{"id":113373,"date":"1996-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996"},"modified":"2016-01-15T08:35:34","modified_gmt":"2016-01-15T03:05:34","slug":"major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 2000, \t\t JT 1996 (5)\t 39<\/div>\n
Author: M M.K.<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukherjee M.K. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAJOR R.S. BUDHWAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\nANAND, A.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 2000\t\t  JT 1996 (5)\t 39\n 1996 SCALE  (4)269\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t  W I T H
\n\t      CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 625 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
       (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2126 of (1994)
\nMahavir Singh
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
Union of India
\n\t\t\t  W I T H
\n\t      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 626 OF 1996
\n\t(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2138 of 1994)
\nInder Pal Singh
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
Union of India
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nM.K. MUKHERJEE. J.\n<\/p>\n
     The above\tappeal and  the two  Special Leave Petitions
\nwere directed to be heard together as they relate to one and
\nthe same  incident but\thaving to  the facts  regard to\t the
\nfacts that  over that incident two separate trials were held
\nby General  Court Martial  (GCM’ for short), assailing their
\nverdicts two  independent writ\tpetitions were filed and the
\nDelhi High  Court dismissed  them by two separate judgments,
\nwhich are  under challenge  herein, we\thave heard  them one
\nafter the other and proceed to dispose of them accordingly.
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1194 OF 1195
\n“Army Act\t COMMITTING A  CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY
\nSection 69    ABETMENT OF AN  OFFENCE SPECIFIED IN   SECTION
\n\t      302 OF  INDIAN  PENAL CODE, IN  CONSEQUENCE OF
\n\t      WHICH  ABETMENT  SUCH  OFFENCE WITH COMMITTED,
\n\t      CONTRARY\tTO  SECTION 109 READ WITH SECTION 34
\n\t      OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.\n<\/p>\n
\t      in  that\tthey  together,\t at   Field,  on  or
\n\t      before   14  June, 1987, abetted\tNo. 3173368H
\n\t      Sep  (L\/nk) Inder Pal Singh and No. 3174523 L.
\n\t      Sep  Mahavir Singh,  both\t of  8 JAT to commit
\n\t      murders of IC 14807N  Colonel SS Sahota and IC
\n\t      28739H  Major  Jaspal  Singh of the same unit,
\n\t      which  was  committed  in\t consequence of such
\n\t      abetment\tby  the\t said Sep (L\/NK)  Inder\t Pal
\n\t      Singh and Sep. Mahavir Singh.”\n<\/p>\n
     The GCM  found the\t appellant and\tone of the other two
\n(since dead)  guilty of\t the above  charge and\tawarded them
\npunishment  of\t imprisonment  for   life  and\t cashiering.
\nAggrieved thereby  the appellant  presented a petition under
\nSection 164  (1) of  the Army  Act, 1950  (‘Act’ for  short)
\nwherein he  prayed that\t the findings and sentences recorded
\nagainst him  be not  confirmed. The GOC-in-C Eastern Command
\nhowever rejected  that petition\t and confirmed\tthe findings
\nand sentences  of the GCM. He then filed another petition in
\naccordance with\t Section  164  (2)  of\tthe  Act  which\t was
\nrejected by  the  Central  Government.\tThe  appellant\tthen
\napproached the\tDelhi  High  Court  with  a  petition  under
\nArticle 226  of the  Constitution of  India which  was\talso
\ndismissed. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Lalit,  the  learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellant, first  contended that  there being not an iota of
\nevidence in  the proceedings  of the  G.C.M.to indicate that
\nL\/NK Inder Pal Singh and Sep. Mahavir Singh (the petitioners
\nin the two special leave petitions) committed the murders of
\nthe two\t officers mentioned  in the  charge the\t High  Court
\nought to  have held  that the  findings\t of  the  G.C.M.  as
\nrecorded against  the appellant were perverse. While on this
\npoint, Mr.  Lalit however fairly conceded that having regard
