Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

In 2021, the cases wherein the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, it was observed that the Courts below had faulted in not applying the 'criminal test', and to evaluate the scope for reformation and rehabilitation. In 3 out of the 4 cases where the sentence was commuted, the Supreme Court categorically noted that sentence was awarded on the same day the accused was convicted and real opportunity was not provided on the question of sentence.

Time and again, and more recently in Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584 and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460, the Supreme Court had emphasised that, while imposing sentence, the Courts ought to take into account the circumstances of both the crime and the criminal. On 20th October, 2021, at a panel discussion organised to mark the release of Project 39A's report titled "Deathworthy", the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, Justice S. Muralidhar had also reckoned - "We need to acknowledge the person we are dealing with at least at the stage of sentencing".

I. DEATH SENTENCE TO ACQUITTAL

1. Hari Om @ Hero v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1256 of 2017

Prosecution's Case: The complainant's sister-in-law, niece and two nephews were murdered by the accused. Moreover, valuables were looted from their residence. Upon investigation, weapons were recovered from the accused along with some valuable articles. The statement of the surviving five-year old nephew, who was an eyewitness, was recorded. As per the testimony of a neighbour, on the fateful day, the accused (including the appellant) were present near the house of the deceased. It was alleged that a knife was recovered after being pointed out by the appellant (Hari Om).

Trial Court: The appellant and five other accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 396, 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Additional Sessions Judge-2, Firozabad, convicted the accused for offence under Section 396 IPC and sentenced the appellant to death, while the other five were awarded life imprisonment.

High Court: The Allahabad High Court confirmed the death sentence imposed on the appellant, affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to two accused, and acquitted three.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court acquitted all the accused, including the appellant.

Reasoning:

Against the backdrop of Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2010) 12 SCC 324, which cautioned the courts to base convictions on the evidence of child witnesses only after subjecting them to a higher threshold of scrutiny, the inconsistencies in the testimony of the five year old eyewitness did not inspire confidence of the Court.

• The recovery of murder weapon not supported by a memorandum was not enough to sustain conviction.
• There was nothing other than the testimony of a neighbour to suggest the presence of the accused in the neighbourhood on the night of the robbery and murder. The testimony, doubted by the Court, conviction could not be based on the same.
• The appellants' fingerprints did not match with the ones taken from the house of the deceased.

[Death Sentence to Acquittal - One prisoner]

2. Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 434-436 of 2020

Prosecution's case: Momin Khan along with his wife, Nazra, cousin Jaikam Khan and his son Sajid Khan, killed his father, mother, brother, sister-in-law, nephew and niece over property dispute and allied enmity.

Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, convicted the appellants (Momin Khan, Jaikam Khan and Sajid Khan) and Nazra under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to death.

High Court: While confirming the death sentence for the appellants, the Allahabad High Court acquitted Nazra.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court acquitted all three appellants. Pertinently, it observed -

"While coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, we are at pains to observe the manner in which the present case has been dealt with by the trial court as well as by the High Court, particularly, when the trial court awarded death penalty to the accused and the High Court confirmed it. The trial court and the High Court were expected to exercise a greater degree of scrutiny, care and circumspection while directing the accused to be hanged till death."

Reasoning:

• The testimony of the eye-witnesses were neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable;
• There are inconsistencies with respect to the time of arrest of the accused;
• Since no public witness was examined in support of memo of recovery of the weapons, the same had to be closely scrutinised;
• There were discrepancies in the account of the prosecution witnesses with respect to recovery of bloodstained clothes worn at the time of the offence. Moreover, FSL reports were also inconclusive;
• The prosecution not being able to establish motive proved to be fatal, since there were neither direct evidence nor reliable eye-witnesses;
• The observations made by the Trial Court and High Court were based on conjectures and surmises, without any evidence to support the same;
• The High Court had shifted the burden of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the accused even before the prosecution had discharged its initial burden, which is a blatant violation of the trite law.

