{"id":118724,"date":"2003-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2"},"modified":"2015-03-06T07:58:35","modified_gmt":"2015-03-06T02:28:35","slug":"gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2","title":{"rendered":"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin … vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin … vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, P. Venkatarama Reddi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  190 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nGYASUDDIN KHAN @ MD. GYASUDDIN KHAN\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/11\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nS. RAJENDRA BABU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2003 Supp(5) SCR 367<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. In the morning hours of 9th April, 1996, in the
\nprecincts of a police camp stationed near a village in Bihar, a macabre
\nincident similar to a terrorist operation happened. The accused-a policeman
\ndeployed in the police picket to contain the terrorist activities,
\nunleashed terror by indulging in a firing spree killing three of his
\ncolleagues instantaneously. After trial, he has been condemned to death. He
\nis now before this Court contesting the conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution case is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
The appellant was one among the police personnel deployed at Narhi police
\ncamp, close to Chakardah village, Bhojpur district of Bihar. He was a
\nConstable who was also trained as Black Commando. He was aggrieved by the
\naction of Hawaldar Ram Pandey reprimanding him on one occasion for his
\ncarelessness in leaving the rifle on the ground floor while sleeping on the
\nterrace and on another occasion for listening to radio while on duty and
\nfor making adverse entries in the Guards’ register for these lapses. At
\nabout 8 a.m. on 9th April, 1996 when Shri Ram Pandey was sitting on a cot
\nand meditating, the appellant suddenly took the sten-gun of Ram Pandey
\nwhich was kept on the cot and shot him dead. Shri Chandrashekhar Singh,
\nS.I. who was taking bath at that time near the water pump questioned him.
\nHe too was not spared. The accused fired the shots from his sten-gun and at
\nthat juncture, his other colleagues including Hawaldar Bhagirath Singh ran
\nfor safety. The appellant fired the shots at the fleeing Bhagirath Singh,
\nchasing him upto the nearby onion field separated by a mud wall. After
\nfiring at him, the magazine of the sten-gun which the accused was handling
\ngot exhausted. He took out the sten-gun of Bhagirath Singh and resorted to
\n‘burst’ firing. All the three persons succumbed to the gunshot injuries
\ninstantaneously. Thereafter, when the appellant threw away both the sten-
\nguns and wanted to escape with his SLR, he was overpowered by the police
\nConstables.\n<\/p>\n
On information, the company Commander (PW7) and the S.I. of police,
\nUdwantnagar Police Station (CW1) rushed to the police picket and recorded
\nthe statement of PW3 on the spot and the same was treated as F.I.R. He took
\nup investigation, recorded the statements of other witnesses, prepared the
\ninquest report and sent the three dead bodies to the hospital for
\npostmortem examination. He seized five numbers of empty shells of
\ncartridges from a spot close to the place where Ram Pandey was shot and 18
\nnumbers of empty shells of cartridges on the road adjoining the police
\npicket. He also seized bloodstained earth. The ballistic expert, to whom
\nsten-guns of the deceased Ram Pandey and Bhagirath Singh were sent for
\nexamination, opined that they were in working order and to that effect sent
\na report to the I.O. Charges were laid under Section 302 IPC read with
\nSection 27 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant took the defence that some extremists made their way into the
\npolice picket on 9th April, 1996 and indiscriminately fired at the police
\npersonnel, as a result of which the victims died. In support of this plea,
\nthe accused examined five defence witnesses. The defence version was not
\naccepted by the trial Court as well as the High Court. Both the Courts
\nrelied on the account of the eyewitnesses who were present at the picket on
\nthe fateful day and returned the finding of guilt. The appellant was
\nconvicted under Section 302 IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act
\nand was sentenced to death. The conviction and sentence was upheld and the
\nreference made by the trial Court was accepted by the High Court at Patna.