\nto the\tlimited scope  of enquiry  the High  Court exercises
\nwhile sitting in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction it was
\ndifficult for  him to  assail the  finding  rcorded  by\t the
\nG.C.M. that  the appellant  had\t instigated  the  above\t two
\npersons to  commit the\tmurders on  the ground\tthat it\t was
\nbased on  ‘no evidence’,  but he strenuously urged that mere
\nproof of  the said  fact could\tnot in\tany way\t saddle\t the
\nappellant with\tthe offence of abetment of the commission of
\nthe murders,  in absence of any evidence whatsoever to prove
\nthat they  actually committed  the murders, and, that too on
\nbeing instigated  by the appellant. The other point that was
\nraised by  Mr. Lalit  was that\teven if\t it was assumed that
\nthere was  some evidence  to connect  the appellant with the
\noffence alleged\t against him as furnished by Inder Pal Singh
\nand Mahabir  Singh, even  then the GCM, which functions as a
\njudicial Tribunal,  ought not  to have relied upon ths same,
\nin absence of any independent corroboration thereof, as such
\nevidence was  adduced by the two assailants mentioned in the
\ncharge, who were undoubtedly accomnplices.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Goswami,   learned  cuunsel\tappearing  for\t the
\nrespondents on the other hand contended that ib could not be
\nsaid that  there was  no evidence  to cnnnect  the appellant
\nwith the  charge leveiled  against him\tand, therefore, this
\nCourt  would  nut  be  justified  in  interfering  with\t the
\nfindings of  the G.C.H.even  if it,  on its,  own appraisal,
\nfound the  evidence to\tbe insufficient\t or  unreliable.  In
\nresponding to the other contention of Mr. Lalit, Mr. Goswami
\nfirst drew  our attention  to Section  133 ot  the Act which
\nmakes,\tsubject\t  to  its  provisions,\tEvidence  Act,\t1872
\napplicable to  a]l proceedings\tbefore a  Court Martial\t and
\ncontended that\tin view\t of section  133  thereof  (Evidence
\nAct), a\t conviction based on the uncorrcborated testimony of
\nan accomplice  could not be held to be illegai. However, Mr.
\nGoswami submitted  that in  the instant case there was ampie
\nmaterial to corroborate the evidence of the accomplices.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  context of\t the rival stands of the parties the
\ncrucial point  that falls  for our  consideratinn is whether
\nthere is  any evidence\tto prove  that Inder  Pal Singh\t and
\nMahavir Singh committed the murders of Col. S.S. Sahola, the
\nCommanding Officer and major Jaspal Singh, Second-in-Command
\nof 8,  JAT Unit\t (hereinafter referred\tto as ‘CO’ and ‘2IC’
\nrespectively)  on   June  16,\t1987  as   alleged  by\t the
\nprosecution. If\t this question\tis to  be  answered  in\t the
\nnegative, then the fact that there is evidence to prove that
\nthe appellant  had instigated  them to\tcommit the  murder –
\nwhich is  conceded by  Mr. Lalit  also – would be redundant;
\nand, resultantly,  the impugned\t order of  the G.C.M.  would
\nhave to\t be quashed. To find an answer to the above question
\nwe have\t carefully gone\t through the evidence adduced during
\nthe G.C.M.  proceedings.  On  perusal  of  the\tevidence  of
\nMahavir Singh  (PW 10 ) and Inder Pal Singh (PW 16), the two
\naccomplices,  who,   admittedly\t were\tthe  most  important
\nwitnesses for the prosecution, we find that they first spoke
\nof the\torders they  had earlier received from the appellant
\nand others  to commit  the two\tmurders.  In  narrating\t the
\nincident of  the fateful day, both of them stated that at or
\nabout 12  noon they  went towards  the office  of CO and 2IC
\nwith  arms  and\t ammunitions.  After  moving  some  distance
\ntogether, Mahavir  Singh went  towards the  office of CO and
\nInder Pal  Singh towards  that of  2IC. According to Mahavir
\nSingh, enroute\the met\tL\/NK Ranbir  Singh (PW 21) who asked
\nhim why\t he had\t come there.  Mahavir Singh  then fired\t one
\nround towards him, who immediately caught hold of the muzzle
\nof his\t(Mahavir’s) rifle. Mahavir Singh next stated what at
\nthat point of time, rapid fire came from the drill shed side
\ntowards\t the   CO’s  jonga   which   was   standing   there.
