CASE STUDY

Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab

2013 (3) SCC 294
PART –1

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab begins with the accused
has committed murder of his wife-Veena Verma and daughter-Geetu Verma in the
background of inimical relationship between them on account of criminal cases
registered against him by his wife for committing rape on his minor daughter–Geetu
Verma, for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years, and for
attacking her after release on parole in January, 2005 for which an FIR was
registered against him.On the date of incident, i.e., 08.01.2006, at around 06:30
p.m., when Shalu Verma-the complainant, daughter of the appellant-accused was
present along with her mother-Veena Verma and sister-Geetu Verma in their house
at village Partap Singh Wala, Haibowal, Ludhiana, at that time, the appellant-
accused, who was living separately in a rented accommodation, came to the said
place carrying a Kulhara (axe) in his hand.

The complainant informed her mother about the same. When Veena Verma came to
the lobby of the house, the appellant-accused gave an axe blow on her head. She
fell on the ground and, thereafter, he gave two more blows using axe on her neck
and hand. Immediately after that, he stepped towards Geetu Verma and gave 3
repeated blows on her head. Both of them smeared with blood and died on the spot.
When he approached Shalu, she went into the room and bolted the same from
inside. The appellant-accused fled away leaving the axe at the spot.

After sometime, she came outside the room and raised hue and cry.On the basis of
1
Page

the statement of Shalu (PW-2), a First Information Report (FIR) being No. 6 was
registered against the appellant-accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short “the IPC”) at P.S. Haibowal, Ludhiana. On the same day, the
appellant-accused was arrested from his rented house and the case was committed
to the Court of Session, Ludhiana and numbered as Session Case No. 32 of
2006The Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by order dated 22.11.2007, convicted the
appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to death.

Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court and
the State filed a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for confirmation of death sentence. By a common
impugned order dated 30.05.2008, the High Court while accepting the murder
reference confirmed the death reference imposed by the trial Court and dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant-accused.Aggrieved by the said judgment, the
appellant preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

ISSUES

1.Whether the special leave appeal petition is sustainable ?

2. whether the quantum of punishment for the accused is reasonable valid or not.?

3.Whether the appellant is liable to be punished or not ?

4.Whether enough evidence and proof for making accused to get conviction is been
found or not ?.

5.Whether the witnesses were competent witnesses ?

PROVISION OF LAW

Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code

Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—Whoever

kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it
to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in
order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be
likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
2
Page

shall also be liable to fine; 1[and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as

defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion,
induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing
that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another
person shall be punishable as aforesaid].

Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code

Punishment for rape.—

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is
not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with
fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to
be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less
than seven years.

(2) Whoever,—

(a) being a police officer commits rape—

(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station
to which he is appointed; or

(iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to

him; or

(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape
on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public
servant subordinate to him; or

(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of
custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman’s
or children’s institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on
3
Page

any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his
official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or

(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or

(g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be
liable to fine: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be
mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description
for a term of less than ten years.

Explanation 1.—Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons

acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed
to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section.

Explanation 2.—“Women’s or children’s institution” means an institution, whether

called an orphanage or a home for neglected woman or children or a widows’ home
or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and
care of woman or children.

Explanation 3.—“Hospital” means the precincts of the hospital and includes the
precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during
convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.

Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code

Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal

intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death
or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to
cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with
death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or
4

with fine, or with both.

Page
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the

case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument
for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by
means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive
substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body
to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code

Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for
by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code

Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or

1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT

Mr. Tripurari Raj, learned counsel for the appellant ,learned counsel for the appellant
insisted us to go into the entire merits of the case including the circumstances relied
on by the prosecution and accepted by the Courts below, in view of the fact that this
Court has issued notice confining to sentence only. that in terms of Section 366(1) of
the Code, when the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings
shall be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless
it is confirmed by the High Court.

