Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1456 175

CITATION	AIR 1989 SC 1456 175
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	13/04/1989
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Allauddin Mian & ors. Sharif Mian & anr.
RESPONDENT	State of Bihar
BENCH	Ahmadi, A.m. (J)

INTRODUCTION

In an illegal gathering with the goal of killing Baharan Mian, the accused numbers 1 through 6 arrived at his home carrying lethal weapons. The alleged motivation for the crime is ambiguous. specifically, the quarrel between two infants from both sides doesn’t appear to be the right answer. The killings weren’t done for money. The modification demonstrates that the goal was the father, Baharan Mian, and not the two infants. The idea of murdering the two children was not even considered by any of the defendants. Both of the girls were affected by the anger of criminals brought on by disappointment at the escape of their objective. The crime is not very unusual. so as to make the argument stand out. Without more, the number of newborn deaths does not suffice to bring a case in a rare capital punishment case.

FACTS

In an illegal gathering with the goal of killing Baharan Mian, the accused numbers 1 through 6 arrived at his home carrying lethal weapons. The murderers killed the two girls out of frustration and rage at missing their aim rather than out of any ill will or to achieve their goal. When Baharan Mian sensed peril, he fled inside to defend himself, but his wife forbade him from leaving again. Sahana Khatoon, who was around seven years old, and Chand Tara, who was around seven months old, were playing in Baharan Mian’s home’s “dalan” at the time. In an attempt to kill Baharan Mian, accused No. 1 struck Sahana Khatoon in the head, abdomen, and left thumb, seriously injuring her, while accused No. 2 struck child Chand Tara in the head.  Sahana Khatoon passed away the same day as a result of these wounds, while Chand Tara passed away 28 days later. In contrast to accused Nos. 3 to 6, who were sought to be found vicariously accountable under section 302/149 I.P.C., accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged under sections 302, 452, and 148 I.P.C. Sections 447 and 148 of the I.P.C. were added to the charges against Accused Nos. 3,4 Sections 447 and 147 were added to the charges against Accused Nos. 5 and 6.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Trial Court found Accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty on all three charges and gave them both the death penalty for committing the crime covered by Section 302 of the I.P.C. After being found guilty under sections 302/149, 447, and 148 of the I.P.C., accused nos. 3 and 4 were each sentenced to life in prison for the violation of section 302/149. Sections 302/149, 447, and 147 of the I.P.C. were utilised to condemn Accused Nos. 5 and 6. They were given a life term in jail for the offence under I.P.C. sections 302/149.

The High Court rejected the appeal of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, accepted the reference, and upheld the death penalty imposed on them for the murder of the two newborn girls. However, the conviction of the remaining four defendants under Section 302/149 was changed to Section 326/149, and the life sentence that had been handed to each of them was replaced with a sentence of hard imprisonment for seven years. However, their convictions and sentences on the remaining counts were upheld.

APPALLENT’S ARGUMENT

On behalf of the appellants, it was argued in court that: 

1. the prosecution’s evidence was unreliable; 
2. Despite the facts being proven by the courts below, accused Nos. 1 to 6 could not be found guilty of murder under section 149 of the I.P.C. because the killings of the two girls were not the common goal of the unlawful assembly; and 
3. the circumstances of the case did not support the imposition of the death penalty in the case of accused Nos. 1 and 2, 
4. Additionally, Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution were violated by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, both of which allow for the imposition of the death sentence.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

  While partially accepting the appeals by throwing aside the conviction of the accused numbers 3 to 6 under section 326/149 I.P.C. and changing the death sentence in the instance of accused nos. 1 and 2 to life imprisonment under section 302, I.P.C., the Court,

ANALYSIS

The argument that the prosecution’s evidence is untrustworthy and shouldn’t be relied upon to confirm the conviction of the accused is without merit. It cannot be argued that the prosecution was unjust to the accused people if it was discovered that certain people who were undeniably present at the site of the incident were won over after the prosecution failed to question them.

The Court must make a difficult decision between the penalty of death and life in prison under Section 302 of the I.P.C. It goes without saying that the Court must exercise extreme care and sensitivity in selecting the appropriate punishment when faced with the convict’s cries of “I want to live” and the prosecutor’s cries of “he deserves to die.”

However, as life in prison or the death penalty must be chosen in murder cases, the legislature has established guidelines in the form of subsection (3) of section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In cases when a harsh sentence is given, the judge must make clear the grounds on which he thinks a punishment of that size is appropriate.

The judge would not sentence someone to death unless there were unique circumstances, unique to the facts of the individual case, that might be categorised as necessitating a harsh punishment. 

 After, the decision of the sentence must be made observing the process outlined in Section 235, Subsection (2), of the Code. Given that the clause is meant to provide the accused with a chance to appear before the court any pertinent information pertaining to the inquiry without a shadow of a doubt that the provision is beneficial and must be adhered to religiously.

JUDGEMENT

The prosecution must show that the act that constitutes an offence was either carried out in furtherance of the common object of that assembly or is one that the members of that assembly knew was likely to be carried out in furtherance of that assembly in order to fasten vicarious responsibility on any member of an unlawful assembly. 

After determining that Allauddin and Keyambuddin Mian committed murder, the next consideration is whether to sentence them to death or life in prison. The Court is under great pressure under Section 302 of the IPC to select between the death penalty and life in prison.

The conviction of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on all charges is affirmed, but their death sentences for the murders of Shahna Khatoon and Chand Tara, respectively, have been changed to a life sentence in prison. The conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 3 through 6 under Section 326/149, 1.P.C. are overturned, while their conviction and punishment under the remaining headings is upheld. If they have already completed their sentences, their bail bonds will remain in effect; if not, they will surrender to their bail and complete the remaining portion of their terms. The appeals will be handled in accordance.

CONCLUSION

The Court must exercise extreme care and sensitivity in selecting the appropriate punishment when faced with the convict’s cries of “I want to live” and the prosecutor’s cries of “he deserves to die.”

However, as life in prison or the death penalty must be chosen in murder cases, the legislature has established guidelines. It can’t be over-stressed that the extension and idea of moderating elements in the space of capital punishment should get a liberal and far reaching development by the courts. This court found it impossible to conclude that the defendant was so dangerous that sparing his life would threaten the community.

Written by Harshika Bhutda an intern under legal vidhiya.