\nThe appeal filed by the accused was dismissed. This court granted special
\nleave to appeal and stayed the execution of the death sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Before proceeding further, we shall briefly refer to the postmortem reports
\n(Exhibits 5 to 5\/2) and the evidence of P.W.6-the Medical Officer attached
\nto Sadar hospital who held the postmortem on the very day of occurrence. He
\nnoticed eight injuries which were in the nature of lacerated wounds on the
\ndead body of Ram Pandey. According to him, all the injuries were caused by
\nfirearm. He found a bullet in the chest wall in the back portion. He
\ndescribed the wounds of entry on the left side of the neck, upper part of
\nthe back and chest and corresponding wounds of exit. On dissection of the
\nskull, he noticed brain and meninges damaged and lacerately wounded on the
\nleft side of the scalp and medulla. Right lung was also severely damaged.
\nPW6 opined that the death occurred by reason of damage to brain, lungs and
\nchest caused by the shots of the firearm.\n<\/p>\n
On the dead body of Chandrashekhar Singh, PW6 found as many as nine
\ninjuries caused by the firearm. The most serious amongst them were a
\nlacerated wound on the right side of front parietal scalp which was the
\nwound of entry and a lacerated wound of exit on the left side of occipital
\nscalp through which brain substance was protruding. Another serious wound
\nwas a round wound on right side of chest which was the wound of entry. He
\nstated that the death occurred on account of damage to vital organs,
\nnamely, brain, neck, spinal chord and right lung.\n<\/p>\n
PW6 found five injuries on the dead body of Bhagirath Singh which were in
\nthe nature of round piercing wounds and round lacerated wounds. He gave
\ndescription of the various wounds of entry and exit. The wounds of entry
\nwere on the right shoulder and behind the right ear etc. On dissection, he
\nfound brain matter and meninges torn and lacerately wounded along the
\npassage of the firearm. Chest was found damaged on both sides. The heart
\nwas found pierced and damaged. The doctor opined that the damage to vital
\norgans, namely, brain, heart and lungs caused by firearm led to his death.
\nPW6 clarified that from the nature of entry wounds, it can be said that
\nfiring took place from close range.\n<\/p>\n
The death on account of serious injuries on vital parts inflicted by the
\nfirearm has thus been established by medical evidence. Four eyewitnesses to
\nthe occurrence are the Constables-PWs 1 to 3 and 5. PW7 was the Company
\nCommander of the police picket who on hearing the sounds of firing and
\nreceiving information through PW1, came to the scene of occurrence
\nimmediately in the company of Sub-Inspector. The Station House Officer in
\ncharge of Udwant Nagar police Station who also reached the spot immediately
\nand took up investigation, was examined as Court Witness No.l.\n<\/p>\n
We find, just as the High Court did, that the version of the eyewitnesses
\nwho were all present at the camp at the crucial time is quite consistent
\nand reliable. They have given an account of the incident lasting for a few
\nminutes leading to the death of three police personnel. They have also
\nspoken to the motive, viz., the reprimand and adverse entries made in the
\nregister. There was no reason for the fellow policemen to invent a story to
\nimplicate the accused against whom none of them had any animosity. If,
\naccording to the accused, some armed outsiders were responsible for this
\nincident, the fellow policemen would not have gone to the extent of
\nsuppressing that incident and conspiring together to implicate the accused.
\nSome discrepancies in regard to the position from which the accused aimed
\nhis firearm at the victims were pointed out. It was then pointed out that
\nno one else was injured, though according to the prosecution, the accused
\nresorted to indiscriminate firing. It was further commented that PW3 who
\nwas on sentry duty with a gun should have fired at the appellant if he was
\nthe real culprit. Then, it was contended that no witness from the village
\nwas examined by the prosecution, though the incident took place in the
\nvicinity of the village. Similar contentions were negatived by the High
\nCourt. We do not think that by any reasonable standards, these factors
\nwould make a dent on the overwhelming prosecution evidence. So also,
\ncertain omissions of the investigating officer have been projected to
\nattack the prosecution version. For instance, it was pointed out that the
