Untwalia, J. - (1.) Balwant Singh, the sole appellant in this appeal, was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death by the Trial Court. His conviction, and sentence have been confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Special leave to appeal was granted by this Court limited to the question of sentence only. We have, therefore, to see whether on the facts of this case the High Court was right in confirming the death sentence imposed upon the appellant or was it a case where the lesser sentence of life imprisonment ought to have been awarded.
(2.) The appellant was aged about 60 years at the time of the occurrence. He was working as a Granthi of a Gurudwara in village Salihna District Faridkot. Mohan Singh the deceased was a member of the Managing Committee of the Gurudwara. He made certain complaints against the appellant to the President of the Managing Committee and asked for his removal from the post of the Granthi. The appellant, therefore, bore a grudge against the deceased. In the early hours of April 13, 1974 the appellant gave Karah Parshad of Granth Sahib to Mohan Singh mixing opium in it. As soon as Mohan Singh took the Parshad he felt sick and his heart began to sink. Inspite of the medical aid he could not survive and died about 4 hours after the administering of the poison to him by the appellant. On the facts found by the learned Sessions Judge and as affirmed by the High Court, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of Penal Code. The question for consideration is whether the sentence of death was rightly passed. It may be noticed that the occurrence took place on April 13, 1974 after coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 on and from April 1, 1974. Provisions of Section 354(3) of the new Code, as noticed by the High Court, governed this case. Yet the High Court confirmed the sentence of death relying upon two decisions of this Court which were not concerned with the application of law engrafted in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but were given with reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as it stood at the relevant time.
(3.) It is well-known that in many parts of the world an agitation has been going on against the imposition of death penalty even in murder cases. And in many countries or States death penalty has been abolished. In India the legislature in its wisdom has not thought it fit and proper to abolish the death penalty altogether but there has been a gradual swing against the imposition of such penalty. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as it stood before its amendment by Act 26 of 1955, sub-s. (5) of Sec. 367 required: "If the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death, and the Court sentences him to any punishment other than death, the Court shall in its judgment state the reason why sentence of death was not passed": Under the provision aforesaid if an accused was convicted for an offence punishable with death then imposition of death sentence was the rule and awarding of a lesser sentence was an exception and the Court had to state the reasons for not passing the sentence of death. By the Amending Act 26 of 1955 the said provision was deleted. Thereafter it was left to the discretion of the Court, on the facts of each case, to pass the sentence of death or to award the lesser sentence. In the context of the changed law if in a given case the passing of the death sentence was not called for or there were extenuating circumstances to justify the passing of the lesser sentence then the lesser sentence was awarded and not the death sentence.;