CIS No.

421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
1

HRRH010064432021

IN THE COURT OF DR. GAGAN GEET KAUR,

ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL COURT,
ROHTAK (HR0482)

CNR No.HRRH010064432021
CIS No.421 of 2021
Sessions Case No.80 of 2021
Date of Institution:06.08.2021.
Date of Order:23.02.2024.

Complainant : Parmoj Kumar son of Shri Chander Singh, resi

dent of village Saragathal District Sonepat.

Convicts : 1. Sukhvinder son of Mehar Singh, resident of

Village Barauda District Sonepat Haryana
India.

2. Manoj Kumar son of Jai Parkash, resident of

Chajpur Rajpur, Budhana, Mujaffarnagar Ut
tar Pradesh.

FIR No. :49 dated 12.02.2021

Offence alleged :Under Sections: 120-B, 302, 307,34 of IPC
and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
Police Station : PGIMS, Rohtak.
Challan presented : Under Sections: 307, 302, 342, 201,34,120-B, 326
of IPC and sections 25, 27 and
29 of Arms Act.

Present:
Ms.Bhawna, Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Sh.Jai Hooda,
counsel for the complainant.
Convict Sukhvinder in custody represented by Shri B.S.Dhull and
Sh.Gaurav Dhull, Advocate.
Convict Manoj Kumar in custody represented by Sh.Krishan Kaushik,
Advocate.

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
2

Argued By:

FOR PROSECUTION : Ms. Bhawna, Public Prosecutor

the State assisted by Sh.Jai Hooda,
counsel for the complainant.

FOR CONVICTS : Shri B.S.Dhull and ShriGaurav Dhull,

counsel for convict Sukhvidner and
Shri Krishan Kaushik, counsel for con
vict Manoj Kumar.

ORDER OF SENTENCE:

This order forms part of my judgment dated 19.02.2024.

2. The prosecution and the convicts were given opportunity to

produce evidence, if any, on quantum of sentence. The prosecution and

the convicts have not produced any evidence on quantum of sentence.

They are heard on quantum of sentence. Both the convicts recorded their

separate statements praying for leniency in awarding the punishment.

3. Convict Sukhvinder in his statement deposed that he is

wrestler of national/international level. He has no criminal background.

He has one minor child, aged about seven years. He has old parents and

they are suffering from old aged ailment. He is the only bread earner of

his family. No male members in his family to look after his minor child

and old parents. He is good coach and his future would be spoiled and he

requested to have mercy and to take lenient view upon him.

Convict Manoj in his statement deposed that he is ex-

serviceman. During his service in Army, his service record was excellent.

He has no criminal back ground. He has two minor kids i.e. one son

namely Rahul and Vasundhra aged about 12 years and 8 years

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
3

respectively. His wife namely Shivani is housewife and she is under

treatment of hyper tension. He is the only bread earner of his family. No

male member in his family to look after his wife and children and he

requested to have mercy and to take lenient view upon him.

4. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Public

Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant

and learned counsel for the convicts and have gone through the record

carefully.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for

the complainant has contended that the act committed by convict

Sukhvinder falls in the category of rarest of rare case. It is proved on

record that the convict Sukhvinder has committed cold blooded murder

of helpless and undefended six victims including a two years and 10

months child Sartaj and two females Sakshi and Pooja, who was just 17

years old. He committed the crime with pre design in a ruthless and

brutal manner without any sense of feeling of pity for the victims only for

their fault that they were sports persons and wanted a positive

atmosphere in the Jat Akhara/sports Hall and the innocent child Sartaj

was killed without any reason only being son of deceased Manoj and

deceased Sakshi. She further contended that the manner of its execution

and its design would put it at the level of extreme atrocity and cruelty.

The victims were killed brutally in a helpless and defenceless state in

their own Akhara i.e. Sports Hall where they used to practice.