[Death Sentence to Acquittal - Three prisoners]

II. DEATH SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT

1. Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1473-1474 of 2017

Prosecution's Case: A five year old girl child was subjected to rape by the appellant (Irappa). She was strangulated, tied in a gunny bag and disposed of into a stream. In order to establish its case, the prosecution relied upon three crucial circumstances -

1. The appellant took away the girl from a neighbour's house on the day of the crime;
2. Witnesses last saw the appellant carry gunny bag towards the stream; and
3. Based on the appellant's disclosure statement the body of the deceased was recovered.

Trial Court: The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A and 201 of the IPC. He was sentenced to death for committing murder.

High Court: The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad.

Supreme Court: Considering that the circumstances had been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, but commuted death sentence to life imprisonment without premature release/remission before undergoing actual imprisonment of 30 years for the commission of murder.

Reasoning:

It was brought to the notice of the Apex Court, that though the Trial Court had considered that the appellant was a young man belonging to a poor family, but not in the context of mitigating circumstances. Thereafter, the High Court had noted that there were no mitigating circumstances. Refuting such observations, the Supreme Court enumerated the mitigating circumstances as under:

1. No criminal antecedents;
2. No evidence to show commission of offence was pre-planned;
3. No material to show that the appellant would continue to be a threat to society and cannot be reformed;
4. Conduct of the appellant as per jail records was 'satisfactory', which reflected his desire to be reformed;
5. Young age (23/25 years) at the time of commission of offence;
6. Weak socio-economic background;
7. Already spent nearly 10 years and 10 months in prison.

[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - One prisoner]

2. Bhagchandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 255-256 of 2018

Prosecution's case: The complainant, the sister-in-law of the appellant (Bhagchandra) saw him leave her house armed with an axe. She returned to the house to discover the dead body of her son and to find one of the appellant's brothers dead with his neck severed from his body. She also saw the appellant attacking her husband.

Trial Court: The Second Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 201 and 506-B of the IPC and awarded him death sentence for commission of murder.

High Court: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur confirmed the death sentence.

Supreme Court: The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment for a period of 30 year.

Reasoning:

Considering the case was based on direct evidence, the Court found no fault with the reasoning of the Trial Court to convict the accused. However, the Court observed that while awarding sentence and confirming the same, the Courts below had not taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances. Citing Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460, Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584 and Mofil Khan and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand RP (Criminal) No, 641/ 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 1795/2009, the Court noted that it was its bounden duty to take into consideration the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant. From the jail records and affidavits of relatives, the Supreme Court gathered that there was scope for reformation.

[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - One prisoner]

3. Lochan Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018

Prosecution's case: The complaint's three year old daughter went missing. The next day the appellant, who was a neighbour, offered to find the child by conducting certain rituals. As promised he informed the complainant that her daughter was tied and kept in a sack near a pole, on the side of a road. The police were intimated about the same and later, on confession of the appellant the body of the deceased was recovered.

Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 201, 302 read with 376A of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and by the same judgment sentenced him to death.

High Court: The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur confirmed the death penalty.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Reasoning:

The Court was convinced that the circumstances were conclusively proved by the prosecution with no scope for further doubt. However, on the issue of sentence, the Court observed that neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had considered the criminal test so as to evaluate the mitigating circumstances. Upholding it to be a duty to balance the mitigating and aggravating circumstances before reaching a conclusion, the Court considered -

1. Appellant was only 23 years old at the time of commission of offence;
2. He came from a rural background;
3. No evidence to suggest there was no possibility of reform;
4. Weak socio-economic background;
5. He was studious;
6. Conduct in prison was satisfactory;
7. No criminal antecedents;
8. There was scope for reformation.

[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - One prisoner]

III. DEATH SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AT THE STAGE OF REVIEW

Mofil Khan And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, Review Petition (Criminal) No. 641 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 1795 of 2009

Prosecution's case: There existed property disputes between the review petitioners and their brother, one of the deceased. They attacked him, while he was offering namaz in the mosque, with sharp weapons and he succumbed to the injuries. His two sons who were headed towards the mosque were also killed. Thereafter, the review petitioners murdered their deceased brother's wife and their four sons (one of whom was a person with disability).

