- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 22 November 2006
- Bench
- S. B. Sinha, Markandey Katju
- Result
- Appeals ,., dismissed.
Headnote
Sentencing-Award of death sentence, reduced to life imprisonment by High Court-Plea of enhancement of the punishment to death sentence-Held: High Court awarded life imprisonment after considering the question 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 Court to death sentence. [304-D-F)
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. These appeals have been filed against the 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 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 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.
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 of the case.
. 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.
Case details
Arising from
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1604 of 2005.
WITH
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.
Appearances
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.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.