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
4

She further argued that crime was per-mediated and hair-

raising to the society at large in the sequence of which it came to be

committed creating a great risk of bodily harm to PW1 Amarjeet and

death of six victims. In support of his plea, she relied upon the judgments

of cases titled as Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1982) SCC 24,

(1983) SCR 145A decided on 09.05.1980 and Machhi Singh and others

Vs. State of Punjab 1983 SCC (3) 470. She further stated that the present

case is squarely covered the parameters of the category of the cases of

rarest of rare as enumerated in the case of Machhi Singh (supra).

The learned Public Prosecutor along with learned counsel for

the complainant further submitted that convict Sukhvinder does not

deserve any leniency in such a heinous crime, which has shocked the

general public. They prayed for the death punishment of convict

Sukhvinder as the present case falls in the category of rarest of rare case.

It is further prayed for the maximum punishment be awarded to convict

Sukhvinder provided for the other offences proved against him and no

lenient view be taken.

It is also argued that convict Manoj Kumar be given

maximum punishment for the offence committed by him under Section

29 of the Arms Act and in his case also, no lenient view be taken.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the convict

Sukhvinder has submitted that the present case does not fall in the

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
5

category of rarest of rare as the same is based on circumstantial evidence.

He further submitted that it cannot be said that the murder was committed

in a brutal manner as only one injury was found on the deceased-persons.

The convict Sukhvinder has no any criminal background rather he has

been a wrestler of national and international level. The learned counsel

prayed that keeping in view his sports career and his achievement in the

sports and considering his old age parents and minor child, lenient view

may kindly be taken.

7. Learned counsel for convict Manoj Kumar has submitted

that the minimum sentence be awarded as he has been held guilty only

on the basis of the circumstantial evidence without any concrete

evidence. He also submitted that convict Manoj has no criminal record

rather he is an ex-serviceman. He prayed that considering his minor

children and considering his services as an Army personnel, a lenient

view be taken.

8. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

9. In operating the sentencing system, the law should adopt the

corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts

and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner

in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of

crime, the conduct of the accused/convicts and all other attending

circumstances are relevant facts.

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
6

10. It is well settled that use of discretion while imposing

sentence has to be guided by law and what is fair under the obtaining

circumstances. In Satish Kumar Jayanti Vs. State of Gujarat 2015(2) Raj.

195 the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed various authorities on the

discretion of court while awarding sentence. It was held that it is the duty

of the court to impose adequate sentence for one of the purposes of

imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and a

legitimate response to the collective conscience. The paramount principle

that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be

proportionate. It is a delicate balance between the two conflicting

interests which is to be achieved by the court after examining all these

parameters and then deciding as to which course of action it should taken

in particular case.

11. Question of sentence is always a difficult task requiring

balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is

a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances

aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. Law courts have been

consistent in the approach that a reasonable proportion has to be

maintained between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment.

While it is true that sentence disproportionately severe should not be

passed that does not clothe the court with an option to award the sentence

manifestly inadequate. Justice demands that the court should impose

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
7

punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public

abhorrence of the crime.

For deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded,

the aggravating and mitigating factors and the circumstances in which the

crime has committed are to be delicately balanced in a dispassionate

manner.

12. Let us deal with the statements of convicts, contention of the

learned defence counsel, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor

and the circumstances involving the instant case.

13. Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. provides that when the conviction is

for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with

imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment

shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of

sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence. In Bachan

Singh and Machhi Singh’s (supra) cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court

laid down various principles for awarding death sentence.

14. The test while awarding death sentence are:

(i) Crime test

(ii) Criminality test

(iii) R-R test and not the balance sheet

(iv) To award the death sentence, T “Crime Test” has to be fully

satisfied that is 100% and criminal test (0%) i.e. no

mitigating circumstances favouring the accused, if there is

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
8

any circumstances favouring the accused like lack to commit

the crime possibility of reformation young age of the

accused not a manage to society, no previous track record,

criminal test may favour the accused to avoid the capital

punishment. Even if both the test are satisfied as against the

accused, the court has to apply “rarest of rare cases test”. We

have to apply finally the “rarest of rare cases test” (R-R test),

which depends upon the perception of the society and not

judge centric. That is whether the society will approve the

awarding of death sentence to certain type of crimes or not

while applying the test, the court has to look into the variety

of factors like society abhorrence extreme indignation and

antipathy to certain type of crimes like rape and murder

minor girls and the court awards death sentence because the

situation demands due to constitutional compulsions

reflected by the will of the people and not the will of the

judges.

