Scribd
Upload
18 views9 pages

Harbans singh V UP

In the case of Harban Singh v. State of U.P., the petitioner and two others were convicted of murder, with differing sentences despite equal culpability. The Supreme Court recognized the injustice in the disparate punishments and recommended that the President of India commute Harban Singh's death sentence to life imprisonment. The court's decision was influenced by the previous rejection of Harban's mercy petition and the need for equitable treatment among the co-accused.

Uploaded by

shrushti792
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views9 pages

Harbans singh V UP

In the case of Harban Singh v. State of U.P., the petitioner and two others were convicted of murder, with differing sentences despite equal culpability. The Supreme Court recognized the injustice in the disparate punishments and recommended that the President of India commute Harban Singh's death sentence to life imprisonment. The court's decision was influenced by the previous rejection of Harban's mercy petition and the need for equitable treatment among the co-accused.

Uploaded by

shrushti792
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

CASE LAW

AIR 1982 SC 849

HARBAN SINGH V
STATE OF U.P
BY :
AKSHAT KAUSHIK
PAYEL SINGH
TARU BHATIA
Harban singh V State of U.P

1 2 3
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
STATEMENT
OF ISSUES
STATEMENT OF
JUDGEMENT

We will go through this one by one.


1 Statement of facts
Statement of Facts
• The petitioner Harbanas and three other persons, Mohinder Singh, Kashmira Singh and Jeeta Singh were
involved in the murder of Jindi Singh, Surjeet Singh, Bira Singh and Gurmeet Singh. Mohinder Singh died in an
"encounter" with the police. The petitioner and the other two accused, Kashmira Singh and Jeeta Singh, were
committed to stand their trial for the murder of the aforesaid four persons. By a judgment dated May 1, 1975 the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, U.P convicted all of them for the murder of Jindi Singh, Surjeet

• Singh and Bira Singh and sentenced them to death. On October 20, 1975 the High Court of Allahabad affirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 1975

• Jeeta Singh filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in April 1976 and he
resigned to his fate. He did not file any review, writ or mercy petition. He was hanged on october 6 since there
was no stay on his execution. Kashmira Singh filed another SLP, and that was allowed. Two years later, in April
1977, a bench of Justices P.N. Bhagwati and Fazal Ali commuted Kashmira's sentence into life imprisonment

• Harbans Singh also filed an SLP, but that was dismissed by Justices Sarkaria and Shinghal in October 1978. His
review petition too was dismissed in May 1980. His petition to the President for commutation of sentence was
dismissed in August 1981, and his execution was fixed for October 6, 1981. He promptly filed another petition in
the Supreme Court, and the court stayed the execution.

• Jeeta Singh, who had tried only one SLP which had been rejected, had resigned to his fate. He did not file any
review, writ or mercy petition. He was hanged on October 6, since there was no stay on his execution
2 Statement of Issues
Whether rejecting the petition was fair and just for Harbans singh ?
WAS IT FAIR TO HARBANS SINGH ?

All of them had done same crime and


got different punishment for the same ?
3 STATEMENT OF JUDGEMENT
THE JUDGEMENT
The court realised, to its shock, the gross injustice that had been done, though inadvertently. All
three had been equal parties to the crime and equally guilty, but one was hanged, one got his
punishment reduced to life imprisonment, and one got a stay on his execution. “It is unfortunate
that Jeeta Singh could not get the benefit of the commutation of Kashmira Singh's sentence,”
observed the bench of Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, D.A. Desai and A.N. Sen.

The court could commute Harbans' sentence also to life, but it didn't. Instead, “in the interest of
comity between the powers of this court and the powers of the President of India,” the judges
respectfully recommended to the President that he “may be so good as to exercise his power
under Article 72 of the Constitution to commute the death sentence imposed upon the
petitioner into imprisonment for life.” They did “so because the President of India has already
considered the mercy petition of the petitioner once and has rejected it. We, therefore,
recommend that for reasons aforesaid, which could not have been before the President of India
when he rejected the mercy petition, he may commute the death sentence imposed upon the
petitioner.

You might also like