\nSimultaneously, he  (Mahavir Singh)  fired one\tround  which
\ninjured Ranbir’s hand and he fell down. The version of Inder
\nPal Singh  (PW 16)  as regards\tthe firing  is that  when he
\nreached the  office of\tthe 21C\t he found  that he  was\t not
\nthere. He  then went  towards the office of the Adjutant. On
\nthe way\t he heard  sounds of  firing. When  he\treached\t the
\noffice of  Adjutant he\tcould not see clearly as to who were
\ninside as  the room  was dark  and windows were covered with
\ncurtains. Through the window he saw a Captain sitting inside
\nand talking  to some  one, who\tmight be  2IC. He then fired
\nseveral rounds\tin the\tair. In\t the meantime  Mahavir Singh
\ncame there  and told  him to run away. Then both of them ran
\ntowards the jungle.\n<\/p>\n
     Drawing our  attention to\tthe above  statements of the
\ntwo accomplices,  Mr. Lalit  argued that  as neither of them
\nadmitted to  have committed the murders it must be said that
\nthe finding  of the  G.C.M. That the appellant was guilty of
\nthe charge  levelled against  him was perverse – being based
\non ‘no\tevidence’. We are unable to accept the contention of
\nMr. Lalit  for,\t later\ton  in\this  evidence  P.W.10  fully
\nsupported the charge levelled against the appellant – though
\nPW 16  did not\t– and there is other circumstantial evidence
\non record to substantiate the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
     On being examined further during crial PW 10 testified:
\n     “It is  correct  that  I  alongwith
\n     L\/NK Inder Pal Singh had killed the
\n     CO and 2IC on the orders of accused
\n     No. 1 (the appellant).”\n<\/p>\n
He further stated:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is  correct that  accused  No.1
\n     appellant) had  asked me a question
\n     as to with what aim I was trying to
\n     implicate him  in this  case and  I
\n     had replied  that I  was not trying
\n     to implicate him in any case and he
\n     had  given\t  a  task  which  I  had
\n     aacomplished.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Then again  when asked\tabout what he knew about the loss of
\ngrenades of  the Unit  he said\tthe grenades  were stolen to
\nkill CO\t and 2IC.  He also  stated that\t he has already been
\nsentenced to  be hanged for committing the murders of CO and
\n2IC for\t obeying the  orders of Major Sahib (the appellant).
\nAgain in  cross-examination he testified that his job was to
\neliminate CO and 2IC. The other piece of his evidence, which
\nclearly indicates  that he  had committed the murders on the
\ninstigation of the appellant, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     On 18  June 87,  after 1600  hrs. I
\n     and L\/NK  Inder Pal  surrendered to
\n     Hav Nav  Rattan  of  my  unit  near
\n     Kambang  Bridge.\tWe   have   also
\n     surrendered our  arms  to\thim.  We
\n     were made to sit in a 1 Ton vehicle
\n     of our  unit. After  some time  one
\n     capt.  of\t16  Madras  alongwith  a
\n     guard of  3-4 OR  came to the 1 Ton
\n     vehicle. 2\t or 3  OR sat with us in
\n     the vehicle.  The\tguard  Commander
\n     remained outside  the vehicle.  The
\n     first officer  of my  unit to  come
\n     the  site\t of  surrender\twas  Maj
\n     Lamba. He\thad come in a RCL and it
\n     was parked\t ahead of 1 Ton vehicle.
\n     He wished\thim Ram\t Ram  while  his
\n     vehicle crossed  1 Ton  vehicle. He
\n     replied by\t saluting  but\tdid  not
\n     speak anything. After about half an
\n     hour of our surrender, accused No.1
\n     came to us to the 1 Ton vehicle. He
\n     was  looking  as  if  he  had  come
\n     running and he was perspiring. When
\n     he came  close to us, we wished him
\n     Ram Ram.  He came\tfurther close to
\n     us and  patted me\ton my  back  and
\n     said Shabash  Kam Kar Diya, Chettri
\n     Sahib  or\tDoctor\tSahib  Ko  Kiyon
\n     Rager Diya”  meaning  thereby,”well
\n     done, the\tjob has\t been done,  why
\n     Chettri  Sahib   and  Doctor  Sahib
\n     killed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view  of the  above testimony of P.W.10 it cannot at
\nall be\tsaid that  he did  not support\tthe charge  levelled
\nagainst the appellant. It is of course true that PW 10 is an
\naccomplice but\tfrom the  proceedings of  the trial  we find
