Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Award of, by courts below – Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst – Dismissed in limine with one word – Review petition filed against the dismissal of SLP – Held: When death sentence is rare, there has to be an independent examination by this Court also, ‘unbound by the findings of the trial court and the High Court’ – Such approach is the ‘timehonoured practice of this Court’ – Thus, special leave petition filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence – Order dismissing the Special Leave Petition is recalled – Constitution of India – Art. 137.
Allowing the Review Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, since the special leave petition filed by the review petitioner was dismissed in limine with one word and without giving any reasons, the review petition is allowed and the order dismissing the Special Leave Petition is recalled. [Para 16][1165-D-E]
1.2 When it comes to providing hearing in cases where the judicial mind is to be applied in choosing the sentence between life imprisonment and death, this requirement assumes greater importance. It has been held in Bachan Singh’s case that since death sentence can be awarded only in the ‘rarest of rare cases’, the Court is supposed to give ‘special reasons’ when it choses to award death sentence. The reasoning process has to undertake the exercise of considering mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances and after weighing those circumstances with objective assessment, a decision has to be taken in this behalf. Such an exercise inherently calls for recording of reasons for awarding death sentence. The legislature has added another dimension in order to obviate any possibility of error, by making a specific provision to the effect that in those cases where the Session Judge inflicts death penalty, it has to be affirmed and approved by the High Court. [Para 11][1165-D-F]
1.3 Keeping in view all the factors, particularly, when death sentence is rare, this Court has emphasised time and again that in such cases there has to be an independent examination by this Court also, ‘unbound by the findings of the trial court and the High Court’. Such approach is the ‘time-honoured practice of this Court’. [Para 12][1163-G]
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 : [2012] 8 SCR 295 - relied on.
1.4 While undertaking the exercise as to whether the death penalty is to be given imprimatur by this Court, even after the approval thereof by the High Court, case law of this Court amply demonstrates that proper exercise of sentence discretion calls for consideration of various factors like the nature of offence, circumstances-both extenuating or aggravating, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, his background, his education, his personal life, his social adjustment, the emotional and mental condition of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of his rehabilitation in the life of community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others. [Para 13][1163-G-H; 1164-A-B]
1.5 A cumulative effect of all the circumstances does suggest that special leave petition filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence. There may be cases where at the Special Leave Petition stage itself, the Court may find that insofar as conviction is concerned there is no scope for interference at all as such a conviction for offence under Section 302 is recorded on the basis of evidence which is impeccable, trustworthy, credible and proves the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. At the same time, if death penalty is to be affirmed even while dismissing the Special Leave Petition in limine, it should be by a reasoned order on the aspect of sentence, at least. [Para 15][1165-B-D]
Rajesh Kumar v. State Through Government of NCT of Delhi (2011) 13 SCC 706; Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa (2003) 9 SCC 310; Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others (2014) 9 SCC 737 : [2014] 11 SCR 1009 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.