\nballistic expert was not examined to elicit the fact that the empty
\ncartridges recovered could have been fired from the particular sten-gun and
\nthe pellets found in the bodies of Ram Pandey and Bhagirath singh were
\ntraceable to the particular sten-gun. Moreover, the bloodstained earth and
\nthe shirt of accused should have been sent for chemical analysis and the
\nreports obtained. These lapses in the investigation, for whatever reason it
\nbe, do not, to any material extent, affect the veracity of the most natural
\neyewitnesses who have given a consistent version and who came forward with
\nthis version at the earliest opportunity.\n<\/p>\n
Amongst the eyewitnesses, it appears that PW2 could not have been in a
\nposition to see the attack on the first victim, namely, Ram Pandey because
\nhe was cooking meal at the mess-a little away from the scene. He stated
\nthat after hearing the sound of firing, he and two others (not examined)
\nhid themselves behind the wall. So also PW5, who was urinating at a comer
\ncould not have witnessed Ram Pandey being shot by the accused. He stated
\nthat the place where Ram Pandey was sitting was not visible from the place
\nhe was urinating. However, it was stated that after hearing the sound of
\nfiring from the guard room, he looked towards that direction and observed
\nthat Ram Pandey was killed by the accused and thereafter he aimed at
\nChandrashekhar Singh and after shooting him dead the accused targeted
\nBhagirath Singh who was running away. It may be that some of the witnesses
\ncould not have seen Ram Pandey being shot and they would have realized it
\nsoon after the firing. But they would have certainly seen the gun-wielding
\naccused on the offensive and his further acts of shooting. They found dead
\nbodies of the three victims within minutes after the firing stopped. Even
\nthough they may not be direct eyewitnesses in that sense, their evidence
\nabout hearing the sound of gunfire and noticing the action-packed movements
\nof the accused with the gun in his hand immediately thereafter lends strong
\nsupport to the other eyewitnesses’ account. It also serves as clinching
\ncircumstantial evidence to fix up the responsibility for the ghastly act on
\nthe accused and accused alone.\n<\/p>\n
It was contended that nothing was mentioned in the F.I.R. given by PW3
\nabout the attack on Bhagirath Singh. However, he did mention that soon
\nafter the appellant was nabbed, they saw the dead body of Hawaldar
\nBhagirath Singh on the field situate towards the north of the camp. May be,
\nhe would not have actually seen the accused firing at Bhagirath Singh
\nbecause he (PW3) hid behind the wall after the assassin’s bullets fell on
\nChandrashekhar Singh and therefore omitted to mention the same in the
\nF.I.R. Even then, the prosecution case does not suffer. PW3’s evidence
\nunfolds the inextricable link between the death of Bhagirath Singh and the
\nfiring resorted to by the appellant. Moreover, there is other evidence
\nwhich supports the prosecution case of the attack on Bhagirath Singh by the
\nappellant. We have the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 who were sitting on a cot
\nalong with the deceased Bhagirath Singh just before the incident. PW1
\nstated that when they were running away for safety, Bhagirath Singh-who was
\nbehind, received gunshot injury and he hid himself behind the mango tree.
\nPW4 also gave almost the same version. Elaborating the details of attack on
\nBhagirath Singh, PW4 stated that the accused shot at him at the ridge of
\nthe onion field and he fell down at that place. He also clarified that he
\ntook shelter behind the wall situated towards east of the onion field and
\nhe was able to see the occurrence though the accused could not see. Above
\nall, there is the evidence of all the witnesses-PWs 1 to 5 that they found
\nthe dead body of Bhagirath Singh on the onion field immediately after the
\nfiring from the assassin’s gun stopped and he was overpowered. The evidence
\ntherefore establishes beyond reasonable doubt that none other than the
\nappellant killed Hawaldar Bhagirath Singh with the shots fired form the
\nsten-gun. The probability of Bhagirath Singh, even after receiving one or
\ntwo shots by then, scaling the low mud wall and reaching the onion field
\ncannot be ruled out.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that according to the
\neyewitnesses’ account, Bhagirath Singh was shot while he was running away,
\nbut there was a lacerated wound on the front of the body i.e., chest. As
\npointed out by the High Court, there was every possibility of Bhagirath