\nthat the  Judge-Advocate in  his  closing  address  properly
\nexplained to  the GCM  the  value  of  the  evidence  of  an
\naccomplice with\t reference to  Section 133  and Section\t 114
\n(Illustration b)  of the  Evidence Act.\t If inspite  of such
\nexplanation the\t GCM found the appellant guilty it could not
\nbe said\t that its  finding was\tperverse.  This\t apart,\t the
\nfollowing circumstances proved through other witnesses amply
\ncorroborate the evidence of P.W. 10:\n<\/p>\n
i) on  16 June,\t 1987 both Inder Pal Singh and Mahavir Singh
\nwere found  going towards  the\tmain  office  building\twith
\nrifles and  some rounds\t of ammunitions. While Mahavir Singh
\nwent towards  the office  of the  CO, Inder  Pal Singh\twent
\ntowards the office of the 2IC:\n<\/p>\n
ii) Near  CO’s office  when NK Ranbir (PW 21) caught hold of
\nthe muzzle  of the  rifle of Mahavir Singh he fired or round
\nas a  result of which Ranbir sustained an injury on his hand
\nand fell  down unconscious.  After regaining his senses when
\nhe went\t to the\t office of  the CO he found him lying on the
\nground near his revolving chair gasping for breeth;\n<\/p>\n
iii) After  the firing\tincident Mahavir Singh and Inder Pal
\nSingh together\tran away towards the jungle along with their
\narms and ammunition;\n<\/p>\n
iv) Both  of them  surrendered on  June 18,  1987 with their
\nrifles\tand  ammunitions  which\t were  seized  and  sent  to
\nForensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta for examination;\n<\/p>\n
v) On  examination it  was found  that ten  cartridges cases
\nwere fired through one of those rifles bearing Regd. No 9744
\nwhich was issued to Inder Pal Singh and two cases were fired
\nthrough the  other rifle,  bearing. Regd  No.7343 which\t was
\nissued to Mahavir Singh, in the morning of June 16, 1987:\n<\/p>\n
vi) While  sitting in  the office of Adjutant, Major Chandal
\n(CW 1)\tsaw through  the window\t Ranbir\t Singh\tholding\t the
\nmuzzle of  a rifle.  At that  moment he heard another bullet
\nbeing fired  from the  side of his back. He than ducked down
\non the table with face downward and saw, through the window,
\nInder Pal  Singh firing\t about 10  to 15  rounds. After\t the
\nfiring had  stopped when he came out of the office of the CO
\nhe found  him lying in a reclining position against the wall
\nand he was badly injured and gasping for breath; and\n<\/p>\n
 vii)  Dr. Senewal, (PW 15) who held post mortem examination
\non the\tdead bodies  of CO  and 2IC  found injuries on their
\npersons which,\tin his\topinion, were  caused by bullets and
\nresulted in their deaths.\n<\/p>\n
     When the  above circumstantial  evidene  is  considered
\nalong  with   the  evidence  of\t P.W.10\t the  conclusion  is
\nirresistable that  it is not a case of ‘no evidence’ but one
\nof ‘sufficient evidence . The findings of the GCM not having
\nbeen  assailed\tin  any\t other\tcourt,\tthe  conviction\t and
\nsentence of the appellant is well merited. We therefore hold
\nthat there  is no  merit in  this appeal.  It is accordingly
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL\t NO …….OF  1996 OUT OF SLP (CRL .NO.2126
\nOF 1994)  AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…..OF 1994 (ARISING OUT OF
\nS.L.P.(CRL.) NO.2158 OF 1994)
\n       Leave  granted in  both the petitions, limited to the
\nquestion of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
      Sep  Mahavir  Singh  and\tL\/NK  Inder  Pal  Singh\t the
\nappellants in  these two  appeals, were tried by the General
\nCourt Martial  (`GCM’) for  committing the  murders of\tfour
\nArmy Officers,\tnamely, Col.S.S. Sahota, Major Jaspal Singh,
\nCaptain B.K.  Chottri and  Captain A. Srivastava on June 16,
\n1987. Of  them Col. Sahota was the Commanding Officer, Major
\nJaspal Singh  was the  Second-in-Command and Captain Chottri
\nwas  an\t officer  attached  to\t8  JAT\tUnit  while  Captain
\nSrivastava  belonged   to  302\t Field\tAmbulance.  The\t two
\nappellants were\t also attached\tto the\tabove unit.  By\t its
\norder dated  December 10,  1988 the  GCM held them guilty of
\nthe above  offences and\t sentenced each\t of them  to  death.
\nAggrieved thereby they presented petitions under Section 164
\n(1) of\tthe Army  Act (‘Act’  for short) wherein they prayed
\nthat the  findings and sentence of the GCM be not confirmed.
