PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High court dismissing the appeal of the appellants and confirming the death sentence imposed on Pal Singh, appellant. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Ajit Singh, appellant, was also confirmed.

(2.) Mr. Chagla, the learned counsel for the appellants urged that as for as pal Singh is concerned this case should be remitted to the High court because the High court had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 374, criminal Procedure Code, as it seems to have proceeded on a concession made by the appellants' counsel. Further it failed to consider the defence case and did not reappraise the evidence in a critical manner to come to an independent conclusion with regard to the guilt of each of the appellants. We invited him to go into the question of merits. The learned counsel first stated that we were not entitled to go into the merits because it was only the High court which could confirm a sentence of death. On the merits he was unable to attack the findings of the High court, but he urged that the sentence of death passed on Pal Singh should be reduced to sentence of imprisonment for life. He said that there was no reason for the Sessions judge or for the High court to distinguish between the case of Ajit Singh who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life and the case of Pal Singh. Both according to him, were under the age of 18 years and the Sessions Judge and the High court had wrongly held that Pal Singh was about 23 years of age.

(3.) We see no force in the contention of the learned counsel that we are not entitled to go into the merits of the case when an appeal is brought to this court. In an appeal we have the same powers as the High court has. If the learned counsel's contention was right, in an appeal against acquittal by the High court this court would be incompetent to pass a sentence of death even if it was the only appropriate sentence on the facts of the case. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code or Article 134 (1) (c) or Article 136 of the Constitution to support the contention of the learned counsel,