\nSingh facing towards the accused at one stage or the other. It is not
\nreasonable to expect that the scared eyewitnesses would be able to give a
\nmeticulous and precise account of the details of shots that landed on
\nBhagirath Singh. It was then contended that the charring at the entry
\nwounds 1,3 & 5, found on the dead body of Bhagirath Singh indicated that
\nthe firing was done from close range as stated by the doctor. But, the dead
\nbody of Bhagirath Singh was found in the onion field which was at some
\ndistance from the police picket. According to the learned counsel, it
\nindicated that the firing could not have been done from a close range. From
\nthe mere fact that Bhagirath Singh collapsed after reaching the adjacent
\nfields does not mean that he did not receive bullet injuries from a close
\nrange. The Court cannot expect the panic-stricken eyewitnesses to come
\nforward with a vivid account of the distance from which each one of the
\nshots was fired at. The possibility of firing from close range cannot be
\nruled out.\n<\/p>\n
The defence witnesses’ account was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court
\nand the High Court. First of all, it must be noted that these witnesses
\nnever came forward to give their version before the police. There is no
\nexplanation as to why they should, as law abiding citizens, withhold the
\nimportant information. The defence witnesses 1 to 5 came forward with an
\nomnibus version that ten to fifteen persons armed with rifles and guns came
\nfrom the east of the police picket and began firing after surrounding the
\npicket. Some of them stated that they noticed some persons inside the camp
\nfalling to ground after receiving the shots and further stated that they
\nnoticed some policemen running away. According to the witnesses, none of
\nthose alleged miscreants could be identified by them. The trial Court at
\nparas 18 and 19 discarded their evidence on a critical analysis and
\nprobabilities. The discussion of the High Court is at paragraph 22. We are
\nin agreement with the trial Court and the High Court that the defence
\nevidence is not trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence, it has been
\nestablished beyond shadow of doubt that the appellant killed the three
\npolicemen, namely, Ram Pandey (Hawaldar), Chandrashekhar Singh (S.I.) and
\nBhagirath Singh (Hawaldar) with the sten-gun picked up from the ‘chowki’ of
\nRam Pandey. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is
\ntherefore upheld.\n<\/p>\n
“Guilt once established, the punitive dilemma begins” per Krishna lyer J.
\nin [1974] 4 SCC 443 and this dilemma reaches its peak when the magnitude of
\nthe crime is enormous, viewed from the angle of number of casualties
\ninflicted by the offender. In Bachan Singh’s case [1980] 2 SCC 684, death
\nsentence has passed the test of constitutional validity. It has come to
\nstay as part of our law of penology. At the same time, it hardly needs to
\nbe emphasized that the capital punishment ought to be imposed only in very
\nrare and exceptionally grave cases of murder. ‘Scrupulous care and humane
\nconcern’ should inform the approach of Court. The view held by this Court
\nin Sheikh Ishaque v. State of Bihar,<\/a> [1995] 3 SCC 392 apart from other
\ncases is that the number of persons killed, though a factor to be taken
\ninto account, should not be the sole consideration to condemn the criminal
\nto death. A delicate balancing of various factors such as those which give
\nan insight into the state of mind, motivation, attitude and propensities of
\nthe accused has to be while at the same time, keeping in view the larger
\nsocietal interests. The principle that in case of murder, life imprisonment
\nis the normal rule and the death sentence should be handed down in rarest
\nof rare cases should of course be uppermost in the mind of the judge.
\nThough no hard and fast rules can be laid down, prima facie, a dangerous
\ncriminal who has indulged in the killing spree in an extremely brutal and
\nhorrendous manner to achieve his own selfish gains or to satisfy his
\nphysical lust or to disrupt the public order and peace should be considered
\nto be a menace to society and he be subjected to the extreme punishment of
\ndeath. However, even in such cases, mitigating circumstances are not out of
\nplace. While death sentence ought to be imposed in the rarest of rare
\ncases, so long as the law provides for it and such law has withstood the
\njudicial scrutiny, the Court cannot make it a dead letter and refuse to
