# BALWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 684
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-11-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 1975
- **Bench:** P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/balwant-singh-v-state-of-punjab-6868
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

'
Code of Criminal Pr_ocedw·e (Act II) 19'73-Section 354(3 )_ Scope of.
The appellant, 'B' aged 60 years, on 13-4-1974 was convicted u/s 302 I.P.C.
\
for the murder of 'M' by poisoning on that date.
On appeal by special leave
on the limited question of sentence under the new Criminal Procedure Code of
~
C
1973, the Court
D
E
F
G
H
HELD : (i) In India the Legislature in its wisdom has not thought it fit and
proper to abolish the death penalty altogether, but there has been a gradual
swing against the imposition of such penalty. [685-F]
(ii) Unc!er section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Court
is required to state the reasons for the sentence awarded and in the case oi'
sentence of death special re~ons are required to be stated.
Awarding of the
sentence other than the sentence of death is the general rule now and only
special reasons or special facts and circumstances in a given case will warrant
the passing of a death sentence like ( i) the crime having been committed
by professional or a hardened criminal (ii) crime committed in a very brutal
manner or on a helpless child or woman. [686, C, DJ
(iii) In. the instant case (a) even after noticing the provisions of_ the section
354(3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code, the High Oourt wrongly relied
on the principle of absence of exllenuating circumstance and (b). There was no
special reason nor any has been recorded by the High Court for confirming
the death sentence.
[686 F, G]
Mangal Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 76 and Perumal v. The
State of Kera/a, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 95 not applicable.

