Practice and Procedure – Death sentence – Commutation of, into life sentence– Mitigating factors to be considered – SocioEconomic factors – Appellant murdered six members of one family – Sessions Court convicted the appellant – Trial Judge sentenced the appellant “to be hanged by the neck till he is dead” – High Court confirmed the death sentence – Appellant filed appeal before Supreme Court – Dismissed– Appellant filed Review Petition– Dismissed– Review petition re-opened– Held: Socio-economic circumstances relating to the appellant are relevant for objective consideration of the award of sentence – Socio-economic factors must be taken into consideration while awarding sentence, particularly the ground realities relating to access to justice that are not easily available to the poor and needy – In the present case, convict was working as driver on casual basis and was desirous of obtaining employment in the Gulf and was making all attempts in this direction– He managed to arrange a visa but had to pay the agent Rs.62,000/- – Due to severe financial constraints he could only arrange Rs.25,000/- – He had gone to the house of the deceased family for getting money– But, unfortunately he was unable to obtain any funds from them and this led to his decision to kill all of them – Socio-economic condition of the appellant was a significant factor that ought to have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court and the High Court while considering the punishment to be given to the appellant – While the socio-economic condition of a convict is not a factor for disproving his guilt, it is a factor that must be taken into consideration for the purposes of awarding an appropriate sentence to a convict – Trial Court was in error while awarding death sentence to the appellant on the basis that he was a hardened criminal– There is no such evidence on record– Death sentence awarded to the appellant converted into sentence of imprisonment for life.
Disposing of the review petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The socio-economic factors relating to a convict should be taken into consideration for the purposes of deciding whether to award life sentence or death sentence. Socio-economic factors must be taken into consideration while awarding a sentence particularly the ground realities relating to access to justice and remedies to justice that are not easily available to the poor and the needy. [Paras 15, 16][305-B; 306-C]
1.2 The consideration of socio-economic factors is tied up with another important issue (which need not necessarily or always be taken into consideration for sentencing purposes, but could be relevant in a given case) and that is whether the convict has had adequate legal representation. Quality legal aid to the disadvantaged and weaker sections of society is an area that requires great and urgent attention. [Paras 17, 18] [306-C-D, F-G]
1.3 On the facts of the present case, the convict was working as a driver on a casual basis. He was desirous of obtaining employment in the Gulf and was making all attempts in this direction. He managed to arrange a visa but had to pay the agent Rs.62,000/-. Due to severe financial constraints he could only arrange Rs.25,000/- for making the initial payment. He continued making attempts to raise the amount. His economic condition was so severe that for the purposes of going to Gulf he had to proceed from Ernakulam to Mumbai by train and while he could manage to purchase the ticket, he was unable to pay for reservation charges. Under these circumstances, he had gone to the house of the deceased family for getting money or by stealing it or by grabbing it by any other means. But unfortunately for him and the deceased family, he was unable to obtain any funds from them and this led to his decision to kill all of them. [Para 26][310-C-E]
Public opinion or collective conscience of the society
1.4 It would be wise if impressions gathered on what is perceived to be public opinion or collective conscience of the society are eschewed while sentencing a convict found guilty of a grave or brutal crime. On the facts of the present case, there was no material whatsoever to come to the conclusion that the gravity of the crime caused revulsion in the society or that it had materially disturbed normal life in the society. Consequently, the view expressed by the Trial Judge in this regard must be disregarded for the purposes of imposing an appropriate sentence on the appellant. [Para 27][311-C-D]
Conclusion
1.5 All the courts including this Court overlooked consideration of the probability of reform or rehabilitation and social reintegration of the appellant into society. The Trial Court was in error proceeding on the basis, while awarding a sentence of death to the appellant by observing that he was a hardened criminal. There is no such evidence on material or on record. The socio-economic condition of the appellant was a significant factor that ought to have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court as well the High Court while considering the punishment to be given to the appellant. While the socio-economic condition of a convict is not a factor for disproving his guilt, it is a factor that must be taken into consideration for the purposes of awarding an appropriate sentence to a convict. The death sentence awarded to the appellant is converted into a sentence of imprisonment for life. [Paras 29, 30, 31 and 33][311-F-H; 312-A-B, E-F]
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 – followed.
Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal v. State of Gujarat (2005)
3 SCC 127 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 464 ; Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab (2009) 10 SCC 434 ; Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508 : [2010] 2 SCR
633 ; Kamleshwar Paswan v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2011) 11 SCC 564 : [2011] 1 SCR 647 ; Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
4 SCC 292 : [2014] 3 SCR 406 ; Santosh Kumar
Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
6 SCC 498 – relied on.
Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. The Registrar Supreme Court of India & others (2014) 9 SCC 737 : [2014] 11 SCR 1009 ; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505; Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra Decided on 12.12.2018 by Supreme Court in Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 306-307 of 2013; Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 3 SCC 685: [2011] 4 SCR 585 – 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.