\nimpose death sentence where nothing short of it would be appropriate and
\nadequate. The justification behind death sentence is to respect the
\ncollective conscience of the society in relation to crimes of extreme
\nbrutality and terrorism and to impart security to the society. The element
\nof deterrence is of course inherent in it. As pointed out in Allauddin
\nMian’s case [1989] 3 SCC 5 death sentence serves a three fold purpose (i)
\npunitive (ii) deterrent and (iii) protective.\n<\/p>\n
The nature of the crime, the circumstances of the criminal and the impact
\nof the crime on the community are broadly the considerations that ought to
\nbe kept in view by a Court called upon to choose between the death sentence
\nand the life imprisonment. At the same time, the circumstances in which the
\ndeath sentence can be imposed cannot be placed in pigeon holes. The
\nenumeration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case of
\nBachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980] 2 SCC 684 is not exhaustive and is
\nnot intended to fetter the judicial discretion. This Court guardedly said
\nthat they are broad indicators or guidelines and that it did not propose to
\nformulate rigid standards vis-a-vis sentencing process. Each one of the
\nenumerated factors cannot be viewed in isolation. A holistic view has to be
\ntaken on the facts presented in each case. In this context, we may quote
\nthe pertinent observations made by Sarkaria J. speaking for the
\nConstitution Bench in Bachan Singh’s case:\n<\/p>\n
“As we read Sections 354(3) and 235(2) and other related provisions of the
\nCode of 1973, it is quite clear to us that for making the choice of
\npunishment or for ascertaining the existence or absence of “special
\nreasons” in that context, the Court must pay due regard both to the crime
\nand the criminal.* What is the relative weight to be given to<\/p>\n
‘Emphasis supplied. the aggravating and mitigating factors, depends on the
\nfacts and circumstances of the particular case. More often than not, these
\ntwo aspects are so intertwined that it is difficult to give a separate
\ntreatment to each of them. This is so because ‘style is the man’. In many
\ncases, the extremely cruel or beastly manner of the commission of murder is
\nitself a demonstrated index of the depraved character of the perpetrator.
\nThat is why, it is not desirable to consider the circumstances of the crime
\nand the circumstances of the criminal in two separate watertight
\ncompartments. In a sense, to kill is to be cruel and therefore all murders
\nare cruel. But such cruelty may vary in its degree of culpability. And it
\nis only when the culpability assumes the proportion of extreme depravity
\nthat “special reasons” can legitimately be said to exist.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied) It was then pointed out that:\n<\/p>\n
“No exhaustive enumeration of aggravating circumstances is possible. But
\nthis much can be said that in order to quality for inclusion in the
\ncategory of “aggravating circumstances” which may form the basis of
\n‘special reasons’ in Section 354 (3), circumstances found on the facts of a
\nparticular case, must evidence aggravation of an abnormal or special
\ndegree”.\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab,<\/a> [1983] 3 SCC 470, this Court after
\nreferring to the guidelines adverted to in Bachan Singh’s case applied the
\nfollowing working test to reach the conclusion whether a particular case
\nwarrants death sentence:\n<\/p>\n
“(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of
\nimprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?\n<\/p>\n
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative
\nbut to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the
\nmitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?”\n<\/p>\n
Now, we shall turn our attention to the relevant facts and circumstances
\nhaving a bearing on the question of sentence. The appellant was aggrieved
\nby the action of Hawaldar Ram Pandey in taking him to task for his lapses
\nor indisciplined behaviour. Even then, no sensible person caring for his
\nown future and the future of his family would risk to avenge the alleged
\nwrong done to him by taking recourse to the extreme step of killing the
\nHawaldar openly in the presence of all his colleagues. This act of killing
\nRam pandey with no apparent motive to derive an advantage or gain out of it
\nreveals the mental state of the appellant. Such an abnormal and desperate
\nbehaviour on the pan of the appellant unfolds his attitude and personality.