Trial Court: The review petitioners along with two other accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to death.

High Court: The conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the review petitioners was affirmed by the Jharkhand High Court. The death sentence for the other two accused were commuted to life imprisonment.

Supreme Court: Considering the brutality of the 'pre-planned attack', whereby innocent children were killed, the Court applied the 'rarest of rare' doctrine and upheld the death sentence.

Supreme Court (Review): The sentence of death imposed on the review petitioners were converted to life imprisonment for 30 years.

Reasoning:

The Trial Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court (in appeal) had considered the crime test, but not the criminal test. The death sentence was awarded primarily on the account of the brutality of the crime, without any reference to the reformability of the review petitioners. The Supreme Court (in review) placed reliance on Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584, wherein the Apex Court had held that before imposing the extreme penalty of death sentence, the Court should satisfy itself that death sentence is imperative, as otherwise the convict would be a threat to the society, and that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the convict, after giving the convict an effective, meaningful, real opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence, by producing material. In review, the Court looked into the socio-economic background; absence of criminal antecedents, affidavits of family and community members and jail records on the conduct of the review petitioners to opine that there was possibility of reform and rehabilitation.

[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - Two prisoners]

IV. UPHELD ORDER OF HIGH COURT COMMUTING SENTENCE

Hari And Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018

Prosecution's case: A girl from the Jat community and a boy from the Jatav community eloped accompanied by a friend. On their return they along with their family members were taken to the Panchayat, wherein the girl expressed her desire to marry the boy from the Jatav community. Infuriated, the members of the Jat community assaulted the boy and his friend and hung them upside down and burnt their private parts. As per the decision of the members of the Panchayat all the three - girl, boy and the friend were hanged to death.

Trial Court: The accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 read with 149, 323 read with 149, 324 read with Section 149 and 201 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 3(3)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Out of the 35 accused, 8 were sentenced to death under Section 302/149 of IPC.

High Court: On appeal, the Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of all the accused, but converted the death sentence awarded to the 8 to life imprisonment.

Supreme Court: Upheld the conversion of sentence from death to life imprisonment for the 8 accused. However, it acquitted 3 accused in view of ambiguity in their identity.

Reasoning:

The Court observed that Section 145 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2003 in the United Kingdom and similar statute in Canada, treat racial and religiously motivated crimes as aggravating factors for enhanced punishment. Though not codified, the said principle is also well-recognised in the United States as held in Wisconsin v. Mitchell 508 US 476 (1993). Placing reliance on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)3 SCC 470, the Court held that honour killing squarely falls under the aggravating circumstances under the category of 'anti-social and abhorrent nature of crime'. However, the reasons provided by the High Court, such as, advance age of the accused, passage of long time after the commission of the crime and mental sufferings undergone by them, held sway over the Supreme Court.

[Upheld conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment for 8 prisoners]

S. No.	Case Title	Case No.	Date of Judgment	Bench	Author	Outcome
1.	Hari Om @ Hero v. State of U.P.	Crl. Appeal No. 1256 of 2017	05.01.2021	Justices U.U. Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari	Justice U.U. Lalit	Acquitted (Three prisoners - One sentenced to death and two sentenced to life-imprisonment)
2.	Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar v. State of Karnataka	Crl. Appeal Nos. 1473 - 1474 of 2017	08.11.2021	Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai	Justice Sanjiv Khanna	Commuted to Life Imprisonment (One prisoner)
3.	Hari & Anr. v. State of U.P.	Crl. Appeal No. 186 of 2018	26.11.2021	Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai	Justice L. Nageswara Rao	Affirmed the order of High Court which commuted death sentence to life imprisonment (Eight prisoners)
4.	Mofil Khan & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand	R.P. (Crl) No. 641 of 2015 in Crl Appeal No. 1795 of 2009	26.11.2021	Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai,B.V. Nagarathna	Justice L. Nageswara Rao	Commuted to Life Imprisonment at the stage of review (Two prisoners)
5.	Bhagchandra v. State of M.P.	Crl. Appeal Nos. 255-256 of 2018	09.12.2021	Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai,B.V. Nagarathna	Justice B.R. Gavai	Commuted to Life Imprisonment (One prisoner)
6.	Lochan Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh	Crl. Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018	14.12.2021	Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai,B.V. Nagarathna	Justice B.R. Gavai	Commuted to Life Imprisonment (One prisoner)
7.	Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P.	Crl. Appeal Nos. 434-436 of 2020	15.12.2021	Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai,B.V. Nagarathna	Justice B.R. Gavai	Acquitted (3 prisoners)

