Submitted for the internal assessment for the course of

B.A. LL.B., (Hons.) – Fourth Semester

Academic Year: 2022-23

Subject: Legal Methods

Topic: Jagmohan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Course Faculty: Submitted By:

Dr. Rabindra Pathak Udit Bajpai
Assistant Professor Section - B
Law Roll No.- 1206
1
Page
Case Details
Case Name: Jagmohan Singh V. The State of U.P.1

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1971

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon’ble Justice S.M. Sikri, C.J

Hon’ble Justice D.G. Palekar

Hon’ble Justice I.D. Dua

Hon’ble Justice M. Hameedullah Beg

Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray, JJ

Decided on: 03/10/1972

Relevant Act and Sections: Criminal – murder – Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 367 (5) of Criminal Procedure Code.

2
Page

1
Jagmohan Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 1 MLJ (Crl) 554
Facts

About six or seven years before the present offense, one Shivraj Singh, the father of the
appellant's cousin Jagbir Singh, was killed. The deceased Chhotey Singh was charged with that
murder, but the High Court eventually acquitted him.

There was ill feeling between Chhotey Singh and the appellant and Jagbir Singh as a
consequence of that murder. Chhotey Singh was murdered at around 5.00 p.m. on September
10, 1969. There was a quarrel a day earlier between Jagmohan and Jagbir, on one side, and
Chhotey, on the other.

However, the next day, the appellant, armed with a pistol, and Jagbir Singh, armed with a lathi,
hid themselves in a bajra field and emerged from the same field as Chhotey Singh passed by to
go to his field to get fodder. Chhotey Singh was asked by the appellant to stop so that the matter
between them could be settled once and for all. Of course, Chhotey Singh tried to run away,
but the appellant pursued him and shot him in the back. Upon running some distance, Chhotey
Singh fell down and died. That is how he committed the murder.

The learned Sessions Judge ruled on the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant
deserved the extreme penalty. While confirming the death sentence, the High Court noted that
there were no extenuating circumstances and that the death sentence awarded to the appellant
was just and correct.

The appellant's counsel challenged the fact that the death penalty was unconstitutional in
relation to Articles 14, 19 and 21.

The appeal was, therefore, made.

3
Page
Issue Before the Court

Whether or not the court should interfere with the punishment imposed by the High Court?

Judgement

The Court took into consideration the procedural safeguards provided by the statute when
dealing with the question of reasonableness. First, an accused, accused of murder is brought
before a magistrate who commits him to the Court of Sessions for trial upon examination of
the evidence. The accused knows what the evidence against him is at this stage. The trial shall
be conducted before a judge of the Sessions or a judge of the Additional Sessions with
substantial experience in the proceedings of criminal cases. If, after trial, the Sessions Judge
concludes that the accused is guilty of murder and deserves to be sentenced to death, he is
required to submit the proceedings before him to the High Court under Section 374 of the
CRPC and it is the High Court that must review all the evidence and consider whether the
sentence of death passed by the Sessions Judge should be upheld.

If the sentence of death is confirmed, the accused may appeal to the Supreme Court on special
leave, where appropriate. Therefore, it will be seen that there are built-in procedural protections
against any hasty decision.

The Court held that, as far as all crimes, including the crime of murder, are concerned, the
policy of criminal law is to fix the maximum penalty-the same being intended for the worst
cases, leaving the Judge with a very broad discretion in the matter of punishment.

The Court further observed that the fact that the law gives the Judge very broad discretion in
the matter of punishment stems from the impossibility of establishing standards.
4
Page
Finally, in this respect, the Court concluded that, in the final analysis, the exercise of judicial
discretion on well-recognized principles was the safest possible safeguard for the accused.

If that is done according to the procedure established by law, deprivation of life is

constitutionally permissible. It will be very difficult to hold that the capital sentence is
unreasonable or not in the public interest in the face of these indications of constitutional
postulates.

The Court observed that if the law gave the Judge a broad discretion to exercise in the matter
of sentence to be exercised by him after balancing all the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances of the crime, it would be impossible to state that there would be any
discrimination whatsoever, since the facts and circumstances of one case could hardly be the
same as those of another.

As a consequence, the appeal failed and was rejected.

Critical Analysis

It was pointed out in Budhan Choudhry and Ors. V. Bihar State2, by this court that Article 14
can hardly be relied upon in matters of judicial discretion.

A judicial decision must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular
case, and what may appear superficially to be an unequal application of the law may not
necessarily constitute a denial of equal protection unless an element of intentional and
deliberate discrimination is demonstrated to be present in it. Furthermore, the discretion of
judicial officers is not arbitrary and the law provides that orders issued by subordinate courts
should be reviewed by superior courts. There is hardly any ground for the apprehension of any
capricious discrimination by judicial tribunals in such circumstances.

Crime as a crime may appear to be superficially the same, but the facts and circumstances of a
crime differ widely, and since the court's decision on punishment depends on a consideration
of all the facts and circumstances, there is hardly any ground for appeal under Article 14.
5
Page

2
BUDHAN CHOUDHRY AND OTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR LNIND 1954 SC 166
In the Committing Court itself, the defendant who is charged with murder knows that he is
responsible for being sentenced to death. He's aware of what the evidence is. He further knows
that if he is found guilty of murder after trial in the Sessions Court, he is liable to be sentenced
to the extreme penalty. The court is primarily concerned with all the facts and circumstances
in so far as they are relevant to the crime and how it was committed, and because he is
responsible for being convicted at the end of the trial, all the facts and circumstances relating
to the crime are legitimately brought to the court's notice.

He has the right to examine himself as a witness, and to give evidence of the material facts
thereafter. Again, he and his counsel are free to address the court not only on the issue of guilt,
but also on the issue of punishment. The court always gives the accused an opportunity to
address the court on the question of sentence in important cases such as murder. The court has
to pronounce the sentence according to the law under the Criminal Procedure Code after
convicting the accused.

Where counsel addresses the court with regard to the character and status of the accused, the
court shall duly consider them unless there is something in the evidence itself that challenges
the facts of him or the Public Prosecutor for the State.

There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code which prevents additional evidence from
being taken if the matter is relevant and essential to be considered. Until all the relevant facts
are proven, the trial does not come to an end and the counsel on both sides has an opportunity
to address the court.

Conclusion

These provisions are part of the procedure laid down by law and must, unless it is established
that they are invalid for any other reason, be considered to be valid. There are no grounds for
demonstrating that they are constitutionally invalid and, therefore, the death sentence imposed
after trial is not unconstitutional pursuant to Article 21, in accordance with the procedure
established by law.
6
Page