\nWe get a picture of the appellant as an over-sensitive, over-emotional,
\nself-centred and hot headed person utterly lacking in restraint and
\nforesight In fact, PW7’s evidence does throw light on these characteristics
\nof the appellant, when he describes the accused as ‘Manbhadhu’ and
\n‘Manshokh’. It seems to us that he had almost a paranoid tendency which had
\ndriven him to the extreme step of taking away the life of his superior
\nofficial without thinking of the obvious consequences that would befall on
\nhim and his family. The feelings of humiliation, mental tension,
\nindignation and retribution towards his officer have apparently overtaken
\nhim. The result was that he acted in a state of extremely perturbed and
\nimbalanced mind. In fact, one of the witnesses, namely PW4 spoke to the
\nfact that the accused was very much disturbed after the action initiated by
\nthe deceased Ram Pandey.\n<\/p>\n
The mental condition or state of mind of the accused is one of the factors
\nthat has been legitimately taken into account in various cases and that can
\nbe taken into account in considering the question of sentence. There are
\nvarious cases in which the Court having regard to the disturbed or
\nimbalanced state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of
\noffence, thought it fit not to impose the death sentence vide: Shamshul
\nKanwar v. State of U.P.,<\/a> [1995] 4 SCC 430, Lehna v. State of Haryana,<\/a>
\n[2002] 3 SCC 76 and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana,<\/a> [1999] 3 SCC 19.\n<\/p>\n
In Francis v. State of  Kerala, [1975] 3 SCC 825, The following pertinent
\nobservations were made:\n<\/p>\n
“Nevertheless, in deciding whether the case merits the less severe of the
\ntwo penalties prescribed for murder a history of relations between the
\nparties concerned, the background, the context, or the factual setting of
\nthe crime, and the strength and nature of the motives operating on the mind
\nof the offender, are relevant considerations. The state of feelings and
\nmind produced by these, while insufficient to bring in an exception may
\nsuffice to make the less severe sentence more appropriate.”\n<\/p>\n
The killing of two other police men without premeditation and without any
\nmotive whatsoever further reveals that these acts were done out of panic
\nreaction and in a state of Frenzy. It is not a case where it can be said
\nwith certitude that the murderous attacks were “diabolical in conception
\nand cruel in execution’ as pointed out in Bachan Singh’s case (supra). Nor
\ncan it be said that “The nature of the crime and the circumstances of the
\noffender reveal that the criminal is a menace to the society” or that the
\n“collective conscience of the community would be shocked” if the death
\nsentence is not inflicted in the instant case. Above all, the sentence of
\ndeath has been haunting him for considerable time.\n<\/p>\n
In conclusion we would like to say that the facts of the case on hand are
\nquite close to the facts of Randhir Basu v. State of Bengal, [2000] 3 SCC
\n161 and Alauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, [1989] 3 SCC 5 in which the Court
\ndid not choose to impose death sentence in multiple murder cases. The
\nindiscriminate killing of fellow-policemen resorted to by a member of
\ndisciplined force is no doubt an aggravating factor but it is offset by
\nother mitigating circumstances discussed above and we are, therefore,
\ninclined to hold that death sentence is not the appropriate sentence in the
\ninstant case. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as
\nit has confirmed the sentence of death while maintaining the conviction
\nunder Section 302 IPC. The appellant is hereby sentenced to life
\nimprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to
\nundergo imprisonment for a period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
The conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot however be
\nsustained. The gravamen of the second charge framed against the appellant
\nis that he used the sten-gun and SLR for the unlawful purpose of killing
\nthe three persons. There is no evidence to the effect that the weapon used,
\nnamely Sten-gun, answers the description of ‘prohibited arms’ within the
\nmeaning of Section 2(1)(i) of the Arms Act. The report of the Sergeant
\nMajor to whom the weapons were sent was only to the effect that they were
\nin working condition. There was no discussion whatsoever either by the
\ntrial Court or by the High Court in regard to the offence under Section 27.
\nWe are not inclined at this stage to probe further and address the question
\nwhether the sten-gun of Ram Pandey which was used in the commission of the
\ncrime is a prohibited vide Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, [1989] 3 SCC\n<\/p>\n
5. arm within the meaning of Section 2(1)(i) though, in all likelihood, it
\nmay be.it is not appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 27(3)
\nin which the extreme punishment of death is provided for. Hence the
\nconviction of the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is
\nhereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed to the extent set out above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin … vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003 Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, P. Venkatarama Reddi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 190 of 2002 PETITIONER: GYASUDDIN KHAN @ MD. GYASUDDIN KHAN RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/11\/2003 BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI […]<\/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-118724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin ... vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003 - 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\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin ... vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2\" \/>\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=\"2003-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-06T02:28:35+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin … vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-06T02:28:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2\"},\"wordCount\":4523,\"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\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2\",\"name\":\"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin ... vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-06T02:28:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin … vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin ... vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003 - 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\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin ... vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-06T02:28:35+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin … vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-06T02:28:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2"},"wordCount":4523,"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\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2","name":"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin ... vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-06T02:28:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyasuddin-khan-md-gyasuddin-vs-state-of-bihar-on-7-november-2003-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gyasuddin Khan @ Md. Gyasuddin … vs State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/118724","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=118724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}