15. Aggravating circumstances- (Crime Test)

(i) When the crime is enormous in proportion like making an

attempt of murder of the entire family or members of a

particular community.

(ii) When the victim is innocent, helpless or a person relies upon

the trust of relationship and social norms, like a child,

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
9

helpless woman, a daughter or a niece staying with a father /

uncle and is inflicted with the crime by such a trusted person.

(iii) When the murder is committed for a motive which evidences

total depravity and meanness,

(iv) When there is cold blooded murder without provocation.

(v) The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks or shocks

not only the judicial conscience but even the conscience of

society.

Aggravating circumstances as pointed above, of course are

not so exhaustive, so also the mitigating circumstances.

16. Mitigating circumstances -(criminal test)

(i) The manner and the circumstances in and under which the

offence was committed, for example, extreme, mental or

emotional disturbance or extreme provocation in

contradistinction to all these situations in normal course.

(ii) The age of the accused is a relevant consideration but not a

determinative factor by itself.

(iii) The chances of the accused of not indulging in commission of

crime again and the probability of the accused being reformed

and rehabilitated.

(iv) The condition of the accused shows that he was mentally

directive and the defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the

circumstances of his criminal conduct.

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
10

(v) The circumstances which, in normal course of life, would

render such a behaviour possible and could have the effect of

giving rise to mental imbalance in that given situation like

persistent harassment or, in fact, leading to such a peak of

human behaviour that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in

committing the offence.

(vi) Where the court upon proper appreciation of evidence is of the

view that the crime was not committed in a preordained

manner and that the death resulted in the course of commission

of another crime or that there was a possibility of it being

construed as consequences to the commission of the primary

crime.

(vii) Where it is absolutely unsafe to rely upon the testimony of a

sole eye witness through the prosecution has brought home the

guilt of the accused.”

17. In Gurvail Singh Gala and another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR

2013 SC 1117, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to award death

sentence, the aggravating circumstances (crime test) have to be fully

testified and there should no mitigating circumstances (criminal test)

favouring the accused. Even if both the tests are satisfied as against the

accused, the court has to apply the “rarest of rare cases test” (R-R test)

which depends upon the perception of society and not judge centric.

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
11

This is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence

to certain types of crimes or not while applying the test, the court has to

look into the variety of factors like society abhorrence, extreme

indignation and antipathy to certain type of crimes like rape and murder

minor girls and the court awards death sentence because the situation

demands due to the court has to look into the variety of factors like

society abhorrence extreme indignation and antipathy to certain type of

crimes like rape and murder minor girls and the court awards death

sentence because the situation demands due to constitutional compulsions

reflected by the will of the people.

With the abovesaid observations the court is to balance

aggravating and mitigating circumstances (a) offence committed in

extremely brutal grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner so

as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of society (b) demonstration

of exceptional depravity and extreme brutality (c) extreme misery upon

the victim before her death (d) grave impact of crime on social order.

18. The doctrine of proportionality which appears to be the

premise whereupon the learned trial Judge as also the High Court laid its

foundation for awarding death penalty on the appellant herein, provide

for justifiable reasoning forwarding death penalty. However, while

imposing any sentence on the accused, the court must also keep in mind

the doctrine of rehabilitation. This considering Section 354 (3) of the

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
12

Code is especially so in the cases where the court is to determine whether

the case at hands falls within the rarest of rare case.