V. EXECUTIONS STAYED BY THE SUPREME COURT

1. Sandip Madhav Kurhe v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. 8687 of 2021

[Execution Stayed on: 28.09.2021]

[Bench: Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna]

Prosecution's Case: When the accused persons came to know that one of the deceased, a member of the Dalit community was involved in a love-affair with the daughter of one of the accused, who belonged to the Maratha caste, they hatched a conspiracy to kill him. On the pretext of cleaning a septic tank, the accused called all the three deceased to an isolated place and killed them. Later, mutilated body parts of the deceased were recovered from the septic tank and a nearby water-less well.

Trial Court: All six accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B, Section 201 read with Section 120B of the IPC and were sentenced to death.

High Court: The Bombay High Court was convinced that the prosecution has proved the fact of death of the deceased, and that the circumstances of their death was within the knowledge of five out of six accused persons. Therefore, the conviction and death sentence of five accused were upheld, while one whose involvement could not be satisfactorily established by the prosecution, was acquitted. The Court noted that there was no remorse felt by the accused and considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances it opined that the matter could not be taken out of the ambit of 'rarest of rare' cases.

Supreme Court: While admitting the appeals, the Supreme Court stayed the execution of the death sentence imposed on the appellants by its order dated 28.09.2021.

2. Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP (Crl) Nos. 9692-9693 of 2021

[Execution Stayed on: 15.12.2021]

[Bench: Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi]

Prosecution's Case: As the prosecutrix, a five year old girl child, went missing from her school, her grandmother lodged a report at the police station. The next day the prosecutrix was found in an injured condition and was rushed to the hospital. The events as narrated by the prosecutrix disclosed that the appellant took her to an isolated spot and with the aid of the other accused, raped her.

Trial Court: Convicted the two accused under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(m), 376 (DB), 307 IPC and Section 5(g)(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced them to death.

High Court: From the submissions and the evidence on record, the Madhya Pradesh High Court was convinced that the prosecution had conclusively proved its case on the lines as held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. Therefore, it upheld the conviction. Evaluation on the basis of the crime test, criminal test and the rarest of rare test conducted by the High Court reflected that there were no substantial mitigating circumstances in the present case. Moreover, the lack of remorse in the accused persons, the Court felt indicated towards their hardened criminal mindset. The Court observed that though the accused persons did not succeed in killing her, they had done all they could to ebb out the life of the prosecutrix and left her thinking she was already dead. In light of the circumstances as elucidated above, the High Court confirmed the death sentence of both the accused persons.

Supreme Court: In an appeal, the Supreme Court stayed the execution of the accused-appellant (Irfan) and, inter alia, directed the Director, Mental Care Hospital, District Indore, M.P. to constitute a team to conduct his psychiatric evaluation. It further directed the State to place reports of the Probation officer and the report of the Jail Administration, with respect to the nature of work performed by the appellant in jail, before the Court by 1st March, 2022 and instructed the Supreme Court registry to list the matter on 22nd March, 2022 for final disposal.

