LEGAL REASONING AND LOFIC : INTERIM

SUBMISSION
VIKRAM SINGH AND Ors. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND
Ors.

Submitted by
AAYUSH
Division: A Roll No: 15010224001 Class: BBA LLB

Of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International University, PUNE
In
January, 2017

Under the guidance of

Ms. Devdatta Mukherjee,
Asst. Professor, SLS-NOIDA
 STAGE - I SUBMISSION
BENCH:
T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal and A.K. Goel, JJ

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS :-

The Appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced to death for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364A IPC. The conviction and sentence
awarded was affirmed by the High Court on appeal by the Appellants. The Appellants
petitioned before the Supreme Court for a declaration that Section 364A IPC was ultra
vires the Constitution as it prescribed the death sentence for anyone found guilty. The
petition was later withdrawn with liberty to the Appellants to approach the High Court
for redress. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the question whether
Section 364A IPC was attracted to the case at hand and whether a person found guilty
of an offence punishable under the same could be sentenced to death was not only
raised by the Appellants as an argument before the High Court in the earlier appeal
filed by the Appellants, but, was noticed and found against them. Hence, the present
appeal.

LAWS APPLIED BY THE COURTS :-

1. Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code :-
Kidnapping for ransom, etc.Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a
person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or
hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that
such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in
order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international inter-
governmental organisation or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or
to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine.]
2. "Rarest of rare case" Principle - The ratio decidendi of Bachan Singh is that the court
could impose the death penalty only in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative
option is unquestionably foreclosed and hence the death penalty must be restricted to
the rarest of rare case.

ORDER OF THE COURT :-

 The court concluded that provisions of Section 364A in so far as the same prescribes
death or life imprisonment is constitutional on account of the punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of the crime committed by the Appellants.

REASONING BEHIND THE JUDGEMENT (SUPREME COURT)

The court analyzed the scope and purport of Section 364A considering the following
factors :-
1. Analysis of Statement of Objects and Reasons of IPC (Amendment Bill) 1994
The bill was introduced to substitute the expression "any other person" by
words "any foreign state or international inter-governmental organisation or
any other person for which the Statement of Objects and reasons was analyzed
on which the committee of Home Affairs constituted by Rajya Sabha
submitted a report dated 29th November, 1994.
2. Applicability of ejusdem generis to the expression 'any other person' in the
section - The rule of ejusdem generis is a rule of construction and not a rule of
law. Courts have to be very careful in applying the rule while interpreting
statutory provisions. Having said that the rule applies in situations where
specific words forming a distinct genus class or category are followed by
general words. However in the instant case, the rule of ejusdem generis was
not applicable since it was not possible to find the genus of the preceding
words.
3. The court added that a legislation is presumed to be constitutionally valid with
the burden of showing the contrary lying heavily upon any one who challenges
its validity. However, in this present court, in the earlier appeal (Vikram Singh
and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0062/2010) the facts of the case
amounted to a heinous offence (kidnapping for ransom) and could be
construed as a case of 'rarest of rare' category.

REASONING BEHIND THE JUDGEMENT (HIGH COURT)

The High Court had analysed the provisions, examined the historical perspective
to hold that Section 364A was not confined only to cases involving acts of
terrorism but was attracted even in cases where the crime is committed for
securing ransom.

STAGE - II SUBMISSION
 LOGIC BEHIND THE REASONING
Reducing the reasoning of the court in the form of Syllogism, applying deduction,
Premise 1 :- In case of Bachan Singh v.State of Punjab, it was laid down that
Court could depart from that rule and impose sentence of death only if there were
special reasons for doing so and that such extreme sentence did not violate
Articles 14, 19 & 21 of Constitution.
Premise 2 :- In the instant case of Vikram singh and ors. V. Union of India and
ors., there were special reasons for imposing the sentence of death.
Conclusion :- The imposing of special reasons in Vikram singh and ors. vs.
Union of India and ors. does not violate Article 14,19 and 21.
Reducing the reasoning of the court in the form of Syllogism, applying inductive
analogy,
Premise 1 :- In Maru Ram v. Union of India and Ors., the court held that if
Parliament decides to enact a legislature, such a legislation must be meaningfully
construed and given effect to subserve the purpose for which it is meant.
Premise 2 :- In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that the highest
judicial duty is to recognise the limits on judicial power and to permit the
democratic processes to deal with the matters falling outside of those limits.
Conclusion :- The burden of proving that Section 364A is constitutionally invalid
is on the petitioner.

UNIVERSAL APPLICABILITY OF 'LOGIC' AND

'REASONING'
1. The inductive analogy is universally applicable and could be obviated via the
case of R. v. Goltz (1991) 3 SCR 485, wherein the court observed :-
Moreover, it is clear from both Smith and Lyons, that the test is not one
which is quick to invalidate sentences crafted by legislators. The means and
purposes of legislative bodies are not to be easily upset in a challenge under
Section 12.
2. Another instance of inductive analogy is obviated via the case of R. v.
Fergusson (2008) 1 SCR 96, wherein the court observed :
The test for whether a particular sentence constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment is whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate: R. v. Smith
(1987) 1 SCR 1045. As this Court has repeatedly held, to be considered
grossly disproportionate, the sentence must be more than merely excessive.
The sentence must be "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency" and
 disproportionate to the extent that Canadians "would find the punishment
abhorrent or intolerable.

EXCEPTION TO REASONING

1. Judicial Discretion - There is wide scope of judicial discretion to evaluate the

facts and circumstances and to further classify whether such circumstances
could be construed as being of 'rarest of rare' category.
2. External aids - In this instant case also, rules of Statutory Interpretation have
been used in this instant case which are an exception to the formal schools of
logic.