19. This Court has tried to find out mitigating circumstances so

as to award life imprisonment to the convict Sukhvinder but it could not

find the same when this Court revisit the manner of executing the crime

by the convict Sukhvinder in a pre-design way killing six persons one

after another by calling them at first floor of the Akhara/sports Hall of Jat

College and further firing shot on the back portion of their head region as

such, the victims even could not find any opportunity to defend

themselves. After three killings of Manoj, Pardeep and Satish

continuously, the convict Sukhvinder did not stop there and he called a

teenage player Pooja, then Sakshi wife of deceased Manoj and shoot

them without their fault. Even his heart did not melt when in the last he

fired upon Sartaj, a little child of 2 years 10 months only due to his

grudges against the father of said child i.e. deceased Manoj. His feelings

of hatering and enmity for deceased Manoj was to this extent that he did

not spare his wife Sakshi and his little child Sartaj. It reflects that even he

did not want to see the deceased Manoj leading a happy married life apart

from the professional achievement of deceased Manoj, DPE by running

Jat College Akhara.

20. Not only this even his motive to kill 17 years old wrestling

player Pooja was that she complained to deceased Manoj against his

misconduct and harassment, due to which deceased Manoj had asked

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
13

convict Sukhvinder to leave the job as Wrestler Coach from Jat College

Akhara. He murdered wrestling Coach Satish and other wrestler Pardeep,

who was doing job only because they supported deceased Manoj in his

decision to ask convict Sukhvinder to leave the Akhara. The final victim

of convict Sukhvinder was injured Amarjeet, who however escaped

fortunately as bullet hit on his face at zygomatic area as he could see

convict Sukhvinder while firing upon him. Here, the plan of convict

Sukhvinder failed at last. Injured Amarjeet deposed against him in the

trial. The act of convict Sukhvinder was result of his extreme

professional jealous towards his colleagues, friends and associates.

21. The convict Sukhvinder misused the relationship of trust to

mature his deadly plan in committing the offence of murder of six

persons. He took the benefit of relationship of trust which they would

have naturally in each other being well known and have been associated

since a sufficient long time. Deceased Manoj, deceased Satish, injured

Amarjeet and convict Sukhvinder, all were from the field of wrestling

and imparting coaching of wrestling in Akharas. Deceased Pooja, a

teenage player at Jat College Akhara used to come for practice there.

Convict Sukhvinder called them one by one up stairs and killed one by

one i.e. Pardeep, Manoj and Satish in the rest room and after killing

them, he called the wrestler player Pooja and killed her and thereafter, he

called Sakshi, an Athlete and working woman and also killed her. It was

natural for the deceased-persons to go on the call of convict Sukhvinder

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
14

without any doubt against him that he would kill them. Otherwise, all

were wrestlers, they could defend themselves even without any weapon,

but convict Sukhvinder called them by cheating and shoot at back of their

head.

22. The misuse of the relationship of trust was at the extreme

when the convict Sukhvinder took the child Sartaj with him upstairs from

the Hall at first floor. PW3 Vishal had lastly seen child Sartaj with

convict Sukhvinder at that time. It shows that convict Sukhvinder was

very well known to the child and that was why child Sartaj being having

trust in him was comfortably going with him upstairs when PW3 Vishal

saw him.

23. The convict never shown any remorse after killing one by

one in a pre-plan manner and barbaric manner and even after killing little

Sartaj, he took attempt to kill injured Amarjeet. The convict Sukhvinder

took all care to commit the barbaric act of murder one by one in a

diabolic manner between 6.32 P.M. to 7.46 P.M. at Jat College Akhara on

12.02.2021 when all the players were present for their routine evening

practice with a sense of natural safety in the presence of their seniors and

coach. No one could imagine that at said place, such type of incident

could be happened and would be done by the person, who would be none

but among them.

24. The photographs and video of first crime spot i.e. first floor

of Jat College Akhara it selves speak voluminous about the scene at the

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
15

time of the incident. How the every next victim would be shocked to see

dead body of previous victim lying in a blood pool for a moment, and

before he could think or make out anything, he himself became next

victim of convict Sukhvinder again at the same place as he was shot at by

convict Sukhvinder on his head.

25. The convict Sukhvinder has prayed to take lenient view in

awarding punishment as he has seven years old child to look after.