IV. DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF MERCY PETITION - GROUND FOR COMMUTATION

Jasbir Singh @ Jassa Etc. v. State of Punjab And Ors., SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9650-9651 of 2019

[Date of Order: 09.12.2021]

[Bench: Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi]

Prosecution's Case: The deceased was kidnapped from outside his school. The police received an anonymous tip of the kidnapping. In the meanwhile, the father of the deceased received a ransom call. As the police got involved, eventually the kidnappers decided to kill the deceased.

Trial Court: The appellants (Jasbir and Vikram) and another accused were convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 364A, 201 read with Section 120B of the IPC and were sentenced to death.

High Court: The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the conviction and the award of death sentence.

Supreme Court (Appeal): The decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court for the appellants in Vikram Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2010) 3 SCC 56. The sentence of another co-accused was commuted to life imprisonment.

Supreme Court (Review): The review was dismissed.

Supreme Court (2nd Review): The review filed in view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of Indian And Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 737, wherein the Court held that reviews from the judgments where death penalty was upheld by the Apex Court would be heard in open court before a three-judge bench, was also dismissed.

Single Judge, High Court: The appellants filed Writ Petitions before the Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground of undue and unexplained delay on the part of the concerned authorities in disposing of their Mercy Petitions, which is a supervening circumstance for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. The same were dismissed.

Division Bench, High Court: The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appeal on the issue of maintainability. It noted that no appeal lies against the order passed by the Single Judge in exercising criminal jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauzi v. State of Haryana And Ors. (2017) 5 SCC 533.

Supreme Court: The order of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench were assailed before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court remitted the matter back to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration. In view of the delay, the High Court was requested to expedite the hearing and dispose of the matter, preferably within 3 months from the receipt of the order.

Reasoning:

Referring to its decision in Shatrughan Chauhan And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 1, the Court observed the unexplained delay in disposing of Mercy Petition was one of the supervening circumstances for commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment. Pertinently, the Court noted that the writ challenging the delay would be dealt with separately from the original proceedings and the case would not be reopened on merits. Therefore, it held that in such a case, intra-Court appeal would be maintainable.

"The nature of such proceedings by way of a writ petition would be independent, original and founded on circumstances which occurred after the guilt stood determined by the criminal courts; and, therefore, such proceedings will certainly be one where remedy by way of an intra-Court appeal, if the concerned Rules of Letters Patent so permit, would be maintainable."

Supreme Court on larger concern:

The Court noted that it takes a considerable length of time to complete the first round of proceedings determining the guilt of the accused, which is followed by the confirmation proceedings before the Division Bench of the High Court and then the appeal before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, if the second round of proceedings initiated based on the supervening circumstances are listed before the Single Judge it would further delay the process. Therefore, the Court opined that the second round of litigation based on the supervening circumstances can be initiated before the Division Bench itself if the High Court Rules so permit.

"We may, therefore, observe that if the concerned Rules or Procedure or the provisions of the Letters Patent Appeal permit so, the High Courts may do well to list the original writ petitions in the second round of litigation before the Division Bench itself for consideration."

VII. NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 40 DEATH CASES

On 1st September, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a notification enumerating 40 'Death Cases' to be listed for hearing from 7th September onwards, 2021. The status of the said matters at the year end are as under -

