Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2022

This year (on 29.07.2022), in an order passed by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, it took exception to a judge sentencing an accused to death in a POCSO case, in a trial, which was concluded within a span of 4 days, and sentencing another POCSO accused to life imprisonment after a one day trial. While issuing notice in the plea filed by a suspended Additional Session Judge, Bihar challenging the disciplinary proceedings for decking the POCSO cases in such a manner, a baffled court reckoned -

"We have been trying to devise methods to assess mitigating factors on death sentence and they have to see the prison records. Here, this judge has passed the death sentence in 4 days."

Disapproves incentives granted to Prosecutors for 'securing' death penalty

The significance of this year also lies in the fact that the Apex Court, in 2022, was faced with the reality that there are State Governments granting incentives to prosecutors to secure the death penalty. The Court was apprised that the State of Madhya Pradesh has an existing policy wherein the public prosecutors are given incentives and increments based on the volume of cases prosecuted by them in which death sentence is awarded. Certain activities are assigned weightage points and at the end of the month the prosecutor with the maximum point is conferred the title of 'Star performer'. Capital punishment and life sentence for certain offences have been assigned a higher weightage of 1000 points. Moreover, one of the criteria to be adjudged as the 'Pride of Prosecution' is exemplary work in securing capital punishment. The Court was astonished that if such a policy incentivising outcomes of trial are adopted by States, the Public Prosecutors, who have the potential to virtually drive prosecution, would chose to suppress material to achieve the pre-decided outcome, thus adversely influencing the trial against the interests of the accused in blatant violation of principles of fair trial. The Supreme Court orally directed the Counsel appearing on behalf of the State to advise the Government to withdraw all such policies for public prosecutors as well as similar policies for the Investigating officials.

The year witnessed the Apex Court highlighting the importance of psychological evaluation of convicts who have been awarded death sentences, and staying death penalty executions directing psychological evaluation of the accused persons. These orders to stay execution have been passed, mostly, in interlocutory applications moved through Project 39A seeking permission that a mitigating investigator be allowed to interview the accused persons and submit a report regarding mitigating circumstances.

DEATH PENALTY CONFIRMED

Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan SLP (Crl) No. 7899-7900 of 2015

Prosecution's case: Manoj(accused) visited the complainant's vegetable cart one day and gave chocolates to her 8 year old daughter(deceased), a person with disability. He returned to the cart within 10 minutes and took away the deceased on his motorcycle. An FIR was registered. Eventually, Manoj was found at a bus station from where he was arrested. He conceded that he had killed the child and as per his statement the body of the deceased was recovered. The post-mortem report indicated that the deceased was raped.

Trial Court: Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Cases Court, Rajsamand convicted the accused person for offences punishable under Section 363, 365, 376(2)(f), 302 IPC and Section 6 POCSO and, inter alia, sentenced him to death.

High Court: The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the death penalty.

Reasoning:

Conviction and Sentencing not on the same day, ample opportunity given to the accused to prove his case

The Court noted that the order of conviction was passed by the Trial Court on 28.09.2013 and the sentencing was taken up three days later, on 01.10.2013. The accused was duly heard; aggravating and mitigating factors were considered; and special reasons for awarding death penalty were recorded in the order.

Mitigating circumstances do not override the aggravating factors

Aggravating circumstances

The accused kidnapped a girl child of about 8 years of age, who was a person with mental and physical disabilities. The child was brutally raped as established by medical officers. The accused mercilessly killed the child.

Mitigating circumstances

The accused was 28 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. His family comprises his wife, an eight year old daughter and his parents. It is not shown that the accused comes from a very poor socio-economic background.

Had criminal antecedent

The Court noted that, from record it appears that the accused had prior criminal records. It was of the opinion that the same magnifies the aggravating circumstances manifold.

