Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Review Petition (crl.) 497 of 2002
Review Petition (crl.) 626 of 2002
Review Petition (crl.) 627 of 2002
Appeal (crl.) 993 of 2001
Appeal (crl.) 761 of 2001
Appeal (crl.) 761 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Devender Pal Singh, Dharmendra Singh @ Dharu Singh, Krishna Mochi and others
RESPONDENT:
State, N.C.T. of Delhi & another, State of Bihar
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/2002
BENCH:
M.B. SHAH
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Shah, J.
I am in respectful agreement with the reasons recorded by
learned brother Pasayat, J. in arriving at the conclusion that the review
petitions are required to be dismissed. Still however, I record my
dissent with regard to sentence aspect.
R.P. (Crl.) No.497 of 2002 In W.P. (Crl.) No.993 of 2001.
In this case, it is to be stated that I had arrived at the conclusion
that the prosecution case depends solely upon the confessional
statement. The reasons recorded therein for acquitting him are not
required to be reiterated. However, considering the majority view
also, in my opinion, if death sentence is altered to imprisonment for
life, it would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
R.P. (Crl.) Nos.626 and 627 of 2002 In Crl. A. No.761 of 2001.
In this case, it is to be stated that appeal of the main accused
Bihari Manjhi and others was allowed and were acquitted on the basis
that there was no other evidence except the so-called confessional
statement which was totally unreliable and faulty investigation This is
also a fit case for altering the death sentence and imposing sentence of
imprisonment for life.
For this purpose, I would rely upon the dissent noted by
Thomas, J. in Suthendraraja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan
and others v. State [(1999) 9 SCC 323) which is reproduced
hereunder:
"17. The Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684] has narrowed down
the scope for awarding death sentence to the extremely
restricted radius of "rarest of rare cases" in which the
alternative lesser sentence of imprisonment for life is
unquestionably foreclosed. In the main judgment in the
present case one of the three Judges found that sentence
of imprisonment for life would be sufficient to meet the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
ends of justice as far A-1 Nalini.
18. In a case where a Bench of three Judges
delivered judgment in which the opinion of at least one
Judge is in favour of preferring imprisonment for life to
death penalty as for any particular accused, I think it
would be a proper premise for the Bench to review the
order of sentence of death in respect of that accused.
Such an approach is consistent with Article 21 of the
Constitution as it helps saving a human life from the
gallows and at the same time putting the guilty accused
behind the bars for life. In my opinion, it would be a
sound proposition to make a precedent that when one of
the three Judges refrains from awarding death penalty to
an accused on stated reasons in preference to the sentence
of life imprisonment that fact can be regarded sufficient
to treat the case as not falling within the narrowed ambit
of "rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is
unquestionably foreclosed".
In the result, in my opinion, Review Petition (Crl.) No.497 of
2002 filed by Devender Pal Singh in Crl. Appeal No.993 of 2001;
Review Petition (Crl.) No.626 of 2002 filed by Dharmendra Singh @
Dharu Singh in Criminal Appeal No.761 of 2001 and Review Petition
(Crl.) No.627 of 2002 filed by Krishna Mochi and others in Criminal
Appeal No.761 of 2002, be partly allowed and their sentence be
altered to imprisonment for life.