The scope and application of the above section is only in cases where a sentence of
5
Page

death has been passed by the Court of Session. The Court of Session should refer
the proceedings to the High Court and the High Court can only deal with them as a
Court of reference. It is the practice of the High Court to be satisfied on the facts as
well as the law of the case, that the conviction is right, before it proceeds to confirm
that sentence. In other words, the High Court has to come to its own independent
conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, independently of the opinion
of the Judge. In a reference for confirmation of death sentence, the High Court must
examine the entire evidence for itself independent of the Session Court’s views.

While confirming the capital sentence, the High Court is under an obligation to itself
consider what sentence should be imposed and not be content with the trial Court’s
decision on the point unless some reason is shown for reducing the same. Where, in
addition to an appeal filed by an accused sentenced to death, the High Court has to
dispose of the reference for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 of the
Code, the High Court, while dealing with reference, should consider the proceedings
in all its aspects and come to an independent conclusion on the material on record
apart from the views expressed by the Sessions Judge.

The confirmation of death sentence cannot be based only on the precedents and or
aggravating facts and circumstances of any other case.

ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENT

Mr. V. Madhukar, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. the
materials placed before the trial Judge as well as the confirmation order of the High
Court. In view of the limited notice and in the light of the mandates provided
under Section 366 of the Code relating to confirmation of death sentence by the High
Court, we are of the view that considering two earlier orders passed by this Court on
20.07.2009 and 16.07.2010 confining to the sentence, we intend to concentrate only
to the question, namely, acceptability or otherwise of the “sentence” hereunder.

No doubt, it is a case of double murder by the appellant-accused who murdered his

wife and daughter in a gruesome manner in the background of inimical relationship
between the family on account of criminal cases registered against the appellant-
6

accused at the instance of his deceased wife – Veena Verma and deceased
Page
daughter- Geetu Verma for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12
years’ for committing rape on his daughter-Geetu Verma.

In that case his deceased wife was a witness. It is seen that after release on parole
in January, 2005, he attacked on his wife and an FIR was registered against him for
violating the conditions of release. It is further seen that the accused committed the
offence in the presence of his youngest daughter Shalu (PW-2).

It is also proved that the appellant had entered the scene of occurrence to commit
the said offence carrying a deadly weapon i.e. ‘Kulhara’ (Axe) which was used in the
commission of both the killings. The members present in the house were his family
members, viz., wife and two daughters.

The crime of double murder of his wife and daughter in a gruesome and diabolical
manner will irrefutably be taken into consideration as aggravating circumstance.
However, for some reasons, the High Court did not find any mitigating circumstance
in favour of the accused for the purpose of balancing aggravating against mitigating.

DECISION OF COURT

The court decided that this is not a case where death penalty should be imposed.
The appellant-accused, therefore, instead of being awarded death penalty, is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, meaning thereby, the end of his
life but subject to any remission granted by the appropriate Government satisfying
the conditions prescribed in Section 432 of the Code and further substantiate check
under Section 433-A of the Code by passing appropriate speaking orders. The
appeals are disposed of on the above terms..

REASON FOR THE DECISION

“Rarest of rare” dictum, as discussed above, hints at this difference between death
punishment and the alternative punishment of life imprisonment. The relevant
question here would be to determine whether life imprisonment as a punishment
would be pointless and completely devoid of any reason in the facts and
circumstances of the case. As discussed above, life imprisonment can be said to be
completely futile, only when the sentencing aim of reformation can be said to be
7
Page

unachievable. Therefore, for satisfying the second aspect to the “rarest of rare”
doctrine, the court will have to provide clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit
for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.

Treating the case on the touchstone of the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh
,Machhi Singh and other decisions and balancing the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, we are not persuaded to
accept that the case can appropriately be called the “rarest of rare” case warranting
death penalty. The Court also find it difficult to hold that the appellant is such a
dangerous person that sparing his life will endanger the community. The court are
also not satisfied that the circumstances of the crime are such that there is no other
alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage
to the mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused. In our considered view, this
case is the one in which humanist approach must be taken in the matter of awarding
punishment.

