Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GAYASI versus STATE OF U.P.

Decided
17 March 1981
Judges listed
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[1981] 3 S.C.R. 268 · 1981 INSC 71
Also cited as
  • (1981) 2 SCC 712 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

CHANDRACHUD, C. J. The appellant's land was auctioned on December 26, 1976 in a revenue sale held to recover arrears of land revenue. On the same day, the land of one Moo! Chand was also sold for a similar reason. The deceased Bhagwan Singh; who was an Amin, acted as an officer of the Court in effecting the aforesaid sales. After the sale proceedings were over, Bhagwan Singh was returning home on a bicycle, with his peon Shripat, who is examined in the case as P. W.4 The appellant, ·Moo! Chand and the latter's son Daya Ram lay in wait for the deceased and while he was passing along on his bicycle, Daya Ram fired three shots at him; two out of these hit Bhagwan Singh, as a result of which he fell down. A split second thereafter, the appellant emerged with a sword and chopped off the neck of Bhagwan Singh. Daya Ram is still absconding but the appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to death. He was also convicted under section 307 of the Penal Code. The sentence of death having been confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has filed this· appeal by special leave. The leave is limited to the question of sentence.

pp. 268–269, margin G

We see no reason for commuting the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant to the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. The fact that Daya Ram is absconding does not reduce the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant. Bhagwan Singh had but performed his ministerial duty as an Amin in putting the appellant's land to sale. He bore no personal grudge against the appellant nor had he anything to gain for himself by selling the lands of the appellant and of Daya Ram. Such cri1ms committed against public servants for reasons ansmg out of the performance by them of their public duties must be discouraged and put down with a firm hand. We, therefore, confirm the sentence of death passed on the appellant and dismiss the appeal. P.B.R Apral dismissed.

p. 269, margin C