S. No.	Case Tite	Taken up on (after notification)	Latest Status
1.	Bibi Sidhika v. State of M.P. Crl.A. No. 612/2019	23.09.2021 21.10.2021 23.11.2021 24.11.2021 25.11.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 08.09.2021 16.11.2021 17.11.2021	As per last order dated 25.11.2021, to be listed on 11.01.2022 (at 2 pm) for consideration of the issue of sentencing.
2.	Manoj And Ors. v. State of M.P. Crl.A. No. 248-250/2015	08.09.2021 14.09.2021 15.09.2021 16.09.2021 21.09.2021 22.09.2021 23.09.2021 28.09.2021 29.09.2021 16.11.2021 02.12.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 01.12.2021	Judgement reserved on 02.12.2021
3.	Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl.M.P.Nos 11759-11760/2016 in R.P.(Crl.) Nos. 286-287/2012 in Crl.A.Nos. 98-99/2009	07.09.2021 22.09.2021 30.09.2021 05.10.2021 06.10.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 14.09.2021 15.09.2021 16.09.2021 21.09.2021 28.09.2021 29.09.2021	Judgment reserved on 06.10.2021
4.	Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary And Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Crl.M.P.Nos. 5242-5243/2016 in R.P. (Crl)Nos. 1139-1140/2000 in Crl.A.Nos. 25-26/2000	07.09.2021 20.09.2021 28.09.2021	As per last order dated 28.09.2021, hearing was deferred till 09.11.2021 as requested by the Counsel for the appellant. The matter was not listed after 28.09.2021.
5.	Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan SLP (Crl) No. 7899-7900/2015	14.09.2021 21.09.2021 30.09.2021 05.10.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 07.09.2021 08.09.2021 29.09.2021	Judgment reserved on 05.10.2021
6.	Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh Crl.A.No. 1381-82/2017		Not listed after notification was issued. As per last order dated 04.03.2020 the matter was to be listed on 17.03.2020. The matter was not listed after 04.03.2020.
7.	Sundar @ Sundararjan v. State of Tamil Nadu R.P. (Crl) No. 159-160/2013 in Crl.A.No. 300-301/2011	17.11.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 02.12.2021 07.12.2021 08.12.2021 14.12.2021 15.12.2021 16.12.2021	As per last order dated 17.11.2021, the matter was to be listed on 02.12.2021. It was listed on 02.12.2021, but was not taken up.
8.	Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs And Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 2264/2015	21.10.2021 25.11.2021 30.11.2021 01.12.2021 02.12.2021 08.12.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 30.09.2021 05.10.2021 16.11.2021 17.11.2021 23.11.2021 24.11.2021 07.12.2021	As per last order dated 08.12.2021, arguments on the issue of conviction concluded. VIMHANS informed the Court that due to under-stuffing psychiatric evaluation of the appellant would not be possible. In view of the same, the Institute of Human Behaviour And Allied Sciences, New Delhi was directed to do the needful.
9.	Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nisahd v. State of Maharashtra SLP (Crl) No. 11009-11010/2015	22.09.2021	As per last order dated 22.09.2021, on the request of the Counsel for appellant, the matter was to be listed after two weeks. The matter was not listed after 22.09.2021.
10.	State of Maharashtra v. Feroz Abdul Rashid Khan And Anr. Diary No. 36628/2017	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order dated 02.02.2021, the matter was to be listed on 13.07.2021 for final disposal. The matter was not listed after 02.02.2021.
11.	Ashrat @Arshad Shafiq Ahmad Ansari v. State of Maharashtra Crl.A.No.776/2012	Listed but not taken up 07.09.2021 08.09.2021 14.09.2021 15.09.2021 16.09.2021 21.09.2021 22.09.2021 23.09.2021 28.09.2021 29.09.2021 30.09.2021 05.10.2021 06.10.2021 07.10.2021 21.10.2021 26.10.2021 27.10.2021 28.10.2021 09.11.2021 10.11.2021 11.11.2021 16.11.2021 17.11.2021 24.11.2021 25.11.2021 30.11.2021 01.12.2021 02.12.2021 07.12.2021 08.12.2021 14.12.2021 15.12.2021 16.12.2021	Not taken up after the notification was issued. As per last order dated 23.01.2020, the registry was directed to list after 15 days. The matter was last listed on 16.12.2021, but was not taken up.
12.	Rajesh And Anr. v. State of M.P. SLP(Crl)No. 9578-79/2017		Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order dated 14.12.2020, interim bail was granted to the applicant to take part in the last rites ceremonies of a family member on 20.12.2020. The matter was not listed after 14.12.2020.