DEATH SENTENCE UPHELD ON REVIEW

Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) Review Petition (Crl) Nos. 286-287 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 98-99 of 2009

Prosecution's case: Some intruders entered the area where the Unit of 7 Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Army was stationed inside the Red Fort, New Delhi. In the firing that was opened by the intruders, three Army jawans lost their lives. FIR was lodged in respect to offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 186, 353. 120B, 121, 121a, 216 and 201 IPC read with Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 420, 468, 471, 474 and 34 IPC. In investigation, the involvement of Arif (accused) was made out.

Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi awarded death penalty to the accused.

High Court: The Delhi High Court confirmed the death penalty.

Supreme Court: It affirmed the award of the death sentence.

Review: It was dismissed by the Apex Court.

Curative petition: It was also dismissed.

Writ Petition seeking open court hearing: The review petition was reheard and dismissed.

Reasoning: There was a challenge to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India by acts of terrorism, which is taken as the most aggravating circumstances. There is nothing on record that can be taken as a mitigating circumstance. A case of possibility of retribution and rehabilitation is also not made out.

UPHELD ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY HIGH COURT

Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar And Anr. Etc. Criminal Appeal Nos. 111-113

Prosecution's Case: The accused visited the informant (appellant) and threatened to blow off his entire family by a bomb as he had opposed their illicit sale of liquor. One of the accused threw a bomb at the informant's father and another person, who died on the spot.Eventually they fled the crime scene. Subsequently, a case was registered under Sections 302, 34, 120B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Trial Court: The Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Munger convicted the three accused persons. The Fast Track Court sentenced one of them to undergo imprisonment for life, while the other two were sentenced to death for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It acquitted three other accused persons.

High Court: The Patna High Court set aside the judgment and conviction of the Fast Track Court and acquitted all the accused persons.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court upheld the order of acquittal passed by the Patna High Court

The Apex Court enumerated circumstances under which an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution would be entertained from an order of acquittal passed by the High Court -

1. Wrong process of reasoning; legally erroneous; perverse approach to facts of the case; ignores vital facts [State of U.P. v. Sahai AIR 1981 SC 1442];
2. Incontrovertible evidence has been rejected based on unrealistic surmises [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh AIR 1984 SC 207];
3. Merits of testimony of relatives living in same house as the victim was discounted for being 'interested' witnesses [State of UP v. Hakim Singh AIR 1980 SC 184];
4. Testimony of witnesses disbelieved on unrealistic conjecture of personal motive of witness to implicate accused, when the witness had no axe to grind [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh AIR 1984 SC 207];
5. Rejection of dying declaration on irrelevant ground [Arunachalam v. Sandhanantham AIR 1979 SC 1284];
6. Evaluating evidence by applying an unrealistic standard of 'implicit proof' rather than that of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt [State of UP v. Ranjha Ram AIR 1986 SC 1959];
7. Rejection of circumstantial evidence, based on exaggerated and capricious theory, beyond the plea of the accused [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah AIR 1981 SC 1675];
8. Acquittal rests merely on exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt [Gurbachan v. Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209];
9. Acquittal on the basis of inadequate motive, though there is strong direct evidence establishing guilt [State of AP v. Bogam Chandraiah AIR 1986 SC 1899];
10. Disconnecting accused with crime based on perfunctory consideration of evidence [State of UP v. Pheru Singh AIR 1989 SC 1205];
11. Disconnecting accused with crime on consideration of extenuating circumstances which are based on imagination and fantasy [State of UP v. Pussu 1983 AIR 867 (SC)];
12. Acquitted as there was delay in trial, which was not attributable to the prosecuting agencies, but the conduct of the accused [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji SinghAIR 1981 SC 1675];
13. Acquitted for a serious offence on the basis of delay in conducting trial [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Singh AIR 1981 SC 1675]

It took note of the observation made by the High Court that there were contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses as stated during investigation and in the trial. Some of the prosecution witnesses who were advocates claimed that they signed documents unaware of the full contents. The same raised serious doubts as to an attempt to conceal something. The High Court had also listed out the flaws in the investigation of the case. The informant [appellant] did not at all support the case of prosecution at the trial. The Apex Court noted - "Having reappreciated the evidence of the witnesses, we find that the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and sentencing the two of the accused, with death penalty and imposing the third accused to undergo life imprisonment and instead acquitting all the accused."

