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime,
uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very F
undesirable practical consequences.
15. After giving due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate
sentence to be awardsd for an offence, the aggravating and . G
mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been
committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really
relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.
Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very
aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCG Dautha v. State of H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
. ..
A Caf/ifomia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a
foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable
criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in
the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity
of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may
B provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess
various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity
of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case,
is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably
distinguished.
c 16. In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat
(1994 (4) SCC 353), it has been held by this Court that in the
matter of death sentence, the Courts are required to answer
new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these
challenges. The object should be to protect the society and to
D deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by
imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts
would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such
sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the
sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Even
E though the principles were indicated in the background of death
sentence and life sentence, the logic applies to all cases where
appropriate sentence is the issue.
17. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on
F the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile
exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates
to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping,
misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences
involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great
G impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight
of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude
by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view
merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences
will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against
H societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 661
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
,..
""""" by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. A
18. In Ohananjoy Chatterjee v. State of WB. (1994 (2)
SCC 220), this Court has observed that shockingly large
number of criminals go unpunished thereby increasingly,
encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate making justice
B
suffer by weakening the system's creditability. The imposition
of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court
responds to the society's cry for justice against the criminal.
Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment
befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence
of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of
c
the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and
the society at large while considering the imposition of
appropriate punishment.
""' 19. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. State D
~
ofRajasthan, (1996 (2) SCC 175). It has been held in the said
case that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the
criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate
punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty
if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has E
been committed not only against the individual victim but also
against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The
punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant
4
but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and
brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the F
enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should
"respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal". If
for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very
brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent
punishment is not giver. the case of deterrent punishment will
,..,
G
lose its relevance.
20. These aspects have been elaborated in State of M.P.
v. Munna Choubey [2005 (2) SCC 712].
21. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980 (2) SCC H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A 684) a Constitution Bench of this Court at para 132 summed
up the position as follows: (SCC p.729)
"132. To sum up, the question whether or not death penalty
serves any penological purpose is a difficult, complex and
intractable issue. It has evoked strong, divergent views.
B
For the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the
impugned provision as to death penalty in Section 302,
Penal Code on the ground of reasonableness in the light
of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, it is not necessary
for us to express any categorical opinion, one way or the
c other, as to which of these two antithetical views, held by
the Abolitionists and Retentionists, is correct. It is sufficient.
to say that the very fact that persons of reason, learning
and light are rationally and deeply divided in their opinion
on this issue, is a ground among others, for rejecting the
D petitioners' argument that retention of death penalty in the
impugned provision, is totally devoid of reason and
purpose. If, notwithstanding the view of the Abolitionists to
the contrary, a very large segment of people, the world over,
including sociologists, legislators, jurists, judges and
E administrators still firmly believe in the worth and necessity
of capital punishment for the protection of society, if in the
perspective of prevailing crime conditions in India,
contemporary public opinion channelised through the >
people's representatives in Parliament, has repeatedly in
F the last three decades, rejected all attempts, including the
one made recently, to abolish or specifically restrict the
area of death penalty, if death penalty is still a recognised
legal sanction for murder or some types of murder in most
of the civilised countries in the world, if the framers of the
G Indian Constitution were fully aware - as we shall presently
show they were - of the existence of death penalty as
punishment for murder, under the Indian Penal Code, if the
35th Report and subsequent reports of the Law
Commission suggesting retention of death penalty, and
recommending revision of the Criminal Procedure Code
H
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 663
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
and the insertion of the new Sections 235(2) and 354(3) . A
in that Code providing for pre-sentence hearing and
sentencing procedure on conviction for murder and other
capital offences were before Parliament and presumably
considered by it when in 1972-73 it took up revision of the
Code of 1898 and replaced it by the Code of Criminal B
Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to hold that the
provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for
murder, in Section 302, Penal Code is unreasonable and
not in the public interest. We would, therefore, conclude
that the i111P,ugned provision in Section 302, violates c
neither the letter nor the ethos of Article 19." ·
22. Similarly, in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [1983 ·
(3) sec 470] in para 38 the position was summed up as
follows: (SCC p. 489)
D
"38. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan
Singh's case (supra)
, will have to be culled out and applied
to the facts of each individual case where the question of
imposing of death sentence arises. The following
propositions emerge from Bachan Singh's case (supra): E
(1) The extreme. penalty of death need not be
inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme
culpability.
