Babu Singh and Another v Reshampal Singh and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S. B. Sinha
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2006-11-22
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court stands upheld; the sentence remains life imprisonment with the prescribed fines and related terms.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment upheld

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Babu Singh
Another

Respondents

Reshampal Singh
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Amarjit Singh
• A. P. Mohanty

Counsels for Respondents

• Sanjay Jain
• Mukesh Kumar
• Arun K. Sinha
• Ravi P. Mehrotra
• Deepti P. Mehrotra
• Garvesh Kabra

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns two criminal appeals filed by Babu Singh and another challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision that reduced the death sentence of Reshampal Singh (and co-accused) to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to death. The High Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 with default re-imprisonment, and it also maintained a five-year term and a fine under Section 307 IPC with a default imprisonment for two months. The appellants sought enhancement back to the death sentence, arguing that the crime was grave and deserving of the maximum punishment; they pressed that aggravating factors warranted re-imposition of capital punishment. The respondents contended that the High Court’s thorough examination of the evidence and circumstances supported life imprisonment, and that there was no justification for altering the High Court’s well-reasoned conclusion. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the record and the High Court’s detailed treatment of the sentence (notably paragraph 36), found no compelling reason to interfere and dismissed the appeals, thereby upholding the High Court’s judgment and the life sentence, along with the ancillary penalties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 307 IPCPenal Code, 1860

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the offense reflected extreme gravity and warranted the death sentence, contending that the trial court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was correct and that the High Court’s reduction to life imprisonment failed to reflect the seriousness of the crime. They urged this Court to restore the death penalty, asserting aggravating circumstances and the need for deterrence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the High Court conducted a thorough evaluation of the evidence and circumstances, and its decision to substitute life imprisonment with appropriate fines and ancillary terms was justified. They argued that the record did not establish grounds warranting capital punishment and that the High Court’s reasoning was sound and should not be disturbed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

D ## BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER. # _v._ RESHAMPAL SINGH AND ANR. ## NOVEMBER 22, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] _Sentencing-Award of death sentence, reduced to life imprisonment by High Court-Plea of enhancement of the punishment to death sentenceHeld: High Court awarded life imprisonment after considering the question_ C _of sentence in detail-Thus, no reason to enhance the punishment to death sentence-Pena/ Code, 1860-Section 302._ Trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to death under section 302 IPC. However High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the court HELD : High Court considered the question of sentence in detail. On going through the evidence and having considered the facts of the case, there is no reason to enhance the punishment of life imprisonment awarded by High E Court to death sentence. [304-D-F) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1604 of 2005. WITH F Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of2005. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24-l 0-2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. A. No. 616-DB/200 I. Amarjit Si~gh and A.P. Mohanty for the Appellants. Sanjay Jain, Mukesh Kumar, Arun K. Sinha, Ravi P. Mehrotra (A.C.), Deepti P. Mehrotra and Garvesh Kabra for the Respondent. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KATJU, J. These appeals have been filed against the 303 H I 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A impugned judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 24.10.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 616-DB of2001. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The trial court by its judgment dated 18.10.200 I convicted accused · B Resham Pal Singh and sentenced him to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court while affirming the conviction has reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court has further directed the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for a period of one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The High Court C also maintained the sentence of imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine the appellant had to undergo further RI for a period of two months. The amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/-, if realized from the appellant was directed to be paid to Harpreet Singh, who has lost his parents. D In these two appeals the prayer was to enhance the punishment to death sentence . . We have gone through the evidence and have considered the facts the case. E . In our opinion, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court .. The question of sentence has been considered by the High Court in detail in paragraph 36 of its judgment and, therefore, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court stands upheld. F N.J. Appeals dismissed. ,.,