## Text

68 4
,
A
BALWANT SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
November 11, 1975
B
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J
'
Code of Criminal Pr_ocedw·e (Act II) 19'73-Section 354(3 )_ Scope of.
The appellant, 'B' aged 60 years, on 13-4-1974 was convicted u/s 302 I.P.C.
\
for the murder of 'M' by poisoning on that date.
On appeal by special leave
on the limited question of sentence under the new Criminal Procedure Code of
~
C
1973, the Court
D
E
F
G
H
HELD : (i) In India the Legislature in its wisdom has not thought it fit and
proper to abolish the death penalty altogether, but there has been a gradual
swing against the imposition of such penalty. [685-F]
(ii) Unc!er section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Court
is required to state the reasons for the sentence awarded and in the case oi'
sentence of death special re~ons are required to be stated.
Awarding of the
sentence other than the sentence of death is the general rule now and only
special reasons or special facts and circumstances in a given case will warrant
the passing of a death sentence like ( i) the crime having been committed
by professional or a hardened criminal (ii) crime committed in a very brutal
manner or on a helpless child or woman. [686, C, DJ
(iii) In. the instant case (a) even after noticing the provisions of_ the section
354(3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code, the High Oourt wrongly relied
on the principle of absence of exllenuating circumstance and (b). There was no
special reason nor any has been recorded by the High Court for confirming
the death sentence.
[686 F, G]
Mangal Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 76 and Perumal v. The
State of Kera/a, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 95 not applicable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 301
of 1975.
·
Appeal by Special Leave lrom the Judgment and Order dated the
25th April, 1975 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
in Criminal Appeal No. 132_5 of 1974 and Murder Reference No. 59
of 1974y.
S. K. Mehta, M. Qamaruddin and K. R. Nagaraja
for
the
Appellant.
0. P. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.-Balwant Singh, the sole appellant in this appeal,
was convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to
death by the Trial Court.
His conviction and sentence have
been
confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Special leave
to appeal was granted by this Court limited to the question of sentence oely. We have, therefore, to see whether on the facts of this
..
•
)-
--
BAL WANT SINGH v. PUNJAB ( Untwalia, J.)
685
case the High Court was right in confirming the death sentence imA
posed upon the l\ppellant o_r was it a case where the lesser sentence
of life imprisonment ought to have been awarded.
The appellant was aged about 60 years at the time of .the o~~ur
rence.
He was working as a Granthi of a Gurudwara m village
Salihna District Faridkot. Mohan Singh the deceased was a member
of the Managing Committee of the Gurudwara.
He made
certain
complaints against the appellant to the President of the
Managing
Committee and asked for his removal from the post of the Granlhi.
The appellant, therefore, bore a grudge against the deceased.
In the
early hours of April 13, 1974 the appellant gave Karah Parshad of
Granth Sahib to Mohan Singh mixing opium in
it.
As
soon as
Mohan Singh took the Parshad he felt sick and his heart began to
sink.
In spite of the medical aid he could not survive and died about
4 hours after the administering of the poison to him by the appellant.
On the facts found by the learned Sessions Judge and as affirmed by the High Court, the appellant was convicted under section 302
of the Penal Code.
The ques_tion for consideration is whether
the
sentence of death was rightly passed.
It may be noticed that the
occurrence took place on April 13, 1974 after coming into force of
the Criminal Procedure Cod~, 1973 on and from April l, 1974.
Provisions of Section 354(3) of the new Code, as noticed by the
High Court, governed this case.
Yet the High Court confirmed the
sentence of death relying upon two decisions of this Court which were
not concerned with the application of law engrafted in section 354(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but were given with reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 as it stood at
the relevant time.
It is well-known that in many parts of the world an agitation has
been going on against the imposition of death penalty even in murder
cases.
And in many countries or States death penalty has
been
B
c
D
E
~
abolished. In India the Legislature in its wisdom has not thought it
F
-
fit and proper to abolish the death penalty altogether but there has
been a gradual swing against the imposition of such penalty.
Under
~
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as it stood before its amendment by Act 26 of 1955, sub-section (5) of Section 367 required :
•
•
"If the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with
death, and the Court sentences him to any punishment other
G
than death, the Court shaJl in its judgment state the reason
why sentence of death was not passed :"
\
Under the provision aforesaid if an accused was convicted for
an
offence punishable with death then imposition of death sentence was
the rule and awarding of a lesser sentence was an exception and the
H
Court had to state the reasons for not passing the sentence of death.
By the Amending Act 26 of 1955 the said provision was deleted.
Thereafter it was left to the discretion of the Court, on the facts of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 2 'S.C.R.
each case, to pass the sentence of death or to award the lesser sentence.
In the context of the changed law if in a given case the passing of the death sentence was not called for or there were extenuating circumstances to justify the passing of the lesser sentence then the
lesser sentence was awarded and not the death sentence.
Section 354(3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code says:
"'When the conviction is for an offence punishable with
death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state .
the reasons for the sente1we awarded, and, in the case of
sentence of. death, the special reasons for such sentence."
Under this provision the Court is required to state the reasons for thc
sentence awarded and in the qise of sentence of death, special reasons are required to be stated. It would thus be noticed that awarding of the sentence other than the sentence of death is
the general
rule now and only special reasons, that is to say, special facts and circumstances in a given case, will warrant the passing of the
d.oath
sentence.
It is unnecessary nor is it possible to make a cataloguc
of the special reas.ons which may justify the passing of the death
sentence in a case.
But we may indicate just a few, such as, the
crime has been committed by a professional or a hardened criminal,
or it has been committed in a very brutal manner or on a helpless
child or a woman or the like.
On the facts of this case, it is true that
the appellant had a motive to commit the murder and he did it with
an intention to kill the deceased.
His conviction under section 302
of the Penal Code was justified· but the facts found were not such as
to enable the Court to say that there were special reasons for passing
the sentence of death in this case.
The High Court has referred to the two decisions of this Court
namely in Mangal Singh v. State of U.P.('1) and in Perumal v. The
State of Kerala( 2 ) and has then said "There are no extenuating circumstances in this case and the death sentence awarded to Balwant
Singh appellant by the Sessions Judge is confirmed ........ ". As
we have said above, even after noticing the provisions
of section
354(3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code the High Court committed an error in relying upon the two decisions of this Court
in
which the trials were held under the old Code. It wrongly
relied
upon the principle of absence or extenuating circumstances-a principle which was applicable after the amendment of the old Code from
January l, 1956 until the coming into force of the new Code from·
April 1, 1974. In our judgment there is ·no special reason nor any
has been recorded by the High Court for confirming the death sentence in this case.
We accordingly allow the appeal on the question
of sentence and commute the death sentence
imposed
upon
the
appellant to one for imprisonment 'for life.
S.R.
(1) A.LR. 197'i S.C. 76.
(2) A.T.R. 1975 S.C. 95.
Appeal /I/lowed, sentence modifird.
•
•