\nThose petitions\t were rejected and the findings and sentence
\nrecorded  against   thems  were\t confirmed.  The  appellants
\nthereafter filed  another petition  under Section 164 (2) of
\nthe Act\t which was  also rejected. They then moved the Delhi
\nHigh  Court  with  a  petition\tunder  Article\t226  of\t the
\nconstitution of\t India wherein they confined their challenge
\nto the sentence imposed upon them on the ground that the GCM
\ndid not take into consideration the mitigating circumstances
\nwhile awarding\tthe punishment.\t In resisting  the petition,
\nthe respondents\t contended that\t having regard\tto the\tfact
\nthat the  appellants committed\tthe  murders  in  a  planned
\nmanner they  deserved the  sentence of death. The High court
\nrejected the  contention of  the  appellants  and  for\tthat
\nmatter their writ petition with the following observations:\n<\/p>\n
     “The question of sentence has to be
\n     decided by\t taking into account the
\n     aggravating circumstances\tas  well
\n     as\t mitigating   circumstances  and
\n     then drawing  a balance. The manner
\n     in which  the crime  was  commited,
\n     the weapons  used and  brutality or
\n     lack  of\tit  are\t some  of  these
\n     relevant considerations to be borne
\n     in mind.  Due regard is to be given
\n     both to the crime and the criminal.
\n     This was  a case  of killing  of  a
\n     Commanding\t Officer,   an\t Officer
\n     Second in\tCommand\t  and two  other
\n     officers. The Commanding Officer in
\n     an Army  Regiment is  like a father
\n     of his subordinates. The contention
\n     that  the\t petitioners  had   good
\n     service record and had no advantage
\n     in killing\t these officers and they
\n     had  killed   these   officers   on
\n     instigation of major Budhwar cannot
\n     be accepted in the present petition
\n     as without going into these aspects
\n     but assuming  two views on question
\n     of sentence  were possible,  it  is
\n     not for  this court  to  substitute
\n     its view  for that of the authority
\n     under the\tAct. It\t cannot be  held
\n     that the  view  of\t authorities  in
\n     awarding  death   penalty\twas   in
\n     manner perverse. We may notice that
\n     according\t to   respondents   life
\n     sentence  was   imposed  on   Major
\n     Budhwar  as   he  was  charged  for
\n     abetment whereas  petitioners  were
\n     actual perpetrators of the crime.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hence these two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     Drawing inspiration  from the judgment of this Court in
\nTriveniben & ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1989 (1) SCR
\n509, wherein  this Court  has held  that undue and prolonged
\ndelays occurring at the instance of the executive in dealing
\nwith the  petitions of\tconvicts filed\tin exercise of their
\nlegitimate right  is a\tmaterial consideration for commuting
\nthe death  penalty, the\t learned counsel  for the appellants
\nsubmitted  that\t    the\t appellants  were  entitled  to\t the
\ncommutation of their sentence as it took the respondent more
\nthan three  and half  years  to\t dispose  of  the  petitions
\npresented by  the appellants  under sub-sections (1) and (2)
\nof section  164 of  the Act.  On going through the record we
\nfind  much   substance\tin   the  above\t  grievance  of\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
       Following the death sentence pronounced by the GCM on
\nDecember 10,  1988 the\tappellants filed  their\t application
\nunder sub-section  (i) of  Section 164\ton December 31, 1988
\nwhich was disposed of on February 13, 1991, that is, after a
\nperiod of more than two years and one  month. Thereafter the
\nappellants moved  their petition  under sub-section  (2)  of
\nSection 164  on March 7, 1991 and this petition was disposed
\nof after  a delay  of more than one year and six months. The
\ntotal delay  therefore, comes  to more\tthan three years and
\nseven months;  and needless  to say  during this  period the
\nappellants were\t being haunted\tby the\tshadow of death over
\ntheir heads.  No explanation is forthcoming for these unduly
\nlong delays  and therefore,  the appellants can legitimately
\nclaim consideration  of the  above factor  in their  favour,
\nbut, then,  it has  also been  observed in Triveniben’s case
\n(supra), relying upon the following passage from the earlier
\njudgment of  this Court\t in Sher  Singh vs.  State of Punjab
\n(1983) 2 SCC 344:\n<\/p>\n
     “The nature  of  the  offence,  the
\n     diverse   circumstances   attendant
\n     upon  it,\t its  impact   upon  the
\n     contemporary   society    and   the
\n     question whether the motivation and
\n     pattern of\t the crime  are such  as
\n     are   likely   to\t lead\tto   its
\n     repetition, if  the death\tsentence
\n     is vacated,  are matters which must