 A conclusion as to the ‘rarest of rare’ aspect with respect to a matter shall

entail identification of aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating both
to the crime and the criminal.
 The expression ‘special reasons’ obviously means (‘exceptional reasons’)
founded on the exceptionally grave circumstances of the particular case
relating to the crime as well as the criminal.
 The decision in Ravji @ Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan – (1996) 2 SCC
175 which was subsequently followed in six other cases, namely, Shivaji @
Dadya Shankar Alhat Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2008) 15 SCC 269, Mohan
Anna Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2008) 7 SCC 561, Bantu Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh - (2008) 11 SCC 113, Surja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan -
(1996) 6 SCC 271, Dayanidhi Bisoi Vs. State of Orissa - (2003) 9 SCC 310
and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sattan @ Satyendra & Ors. - (2009) 4 SCC
736 wherein it was held that it is only characteristics relating to crime, to the
exclusion of the ones relating to criminal, which are relevant to sentencing in
criminal trial, was rendered per incuriam qua Bachan Singh (supra) in the
decision reported in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar
 Public opinion is difficult to fit in the ‘rarest of rare’ matrix. People’s perception
8
Page

of crime is neither an objective circumstance relating to crime nor to the

 criminal. Perception of public is extraneous to conviction as also sentencing,
at least in capital sentencing according to the mandate of Bachan Singh
 Capital sentencing is one such field where the safeguards continuously take
strength from the Constitution.
 The Apex Court as the final reviewing authority has a far more serious and
intensive duty to discharge and the Court not only has to ensure that award of
death penalty does not become a perfunctory exercise of discretion
under Section 302 after an ostensible consideration of ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine,
but also that the decision-making process survives the special rigours of
procedural justice applicable in this regard.
 The ‘rarest of rare’ case comes when a convict would be a menace and threat
to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be
heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of “the rarest of the rare
case”. There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be
reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of
violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society
 Life sentence is the rule and the death penalty is the exception. The condition
of providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not to be construed
linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting
and making award of death penalty unquestionable.
 The circumstances and the manner of committing the crime should be such
that it pricks the judicial conscience of the Court to the extent that the only and
inevitable conclusion should be awarding of death penalty.
 When the case falls under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ case penalty of
death is clearly called for and any leniency shown in the matter of sentence
would not only be misplaced but will certainly give rise to and foster a feeling
of private revenge among the people leading to destabilization of the society.
 Death penalty has been held to be constitutionally valid. The test is what case
would attract death penalty if not the case of the appellant.
9
Page
 PART 2

CRITICAL COMMENT

In the instant case, the Trial Court and the Supreme Court have elaborately
examined the grievances raised by the appellant regarding the preview of “|rarest
among the rarest”.

It is well settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception.
The application of the “rarest of rare” case principle is dependant upon and differs
from case to case. However, the principles laid down and reiterated in various
decisions of this Court show that in a deliberately planned crime, executed
meticulously in a diabolic manner, exhibiting inhuman conduct in a ghastly manner,
touching the conscience of everyone and thereby disturbing the moral fiber of the
society, would call for imposition of capital punishment in order to ensure that it acts
as a deterrent. While the Court are convinced that the case of the prosecution based
on the evidence adduced confirms the commission of offence by the appellant,
however, The Court are of the considered opinion that still the case does not fall
within the four corners of the “rarest of rare” case.

Life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years or

even 30 years, rather it always means the whole natural life. This Court has always
clarified that the punishment of a fixed term of imprisonment so awarded would be
subject to any order passed in exercise of clemency powers of the President of India
or the Governor of the State, as the case may be. Pardons, reprieves and remissions
under Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution of India are granted in exercise of
prerogative power. As observed in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar, (2012)
8 SCC 537, there is no scope of judicial review of such orders except on very limited
10

grounds such as the non-application of mind while passing the order, non-
Page

consideration of relevant material, or if the order suffers from arbitrariness. The

power to grant pardons and to commute sentences is coupled with a duty to exercise
the same fairly, reasonably and in terms of restrictions imposed in several
provisions of the Code.

