1975 (10) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Application of Section 303 IPC in the case of Rohitsingh.
2. Sentences of Dilip Kumar and Bharatsingh.

Summary:

1. Application of Section 303 IPC in the case of Rohitsingh:

The main question for consideration was whether Rohitsingh's conviction u/s 303 IPC was legal. Section 303 IPC mandates a death sentence for a person who commits murder while under a sentence of life imprisonment. Rohitsingh was initially sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Prabhu on May 18, 1972. However, his conviction was set aside by the High Court on February 27, 1974, the same day the High Court pronounced its judgment in the instant case. The High Court convicted Rohitsingh u/s 303 IPC, reasoning that the relevant date for applying Section 303 is the date of the subsequent murder, not the date of the judgment. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that an acquittal wipes out the previous conviction, and thus, Section 303 IPC would not apply if the life sentence is set aside before the final judgment in the subsequent murder case. Consequently, Rohitsingh's death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment.

2. Sentences of Dilip Kumar and Bharatsingh:

The appeal for Dilip Kumar and Bharatsingh was limited to the question of sentence. Dilip Kumar was convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to death, which was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court saw no reason to reduce his death sentence, given the gravity of the crime. Bharatsingh was convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that there was no scope for challenging Bharatsingh's sentence as the minimum sentence for murder u/s 302 IPC is life imprisonment.

Separate Judgment by R.S. Sarkaria, J.:

Justice R.S. Sarkaria agreed with the conclusions of Justice Chandrachud but provided additional reasoning. He emphasized that Section 303 IPC should be strictly construed and that the term "sentence" should be interpreted to mean a final and conclusive sentence. He argued that a sentence under appeal or subject to judicial review should not be considered for the application of Section 303 IPC. He highlighted the potential for inconsistent and unjust results if a broader interpretation were adopted. Consequently, he concurred with reducing Rohitsingh's death sentence to life imprisonment.