SHAH - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) AT the time of admission of this matter, the Court had issued notice limited to the question of sentence only. Hence the question involved in this appeal is whether death sentence imposed requires to be confirmed on the ground that it is the rarest of the rare cases? Whether sentence of imprisonment for life would be inadequate? This is a case in which persistent disputes over a small house in a village between two neighbours and inaction by the authority (despite repeated prayers), led to this case of gruesome murders of seven persons, some totally innocent. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we would first refer to a few facts. It is a prosecution version that on 28/01/1990 ( 28/06/1990), Chater Singh (PW-4) along with his wife deceased-Smt. Daya Kaur was sleeping at his house and his brother Satbir, his wife Smt. Kamlesh and mother Smt. Khazani (deceased) were sleeping at the house of Satbir while inside the house of Satbir, Satbir and two male progeny of Chater Singh, Aman Kumar and Mohinder and one male progeny Surender of Hawa Singh (PW-5) were sleeping. Around 4.00 a.m., Chater Singh saw torch light emanating from the window of his house, upon which he and his wife got up from their cots and saw Parma Nand accused holding a torch in his hand and Ajit Singh accused (since dead) standing by his side holding a gun. Ajit Singh fired a shot from his gun, which hit the breast of Smt. Daya Kaur who fell down and met her doom. He raised an alarm, whereafter Ajit Singh-accused entered his house from the rear door and fired at Chater Singh from his gun which hit the fingers of his right hand. Chater Singh caught hold the barrel of the gun but Ajit Singh got it freed and handed over his weapon to Om Prakash-accused present in the courtyard of the house. It is stated that one other person not known to Chater Singh was also present in the street. Thereafter all the four reached the house of Satbir followed by Chater Singh and Hawa Singh and there accused Om Prakash fired from his gun hitting Smt. Kamlesh, wife of Satbir and Smt. Khazani who succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the assailants headed towards the house of Satbir where Chater Singh and Hawa Singh had already reached. At that place, Om Prakash fired indiscriminately from the gun and shot dead Satbir, Mohinder, Aman Kumar male progeny of Chater Singh and Surender son of Hawa Singh (PW-5). It is stated that after committing the gruesome murder of 7 persons accused-Parma Nand made out that they had taken the revenge regarding the plot in dispute and dared anybody to confront them at the risk of elimination. All the accused thereafter fled away with their weapon of offence. After departure of the accused, many persons collected. Leaving Hawa Singh at the spot, Chater Singh rushed to the Police Station, Sampla and lodged FIR at Ex. PJ at 7.30 a.m. During investigation, weapon of offence, that is, S.L.R. (self loading rifle) which the accused Om Prakash surrendered with the BSF authorities, where he remained posted, was collected and was sent to the Bureau, Forensic Science Lab., Madhuban along with empties and bullets lifted from the scene of occurrence. After completion of the investigation, accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code Prior to trial, accused Ajit Singh had expired. In Sessions Case No. 341/90, the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak by Judgment and Order dated 29/03/1997, convicted the accused Om Prakash and Parma Nand under Sections 302/307/452/506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act after appreciating the evidence in detail. The learned Sessions Judge observed that mitigating circumstances culled out by the learned Defence Counsel cannot save the convict Om Prakash from the gallows, in case, the order of sentence is confirmed by the High Court because on that ill-fated morning of 28-6-1990, around 4.00 a.m., the bullets clawed through the aged (Khazani, 77 years) and middle aged (Daya Kaur, 40 years), the young (Satbir 28-29 years, Kamlesh, 22 years) and the adolescent (Surender 16-17 years) and two boys below their teens (Aman Kumar and Mohinder aged 9/11-12 years). The attempt was to wipe out the entire family of Mange Ram, both male and female. Victims were sleeping, defenceless. Firing was restored to without any provocation to wreck vengeance over the dispute of a plot, which had been amicably settled with the intervention of relatives and friends, though accused Om Prakash had not relished the same. The children of Satbir Singh-deceased were rendered orphan because he and his wife Kamlesh fell to the bullets (one of the survivor was a girl aged about six months). Lot of deliberations, premeditation and planning had gone in the commission of the crime. It was absolutely devilish and dastardly. The weapon which was meant to beat back the intruders from the Indian Territory, was used to wreak personal vendetta. So, in respect of Om Prakash- accused, the case falls within the category of "rarest of rare cases." With regard to the co-accused Parma Nand, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two years. Conviction and sentence order is as under:- JUDGEMENT_599_JT1_1999Html1.htm
(3.) ON appeal, after appreciating the entire evidence, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 343/DB of 1997 confirmed the conviction of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that finding given by the High Court while confirming the death sentence requires to be set aside because the Court has considered only one side of the picture and has not appreciated the reasons which drove the appellant to this dastardly act. It has been pointed out that High Court has observed that appellant was a member of the Border Security Force and prior to present occurrence had no serious dispute with the complainant party but for the matter pertaining to the plot in question has belied the trust that the armed force had put in him by betraying an utter lack of discipline; the murders were committed with premeditation and in a thought out manner as would be reflected in the letter Ex. PX and the fact that he had absconded on 27/06/1990 from his unit and had returned after having committed the crime. It was a cold-blooded attack on 7 persons of a family, most of them being women and children who had given no provocation to the accused and had caused him no harm; an attack had been made at the dead of night while they lay asleep; an attack had been made despite the compromise that had been entered into between Suraj Bhan, father of the accused and Chater Singh and others; it appeared that murders were committed with a positive intention of wiping out the families of Chater Singh and Hawa Singh. The Court after considering the decision rendered in the case of Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 SCC (Cri) 1314 : (1996 AIR SCW 4166), held that the Court must respond to the cry of society and to settle what would be a deterrent punishment for what was an apparently abominable crime.;