In order to check all arbitrary remissions, the Code itself provides several conditions.
Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 432 of the Code lay down basic procedure for
making an application to the appropriate Government for suspension or remission of
sentence either by the convict or someone on his behalf. The Court are of the view
that exercise of power by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1)
of Section 432 of the Code cannot be suo motu for the simple reason that this is only
an enabling provision and the same would be possible subject to fulfillment of certain
conditions. Those conditions are mentioned either in the Jail Manual or in statutory
rules.

India being a democratic country which guarantees Human Rights to its citizens, the
debate on capital punishment gathered much heat in present time. While the
awarder of death sentence in Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab Supreme Court (SC)
held that capital punishment must be sentenced in brutal murder case or in most
heinous crimes where doctrine of rarest of rare case apply, but in a country which
use to advocate human rights how can it award capital punishment as it is violation
of basic human rights. To support or abolish capital punishment many debates were
happening over the world between jurist, lawyers, administrators, social activist, law
commission and legal reformers .

In India death penalty used as an effective weapon to end heinous crimes against
society. According to deterrent affect of capital punishment the fear of being awarded
with death punishment which keeps an offender away from criminality. In
International Scenario of United Nation (UN) Assembly stated that there is a need of
fair justice in capital punishment all over the world. Procedure which must be
followed should be fair, just and reasonable (UN Charter, 1948)7 .

For example United Nation Economic and Social Council (UNESC) in its resolution
no.15 of 1996 encouraged its member to abolish capital punishment and recommend
those countries that use to provide capital punishment had a speedy and fair trial to
11

accuse (UNESC, 1996)8 . Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Page
provides that no person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution provides right to life and personal liberty to the
citizen of India also stated that every citizen of the country has right to live and not to
die. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19669
provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. India is a member of the United Nations. On the basis of
the appeal made by the United Nations, 120 countries have abolished this
punishment and a few of them stopped the practice of continuing the execution, but
we are in the company of a minority.

There are 73 countries in the world which are still continuing capital punishment in
the statute book and India is also one among them, though it does not provide death
penalty only in rarest of rare cases. The concept of capital punishment is an ancient
one which uses to found in almost all cultures of society. Capital punishment in
ancient time use to be providing on normal mistakes against society. In the
beginning of human civilization human being fought with each other for food, sex etc
because of which they provide harm to humanity through eye for an eye, tooth for a
tooth or blood for blood was the common practice which is very ancient
understanding of law.

Gradually, the world changed with the thinking and customs of the society. In
England death sentence awarded to a servant if he or she stolen a petty thing.
Legislature has enacted many laws also number of types of punishment so that from
the fear of punishment one does not commit crime. The most savoir punishment use
to award is Capital Punishment. After many judgments India does not abolish death
penalty but the jurist brought a slight change in the concept of death penalty, they
use to award death sentence in a case where doctrine of rarest of rare exist.

The Court in various decisions has held that the power of remission cannot be
exercised arbitrarily. In other words, the decision to grant remission has to be well
informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned. The statutory procedure laid down
in Section 432 of the Code itself provides this check on the possible misuse of power
12

by the appropriate Government. As rightly observed by this Court in Sangeet and

Page

Anr. vs. State of Haryana, 2012 (11) Scale 140, there is misconception that a
prisoner serving life sentence has an indefeasible right to release on completion of
either 14 years or 20 years imprisonment. A convict undergoing life imprisonment is
expected to remain in custody till the end of his life, subject to any remission granted
by the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the Code which in turn is
subject to the procedural checks mentioned in the said provision and further
substantive check in Section 433-A of the Code.

One significant factor in this case, which the Court should not loose sight of is that
he did not harm his other daughter, namely, Shallu (PW-2) even though he had a
good chance for the same.

Further, it was highlighted that he being a poor man and unable to earn his livelihood
since he was driven out of his house by his deceased wife. It is also his claim that if
he was allowed to live in the house, he could easily meet both his ends and means,
as the money which he was spending by paying rent would have been saved. It is
his further grievance that his deceased wife was adamant and he should live outside
and should not lead a happy married life and that was the reason that their relations
were strained. This also shows that the accused was feeling frustrated because of
the attitude of his wife and children. Moreover, the probability of the offender’s
rehabilitation and reformation is not foreclosed in this case.

