Whether the sentence of death penalty can be awarded in murder cases or life imprisonment with respect to both CrPC and Army Act

• JUDGEMENT SUMMARY – SpeInder Pal Singh and anotherv. Union of India
• DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 1st May 1994
• JUDGES – Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice Devinder Gupta

FACTS

On 16th June, 1987, four Army Officers including a Colonel, a Major and 2 Captains were. These officers commanded Unit 8 Jat and also 302 Field Ambulance. These officers were murdered by Lance NiakInder Pal Singh and Sepoy Mahavir who is the petitioner in this case. The General Court Martial sentenced both the convicts to death under Section 69 Army Act, Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 in different ratios to both the petitioners. The petitioners referred against this which was rejected by the Central Government. The current petition was filed in light of the same.

CONTENTIONS 

Appellant – The main contention of the parties was made challegneing the legal validity of the death penalty that was imposed on them. The petitioners did not question the conviction but that the penalty of death must be converted to that of imprisonment for life. The grounds for this included that –

1. Death penalty is violative of principles of natural justice and as no reasons have been recorded for the rejection of the petitions by the Central Government.
2. The petitioners were not given the opportunity to be heard before the awarding of the sentence.
3. There was a long delay between the confirmation petition and execution of the sentence.
4. The current case is not under the purview of being, “rarest of rare”.

Defendant – It was contended that with respect to the findings and sentence, the Court Martial is not required to record reasons and reasons are only needed for mercy not otherwise. There was no question of any such recommendation as maximum sentence had been awarded by the Court Martial. It has also been held previously that reasons are not required to be recorded for an order passed by the confirming authority confirming the findings and sentence recorded by the Court Martial as well as for the order passed by the Central Government dismissing the post confirmation petition. The second contention was rebutted on the ground of Section 5 CrPC which renders provisions of the Code itself inapplicable to Army law cases. The delay in the confirmation of petition was clarified as not being relevant since it only takes place after awarding life sentence in final.

JUDGEMENT

The court dismissed the petition accepting the above merits of the defendant, and looking into the brutality with which the crime was committed. The doctrine of proportionality was applied and within the purview of the Court martial, the sentence was continued as death penalty by the Court.