RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, while granting leave, this Court confined the scope of the appeal to the consideration of the question of sentence only.

(2.) The appellant along with seven others, who survived the trial out of the eleven persons originally tried, were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 436 and 440 all read with Section 149, IPC. The trial Court imposed varying sentences on them, but in regard to appellant and one other person, awarded the sentence of death and referred the said sentence to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench for confirmation. The High Court by the impugned judgment has accepted the reference and confirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellant but taking into consideration the age of the other accused who was also sentenced to death converted his sentence from death to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellant questions the sentence of death awarded to him on various grounds.

(3.) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the crime of which the appellant is charged with cannot be termed as a rarest of the rare cases calling for extreme penalty of death even though 21 persons had lost their lives due to the acts of the appellant and other accused persons. He submitted that there was sufficient provocation from the side of the victims which lead to the incident on the fateful day because the victims party was earlier responsible for the double murder of appellants close relatives in regard to which the members of the said party were being prosecuted in a Sessions trial. In spite of the said proceedings, on the day of the incident another relative of the appellant by name Bhagwati was found murdered which the appellant and his family members had reasons to believe was due to the act of the family of the victims. These facts according to the learned counsel was the provocation for the murders for which the appellant is being punished. Hence the facts of the case in hand did not call for the extreme penalty of death. He also submitted that the appellant was not the leader of the group of accused which caused the death of so many victims nor he had exhorted others either to kill or to set fire to the houses. His act was at the most on par with the other accused who have been awarded lesser sentence. He also submitted that even according to the prosecution case, there was considerable doubt as to the role played by the appellant in the incident in question, hence, he has been roped in with the aid of Section 149, IPC. His further submission was that the incident in question had taken place nearly 17 years ago and eversince then the appellant has been in jail, therefore the appellant should be given an opportunity of redeeming himself.