There is no statutory definition of rarest of rare. In a criminal trial, the nature and
gravity of the crime are taken into consideration for determining a suitable
punishment. The Court shall be deemed to have failed in discharging its duty if
proportionate punishment has not been awarded for those crimes which are
committed not only against one particular individual but can be said to have been
committed against the society at large. Therefore, weight age is given to the atrocity
and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime
warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the society’s cry for justice
against the criminal.That is to say, the existence of such extraordinary grounds
under which the Court has no other resort than to effect a capital punishment for the
survival of the State as well as society.

The principle of ‘rarest of rare’ can be divided into parts:-

13
Page

Aggravating circumstances
Mitigating circumstances

The difference between the two is that in case of aggravating circumstances, the
Judge may on his will impose death sentence but for mitigating circumstances, the
Bench shall not award death penalty under rarest of rare cases. The Judicature of
India is under an obligation to strike a balance between aggravating and mitigating
circumstances on one hand and cry of the society on the other.

The rarest to rare doctrine can be criticised on several points. One such ground is
‘ambiguity in the application of the doctrine’. Here uncertainty implies death penalty
given in one case as against the other wherein both the cases have identical
facts. Bharu Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Amruta v. State of Maharashtra are the
classic examples of such ambiguity. In both of these cases, the accused suspected
the fidelity of his wife and killed her. However, in the former case, the accused was
given capital punishment while in the latter case the Court refused to hold it as a
‘rarest of rare’ case.

Another set of example is Dhanajoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal , Kumudi Lai
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Maharashtra v. Suresh. Both of them involved
rape and murder of a teenage girl yet the Apex Court pronounced different verdicts.
Dhanajoy Chatterjee was sentenced to death. The Court in Kumudi Lal case did not
confer the death penalty on the accused for the rape and murder of 14-year-old girl.
The third case is about the rape and murder of a 4-year-old girl yet the offender
escaped death.

In the horrifying case of Santosh Kumar Singh v Union Territory of Delhi (Mattoo
Murder case), though Santosh Kumar Singh was convicted of raping the victim and
breaking every bone in her body his behaviour was still not considered savage
enough to label the case “rarest of rare”.Similarly, in the celebrated tandoor murder
case, the apex court step back from conferring death sentence on the ground that it
Sushil Sharma’s jealousy that led him to murder his wife Naina Sahni (reports
referred to her suspected affair with Congressman Matloob Karim) does not deserve
the death penalty.
14

There appears no valid justification for making such a farfetched distinction between
Page

life and death between similar sets of facts. The two cases of Om Prakash v State of
Haryana and Shiv Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh. In the former case, the accused
who was working in BSF was acquitted where 7 persons were murdered in order to
wreak vengeance over a plot of land whereas in the latter case death sentence was
awarded for the murder of five persons including a 10-year-old boy. Thus, one can
visualise that there may be situations where a miscarriage of justice might take place
in some cases under similar circumstances.

In recent times what gain more priority is what type of cases should be labelled as
rarest of rare. The judgment also blatantly exposes the deep-rooted patriarchy. On
analysing theabove-stated decisions, it can be concluded that rarest of rare doctrine
has become ‘judge-centric’. It’s time to redefine ‘rarest of rare’.

Likewise, The Court can see from the affidavit filed by the sister of the accused that
his family has not totally renounced as yet. This is also clear that pending the above
appeals, the appellant-accused, through his sister – Pramjit Kaur, filed an application
for modification of earlier orders of this Court dated 20.07.2009 and 16.07.2010 for
widening the scope of the appeals and sought permission to raise all available
grounds. For this application, only his sister – Pramjit Kaur has filed an affidavit
strengthening the above points. As mentioned above, the affidavit of his sister shows
that his family has not totally renounced him. Hence, there is a possibility for
reformation in the present appellant. Keeping in mind all these materials, The Court
do not think that the present case warrants the award of the death penalty.

15
Page