Whether convict Sukhvinder did deserve any leniency? His act to take

child Sartaj upstairs and then near the dead body of his mother Sakshi, he

did not even think, in what trauma the little child would have passed in

those few minutes to see his mother lying in blood pool. And thereafter,

he shot at little Sartaj and the bullet entered in his scalp and took exist

from his eye. While at that time, he did not think about his own 7 years

child in whose name he is now praying for leniency in awarding the

punishment. The convict Sukhvinder, who has no feelings for an innocent

child of his own friend/associate. From him it cannot be expected he

could have a heart of a father. Had it been, then before firing, at least, on

the innocent child Sartaj, his hands must tremble. This Court has feeling

about the son of convict Sukhvinder that he might deprive of his father’s

love and affection but seeing the act and conduct of the convict

Sukhvinder, this court is of the firm opinion that his child would better

survive in society without his company.

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
16

26. Further, the convict Sukhvinder stated that he is

national/international player and his career would be spoiled. But what

about the deceased persons out of four, who have not lost their career in

the field of wrestling but have also lost their lives from the hands of

convict Sukhvinder. Sports create a spirit of sportsmanship it teach

disciplined life and a feeling of healthy competition and develop a habit

of cooperation. But convict Sukhvinder is so ambitious that as he could

not see his friends/associates to come forward in the field of wrestling.

Claiming himself a wrestler of national and international level and worry

about his own career shows that he was totally lacking spirit of

sportsmanship. Even he could not tolerate a female wrestler player Pooja,

who joined Akhara to become a wrestler player.

27. Deceased Pooja, a 17 years old teenage girl of Mathura

(U.P.) had come with some dreams but the convict Sukhvinder committed

her murder as he could not tolerate her for taking side of deceased Satish,

Manoj and Pardeep and also making complaint against him. Even the

convict Sukhvinder went to the extent of her character assassination

while cross-examination of PWs by asking there were illicit relations

with deceased Manoj and Satish and she was being used by them for

illegal purpose or she was having affair with some boy without bringing

any such evidence in the defence. The person of this mentality, who after

killing a poor innocent girl physically, was defaming her after her

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
17

murder, who could not even come to give her own character certificate in

this world.

28. The incident of murder of six persons including four

wrestlers at Jat College Akhara would not affect the individual families

of the victims but it would have far reaching consequences on the society.

The murder of Pooja, wrestler would affect the social change which has

been seeing from last decade that girls have coming forward for a

conservative society in the fields of sports. Their families have been

allowing to field of sports for their girls to make their career. Not only

from the conservative society, but the children of marginal farmers, have

been adopting the wrestler sport because this sport does not need any

such costly infrastructure as required for the games of golf, Badminton,

tennis etc. as these sports are not in their financial and social range.

29. This horrible incident in the city has bring a doubt in the

mind of public that ‘Akharas’ are not now a sport hall and not safe to

send their children. This incident would leave a print in the mind of the

public of this region, where sport of wrestling is a passion among both

males and females and now parents would think time and again before

sending their children in the Akharas.

30. The mass killing of wrestlers and coach in Akhara, during

evening practice time in a planned manner has not only caused individual

loss to the family of victims, and would affect on the thinking of society,

but also this would bring a bad image for the State of Haryana which has

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
18

brought a pride for the whole nation by bringing medals in the sport of

wrestling at national and international level. The safety of Akharas would

become a challenge for the State to maintain the attraction of wrestling

among its children and youth and to keep alive the glory of wrestling

sport.

