Administration of Criminal Justice – Capital punishment – Commutation of – Appellant allegedly murdered three persons and caused grievous injuries to others – Sessions Court convicted the appellant u/ss. 302, 307, 506 (2) and 450, IPC – High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence – On appeal, held: High Court erroneously confirmed the death penalty – No evidence as to the uncommon nature of the offence or the improbability of reformation or rehabilitation of the appellant was adduced – Death penalty is to be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases where life imprisonment is wholly inadequate or futile owing to the nature of the crime and the circumstances relating to the criminal – Whether not granting death penalty would send a wrong message to society are additional factors to be looked at – No such analysis was undertaken by the High Court – High Court also failed to look at the aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Conduct of the convict in prison cannot be lost sight of – The fact that the prisoner displayed good behaviour in prison certainly goes on to show that he is not beyond reform – Decision to impose the highest punishment of death sentence in the present case does not fulfil the test of “rarest of rare case where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed” – Imposition of death sentence was not the only option and hence the same is commuted to imprisonment for life – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 307, 506 (2) and 450 . Administration of Criminal Justice – Capital Punishment – Constitutional regulation of – Held: (Per Kurian Joseph, J.) Time has come to view the need for death penalty as a punishment, especially its purpose and practice – Per Deepak Gupta, J. (for himself and Hemant Gupta, J.)(Partly Dissenting) Since the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh case has upheld capital punishment, there is no need to re-examine the same at this stage.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has erroneously confirmed death penalty without correctly applying the law laid down in the cases of Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh , Santosh Bariyar and Shankar Kisanrao Khade. The decision to impose the highest punishment of death sentence in this case does not fulfil the test of “rarest of rare case where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”. No evidence as to the uncommon nature of the offence or the improbability of reformation or rehabilitation of the appellant was adduced. Death penalty shall be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases where life imprisonment shall be wholly inadequate or futile owing to the nature of the crime and the circumstances relating to the criminal. Whether the person is capable of reformation and rehabilitation should also be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty. Whether the person would be a threat to society or whether not granting death penalty would send a wrong message to society are additional factors to be looked at. No such analysis was undertaken by the High Court. The High Court has also failed to look at the aggravating and mitigating circumstances regarding the criminal as warranted by Bachan Singh. The fact that the appellant had no previous criminal record apart from the acquittal in the Section 376, IPC, which was a false implication and the alleged motive did not weigh with the High Court as an important mitigating circumstance with respect to the criminal. [Para 13][368-E-H; 369-A-B]
1.2 The superintendent of the jail has given a certificate that his conduct in jail has been good. Thus, there is a clear indication that despite having lost all hope, yet no frustration has set on the appellant. On the contrary, there was a conscious effort on his part to lead a good life for the remaining period. A convict is sent to jail with the hope and expectation that he would make amends and get reformed. That there is such a positive change on a death row convict should also weigh with the Court while taking a decision as to whether the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. It was the duty of the State to prove by evidence that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. That information not having been furnished by the State at the relevant time, the information now furnished by the State becomes all the more relevant. The standard set by the ‘rarest of rare’ test in Bachan Singh is a high standard. The conduct of the convict in prison cannot be lost sight of. The fact that the prisoner has displayed good behaviour in prison certainly goes on to show that he is not beyond reform. [Para 15][369-G-H; 370-A-B]
1.3 In the matter of probability and possibility of reform of a criminal, a proper psychological/psychiatric evaluation was not done. Without the assistance of such a psychological/psychiatric assessment and evaluation it would not be proper to hold that there is no possibility or probability of reform. The State has to bear in mind this important aspect while proving by evidence that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. Another aspect that has been overlooked by the High Court is the procedural impropriety of not having a separate hearing for sentencing at the stage of trial. A bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing was a necessary condition. By conducting the hearing for sentencing on the same day, the Trial court has failed to provide necessary time to the appellant to furnish evidence relevant to sentencing and mitigation. [Para 16, 17][370-C-E]
1.4 For the abovementioned reasons, the imposition of death sentence was not the only option and hence the same needs to be commuted to imprisonment for life. [Para 18][370-E-F]
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 – followed.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 : [2009] 9 SCR 90 ; Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 : [1983] 3 SCR 413 ; Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546 : [2013] 6 SCR
949 – relied on.
Sonu Sardar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 4 SCC 97 : [2012] 3 SCR 558 ; Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013)
2 SCC 452 : [2012] 13 SCR 85 – 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.