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the F
circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be
taken into consideration along with the
circumstances of the 'crime'.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death G
sentence is an exception. In other words death
sentence must be imposed only when life
imprisonment appears to be an altogether
inadequate punishment having regard to the
relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, H
I
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A and only provided, the option to impose sentence
of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
exercised having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the crime and all the relevant
circumstances.
B
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so
the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded ~
full weightage and a just balance has to be struck
between the aggravating and the mitigating
c circumstances before the option is exercised."
23. The position was again reiterated in Devender Pal
Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi [2002 (5) SCC 234 ] : (SCC p.
271, para 58)
D
"58. From Bachan Singh's case (supra) and Machhi
Singh's case (supra) the principle culled out is that when
the collective conscience of the commt.mity is so shocked,
that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre
to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion
E
as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death
penalty, the same can be awarded. It was observed:
The community may entertain such sentiment in the
following circumstances:
F
(1) When the murder is committed in an extremely
brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly
manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
indignation of the community.
G (2) When the murder is committed for a motive
which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g.
murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or
cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-a-
vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position
H or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS. 665
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
J
the course for betrayal of the motherland. A
(3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled
Caste or minority community, etc. is committed not
for personal reasons but in circumstances which
arouse social wrath; or in cases of 'bride burning' B
or 'dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in
order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry
once again or to marry another woman on account
of infatuation.
(4) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For c
instance when 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.
D
(5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child,
or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a
person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a
dominating position, or a public figure generally
loved and respected by the community."
E
24. If upon taking an overall global view of all the
circumstances in the light of the aforesaid propositions and
taking into account the answers to the questions posed by way
of the test for the rarest of rare cases, the circumstances of the
case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would F
proceed to do so.
25. What is culled out from the decisions noted above is
that while deciding the question as to whether the extreme
penalty of death sentence is to be awarded, a balance sheet G
_, of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn
up.
26. Lord Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls of the Court
of Appeals in England said to the Royal Commission on Capital
Punishment in 1950: H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
A "Punishment is the way in which society expresses its
denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain
respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment
inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the
revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is
B a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being
a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else ...
The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that
society insists on adequate punishment, because the
wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a
c deterrent or not."
In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762, he
says the following:
Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights
D becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his
fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one
of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such
circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one
or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy
E not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgments
are proofs that he broken the Social Contract, and so is
no longer a member of the State.
27. The case at hand falls in the rarest of rare category.
F The depraved acts of the accused call for only one sentence
that is death sentence.
28. The above position was highlighted in Bantu v. The
State of U.P. [2008(10) SCALE 336]
G 29. Murder of six members of a family including helpless
women and children having been committed in a brutal, diabolic
and bristly manner and the crime being one which is enormous
in proportion which shocks the conscious of law, the death
sentence as awarded in respect of accused Sattan and Guddu
H was the appropriate sentence and the High.Court ought not to
.. i
STATE OF U.P. v. SATIAN @ SATYENDRA & ORS.
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
667
have altered it. So far as the acquittal of the Hari Pal son of A
Kiran Singh and Hari Pal son of Ram Charan are concerned,
the High Court has noted that the evidence so far as their
involvement is concerned was not totally free from doubt. The
High Court have analysed the factual scenario in detail to direct
the acquittal. We find no reason to differ from the conclusions B
of the High Court. The acquittal as directed stands affirmed.
So far as other four respondents i.e. appellants in Criminal
Appeal No.2237 of 1999 is concerned they were charged
under Section 120 B. It has been recorded by the High Court
that except the suspicion which the informant was having in her c
mind about the involvement of these four accused persons there
was neither any direct or circumstantial evidence to fasten the
charge of criminal conspiracy. That being so the High Court was
justified in directing their acquittal. Criminal Appeal No. 314 is
.. allowed. The State's appeal so far as Sattan and Upendra are
D
concerned is allowed to the extent that the death sentence as
was awarded by the trial court is restored so far as they are
concerned. The appeal fails so far as respondents Hari Pal son
of Kiran Singh and Hari Pal son of Ram Charan are concerned.
30. We record our appreciation for the able assistance E
rendered by Mr. M. Karapaga Vinayagam, learned Amicus
Curae.
D.G. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "death penalty"Sign in to search