31. After discussing above, this Court finds, in strict adherence

to the law and the fact that aggravating circumstances outweighed the

mitigate circumstances. Further this case falls in the category of the case

of rarest of rare. In those circumstances, this Court has no alternative

except to switch over the death penalty instead of life imprisonment. It is

important to mention here that the offence in the present case was

committed on 12.02.2021 after the amendment in the Arms Act, 1959,

which received, the assent of the President on 13 December 2019, so, the

amended Arms Act, 1959 is applicable in the present case. In the

amended Arms Act (2019), 1959, now the death penalty is no longer

mandatory under Section 27(3) as it was held unconstitutional by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Punjab Vs. Dalbir Singh decided

on 01.01.2012 and consequently thereafter the Section 27(3) is amended

in year 2019. Now Section 27(3) of the Arms Act has been substituted

with option of death or life imprisonment and fine as well and leaving

discretion of awarding sentence on the wisdom of the Court. However, as

discussed in detail, this case falls under the category of rarest of rare case

and the weapon was used for the gruesome six murders i.e. a child of 2

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
19

years 10 months, a 17 years teenage girl, one female Athlete, three

wrestlers/coach. Therefore, the Court proceeds further to pass sentence

to convicts.

32. The convict Sukhvinder is sentenced as under:

Name of Offence Imprisonment Fine Sentence in

convict U/S R.I default of
payment of fine.
Sukhvinder 302 IPC Death penalty _ _
son of Mehar
Singh
Sukhvinder 307 IPC Life Rs. One year
son of Mehar 1,00,000/- simple
Singh imprisonment (Rupees one imprisonment
lac)
Sukhvinder 342 IPC One year Rs.1000/- 10 days simple
son of Mehar (Rupees one imprisonment
Singh thousand)
Sukhvinder 201 IPC Seven years Rs.10,000/- Six months
son of Mehar (Rupees simple
Singh ten imprisonment
thousands)
Sukhvinder 25 of Arms Ten years Rs.10,000/- Eight months
son of Mehar Act (Rupees simple
Singh ten imprisonment
thousands)
Sukhvinder 27 (3) of Death penalty _ _
son of Mehar Arms Act
Singh
Sukhvinder 29 of Arms 3 years Rs.5000/- One month
son of Mehar Act (Rupees simple
Singh five imprisonment
thousands)

The period of custody during investigation and trial if any

shall be set off while calculating the total period of sentences, all the

sentences shall run concurrently. Fine not paid.

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
20

33. The convict Manoj Kumar is sentenced as under:

Name of Offence Imprisonment Fine Sentence in

convict U/S R.I default of
payment of fine.
Manoj Kumar 29 of Arms 3 years Rs.5000/- One month
son of Jai Act (Rupees simple
Parkash five imprisonment
thousands)

The period of custody during investigation and trial if any

shall be set off while calculating the total period of sentences. Find paid.

34. This Court finds that the monetary assistance to the

dependents of the deceased would not bring their near and dear ones back

but this Court is of the opinion that the dependents/victims of deceased

persons are entitled for loss of their family members as a result of crime.

The fine imposed upon the convicts would not be sufficient in the present

case of six murders, this Court recommends to Distt. Legal Services

Authority, Rohtak for quantum of compensation to be awarded under the

Government Scheme, if any to the victims/dependents of the deceased

persons.

35. The reference be sent to Hon’ble High Court under Section

366 Cr.P.C. and convict Sukhvinder son of Mehar Singh, resident of

Village Barauda District Sonepat Haryana be kept in District Jail, Karnal

and the sentence would not be executed till confirmation of death penalty

from the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Warrants of

commitment under sentence of death be sent to the Office Incharge of

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)
 CIS No. 421 of 2021
State Versus Sukhvinder and another
21

District Jail, Karnal accordingly to keep the convict safely together with

the warrant until till the further orders from the Hon’ble High Court.

Copies of judgment of conviction and order of sentence be

supplied to the convicts free of cost as per rules.

Announced (Dr. Gagan Geet Kaur)

23.02.2024 Special Judge-cum-
Addl.Sessions Judge
Rohtak. UID No.HR0482

All the 21 pages of this judgment have been signed by me.

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur),

Special Judge-cum-
Deepti, Stenographer-1 Addl.Sessions Judge
Rohtak. UID No.HR0482

" I attest to the

accuracy and
authenticity of this
document."
DEEPTI Digitally signed by
DEEPTI
Date: 2024.02.23
17:40:01 +0530

(Dr.Gagan Geet Kaur)

Special Judge-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, 23.02.2024 (UID No.HR0482)