13.	Chotkau v. State of U.P. Crl.A. No. 361-62/2018	07.09.2021 15.09.2021 23.09.2021 29.09.2021 21.10.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 22.09.2021 30.09.2021 05.10.2021 06.10.2021 07.10.2021	As per last order dated 21.10.2021, arguing Counsel on behalf of the appellant was undergoing COVID-19 treatment. The matter was to be listed on 16.11.2021. The matter was not listed after 21.10.2021.
14.	Sonam @ Sonu v. State of Haryana Crl.A.No. 1283-84/2018		Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 26.08.2019 the appellant was granted time to file Additional documents. The matter was not listed after 26.08.2019.
15.	Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand Crl.A.No. 1342-43/2018	15.09.2021	As per last order dated 15.09.2021, original records were to be provided to the Amicus. If not available the same ought to have been summoned. The matter was to be listed after two weeks. The matter was not listed after 15.09.2021.
16.	Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala And Anr. Crl.A.No. 1122-1123/2018	30.11.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 24.11.2021 25.11.2021	As per the last order dated 30.11.2021, the court granted time to the Counsel for the appellant to get the translations of the material exhibits from the High Court. The matter is to be listed in the week commencing 17.01.2022.
17.	Pappu v. State of U.P. Crl.A.No 1097-98/2018	14.09.2021 21.09.2021 23.09.2021 28.09.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 08.09.2021	Judgment Reserved on 28.09.2021.
18.	Irfan @ Naka v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl.)No. 5007-08/2018		Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 15.07.2019 the Counsel for the respondent was granted time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit. The matter was not listed after 15.07.2019.
19.	Bhagwani v. State of M.P. SLP(Crl.) No. 4821-4822/2018	29.09.2021 24.11.2021 25.11.2021 30.11.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 28.09.2021 16.11.2021 23.11.2021	Judgment reserved on 30.11.2021.
20.	Veerendra v. State of M.P. Crl.A.No. 5-6/2018	06.10.2021 07.10.2021 21.10.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 29.09.2021 30.09.2021 05.10.2021	Judgment reserved on 21.10.2021.
21.	Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar Crl.A.No. 1271-1272/2018		Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 22.01.2020 the Registry was directed to process for listing before the Court. The matter was not listed after 22.10.2020.
22.	Dilip Sharma v. State of M.P. Crl.A.No. 765-66/2016	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order dated 21.08.2019, deposition of witnesses were to be translated and matter was to be listed after four months. The matter was not listed after 21.08.2019.
23.	State of M.P. v. Phoolchand Rathore SLP(Crl) No. 8047-8048/2019		Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order dated 18.06.2020, spare copies were to be filed. The matter was not listed after 18.06.2020.
24.	State of Bihar v. Chandra Bhushan And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 5110-5120/2013		Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order dated 15.01.2019, registry was directed to list the matter before a three-judge bench. The matter was last listed on 05.09.2019 and 12.09.2019, but not taken up after 15.01.2019.
25.	Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. State of M.P. Crl.A.No. 449-450/2019	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 13.02.2020, registry was directed to summon complete proper records from courts below. The matter was not listed after 13.02.2020.
26.	Naveen @ Ajay v. State of M.P. Crl.A.No. 489-490/2019	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 13.12.2019, the Court was awaiting original record from the Trial Court. The matter was to be listed on 20.03.2020. The matter was not listed after 13.12.2019
27.	Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh Crl.A. No. 572-573/2019		Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order dated 13.12.2019 (Registrar) the registry was awaiting records from the Trial Court. The matter was to be listed on 20.03.2020. The matter was not listed after 13.12.2019.
28.	Mahendra Singh Gond v. State of M.P. Crl.A.No. 281/2019	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 31.01.2020, the registry was awaiting records from the High Court and Trial Court. The matter was to be listed on 07.04.2020. The matter was not listed after 31.01.2020.