\n     enter  into   the\tverdict\t  as  to
\n     whether  the   sentence  should  be
\n     vacated for  the  reseon  that  its
\n     execution is delayed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
that  such   ccnsideration  cannot   be\t divorced  from\t the
\ndastardly and diabolic circumstance of the crime itself.\n<\/p>\n
     Having given  our anxious\tconsideration to all aspects
\nof this\t case in  the light  of the above principles we feel
\nthat the  appellants do\t not deserve  the extreme penalty of
\ndeath, notwithstanding\tthe fact  that two  of the  murders,
\nnamely, that of the Commanding Officer and Second-in-Command
\nwere diabolically  planned and committed in cold blood. From
\nthe record,  particularly the  confessions made\t by the\t two
\nappellants  which  formed  the\tprincipal  basis  for  their
\nconviction we  find that  the appellants  did not commit the
\nabove two  murders on  their own  volition prompted  by\t any
\nmotive or  greed much  less, evincing  total  depravity\t and
\nmeanness.  Indeed,  it\twas  the  case\tof  the\t respondents
\nthemselves at  the GCM\t– which has been accepted by us also
\nin the\tearlier appeal,\t that Major  R.S. Budhwar  alongwith
\nother Officers\tof the Unit of the appellants instigated and
\ncompelled them to commit the above two murders by exploiting
\ntheir religious\t feelings. The record further indicates that
\ninitially the  appellants declined  to take any step towards
\nthe commission of the offences but ultimately they succumbed
\nto the\t“threat, command  and influence” of their superiors.
\nSo far\tas  the\t murders  of  the  other  two  officers\t are
\nconcerned we  find that\t they became the unfortunate victims
\nof circumstances  as they happened to be present at the time
\nof the\tincident. Another  mitigating factor  which  in\t our
\nopinion calls  for commutation of the sentence is that Major
\nBudhwar\t who   alongwith  another   officer   (since   dead)
\nmasterminded the  two murders were awarded life imprisonment
\nwhereas the  appellants who  carried out  their orders\thave
\nbeen sentenced\tto death. In dealing with this aspect of the
\nmatter the  High Court however observed, as noticed earlier,
\nthat  the   appellants\tcommitted  the\toffences  while\t the
\nofficers were  only abettors.  In our  considered view\tin a
\ncase of\t the present  nature which  relates to a disciplined
\nforce as the Army, the offence committed by the officers who
\nconceived the  plan, was more heinous that of the appellants
\nwho executed the plan as per their orders and directions. It
\nis of  course true  that those\torders being  not lawful the
\nappellants, even  as disciplined soldiers, were not bound to
\ncomply with  the same  nor their  carrying  out\t such  order
\nminimised the  offences but certainly this is a factor which
\ncannot be  ignored while  deciding the question of sentence.
\nAnother factor which persuades us to commute the sentence is
\nthe post  murder repentance  of the  appellants who not only
\nsurrendered before  the authorities within two days but also
\nspoke out  the truth  in their\tconfessional statements.  In
\nfact, but  for their  confessional statements  the Officers,
\nwho were  the masterminimize, could not have been brought to
\nbook. None of the mitigating circumstances, as noticed by us
\nabove, were  taken into\t consideration by the High Court. It
\nwas  obliged  to  consider  both  the  aggravating  and\t the
\nmitigating   circumstances   and   therefore   by   ignoring
\nconsideration of  the  mitigating  circumstances,  the\tHigh
\nCourt apparently fell in error.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  foregoning discussion  we allow  those appeals
\nand commute  the sentence  of death imposed upon each of the
\nappellants to  imprisonment for\t life,\tfor  the  conviction
\nrecorded against them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 2000, JT 1996 (5) 39 Author: M M.K. Bench: Mukherjee M.K. (J) PETITIONER: MAJOR R.S. BUDHWAR Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/05\/1996 BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMajor R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-15T03:05:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-15T03:05:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3716,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996\",\"name\":\"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-15T03:05:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-15T03:05:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-15T03:05:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996"},"wordCount":3716,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996","name":"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-15T03:05:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-r-s-budhwar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Major R.S. Budhwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}