29.	Shahjad Ali @ Ali Ur Rehman v. State of Uttarakhand Crl.A.No. 491-492/2019	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 06.02.2020, registry was directed to issue fresh reminders for records. The matter was to be listed on 08.04.2020. The matter was not listed after 06.02.2020.
30.	Rajendran v. State of Kerala Crl.A.No. 261-262/2019	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 02.12.2019, the registry was directed to process for listing before the Court. The matter was not listed after 02.12.2019.
31.	Padam @Parmod And Ors. v. State of Haryana Crl.A.No. 969-975/2019	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 14.10.2019, registry was directed to process for listing before the Court. The matter was not listed after 14.10.2019.
32.	Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra Crl.A.No. 879/2019	-	Not listed after the notification was issued. As per last order (Registrar) dated 14.02.2020, the registry was awaiting records from the High Court and Trial Court. The matter was to be listed on 22.04.2020. The matter was not listed after 14.02.2020.
33.	Bhagwati v. State of M.P. SLP(Crl) No. 4821-22/2018	29.09.2021 24.11.2021 25.11.2021 30.11.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 28.09.2021 16.11.2021 23.11.2021	Judgment reserved on 30.11.2021.
34.	Jasbir Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab And Ors. SLP (Crl) No. 9650-9651/2019	24.11.2021 02.12.2021 08.12.2021 09.12.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 30.11.2021 01.12.2021 07.12.2021	Disposed of on 09.12.2021.
35.	Anokhilal v. State of M.P. Crl.A.No. 62-63/2014 [Applicability of Section 309 Cr.P.C]		Not listed after the notification was issued. On 18.12.2019, the Court decided the issue of whether the counsel appointed through Legal Services was provided sufficient opportunity by the Trial Court to study the matter. The Court decided the issue in favour of the appellant and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence. For deciding the other issues the matter was to be listed on 18.02.2020. It was listed on 18.02.2020, 19.02.2020, 27.02.2020, 03.03.2020, 04.03.2020 and 05.03.2020, but was not taken up for hearing.
36.	Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar v. State of Karnataka Crl. Appeal Nos. 1473 of 2017	16.09.2021 21.09.2021 08.11.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 07.09.2021 08.09.2021 14.09.2021 15.09.2021	Judgement Pronounced on 08.11.2021
37.	Mofil Khan & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand R.P. (Crl) No. 641 of 2015 in Crl Appeal No. 1795 of 2009	15.09.2021 09.11.2021 10.11.2021 26.11.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 07.09.2021 08.09.2021 14.09.2021 21.10.2021 26.10.2021 27.10.2021 28.10.2021	Judgement Pronounced on 26.11.2021
38.	Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh Crl. Appeal Nos. 434-436 of 2020	01.12.2021 02.12.2021 15.12.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 30.09.2021 05.10.2021 06.10.2021 07.10.2021 25.11.2021 30.11.2021	Judgement Pronounced on 15.12.2021
39.	Lochan Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh Crl. Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018	29.09.2021 10.11.2021 11.11.2021 14.12.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 16.09.2021 21.09.2021 28.09.2021 05.10.2021 06.10.2021 07.10.2021 21.20.2021 26.10.2021 27.10.2021 28.10.2021 09.11.2021	Judgement Pronounced on 14.12.2021
40.	Bhagchandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh Crl. Appeal Nos. 255-256 of 2018	23.11.2021 24.11.2021 09.12.2021 Listed, but not taken up on: 11.11.2021 16.11.2021	Judgement Pronounced on 09.12.2021

[Contents of the table above are as per the information available on the official website of Supreme Court of India https://main.sci.gov.in]

• Out of these 40 'death cases', 6 matters have been disposed of. In 4 cases the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, 1 case resulted in acquittal and in another the Supreme Court remitted the issue of commutation of sentence on the ground of supervening circumstances back to the Division Bench of the High Court.
• Out of the 34 matters that remain to be adjudicated, judgment has been reserved in 7.
• 18 matters have not been listed after the notification was issued on 01.09.2021.
• 1 matter was listed 33 times after 01.09.2021, but was not taken up.