UPHELD ORDER OF HIGH COURT COMMUTING DEATH SENTENCE

State of Haryana v. Anand Kindo And Anr. Etc. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1797-1798/2010

Prosecution's case: The accused persons, trusted employees of an aged couple murdered them for money, while they were fast asleep. The couple were battered beyond recognition.

Trial Court: The Trial Court sentenced the accused persons to death for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

High Court: The High Court upheld the conviction, but commuted death sentence to life imprisonment.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court fixed the life sentence to a period of 30 years.

Reasoning: It was to strike a balance between the victim's plea for justice and rehabilitative justice for convicts. The Apex Court noted that while imposing death penalty the Trial Court recorded that the victims had not obstructed the robbery, yet they were battered; the attack was pre-planned and not because they were provoked. The complainant apprised the Apex Court that after conviction, the accused persons had endeavoured to escape from prison by digging a tunnel. However, the complainant did not press for restoration of death penalty, but only sought the Court's interference to impose a fixed term of sentence before which the accused would not be eligible for remission.

DEATH SENTENCE COMMUTED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT

Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 101-102 of 2022

Prosecution's case: The deceased, a 11 year old girl child went missing. As her family members started searching, the next day, her mother found her lying unconscious near a hand-pump. Her body was sent for post-mortem and her clothes were sent for examination. The cause of death was given as asphyxia, neurogenic shock due to neck pressing, serving injuries and bleeding in vagina and anal opening due to forceful intercourse. Bhagwani (appellant) and one Satish were arrested. Pursuant to the statement made by Satish, blanket and shawl of the deceased and clothes worn by him were seized. Similarly, the clothes worn by Bhagwani, hidden in his cowshed, were seized.

Trial Court: The Sessions Judge, Dindori convicted the two accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 364. 346, 376A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(g)(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and, inter alia, sentenced them to death.

High Court: The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Supreme Court: It upheld the conviction, but commuted death sentence to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years without remission.

Reasoning:

Convicted and Sentenced on the same day

The Apex Court expressed disappointment that the Trial Court had convicted and passed the sentencing order on the same day. It noted that there ought to be a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing so that the accused is provided with adequate opportunity to present their case on the question of death sentence. It observed -

"It is a travesty of justice as the Appellant was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. This is a classic case indicating the disturbing tendency of Trial Courts adjudicating criminal cases involving rape and murder in haste. It is trite law that an accused is entitled for a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In respect of the order of conviction and sentence being passed on the same day, the object and purpose of Section 235 (2) CrPC is that the accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence to be imposed on him."

Mitigating Circumstances & Probability of Reformation and Rehabilitation Not Considered

It reiterated the legal position that awarding death sentence is an exception and life imprisonment is the rule, therefore caution ought to be observed while imposing death sentence. In this regard it referred to the judgment in Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar, which had followed Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab. It noted that while imposing the death sentence, apart from the crime test, the Trial Court ought to apply the criminal test and consider the state of their mind, socio-economic background etc. Reliance was also placed on Mofi Khan And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand wherein the Apex Court held that one of the mitigating circumstances would be the probability of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated. It is the duty of the State to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and it is the duty of the Trial Court to highlight clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.

In the present case, the Apex Court noted that the mitigating circumstances and the probability of reformation and rehabilitation was not considered by the Trial Court while awarding death penalty. It referred to the judgment in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra to emphasise on the significance of applying the criminal test. In the case at hand, the Apex Court culled out the following mitigating circumstances -

1. Age: 25 years old on the date of commission of offence;
2. Socio-economic background: Belongs to Scheduled Tribes community, earning his livelihood by doing manual labour;
3. Reformation and Rehabilitation: No evidence on record to show that there is no scope for reformation and rehabilitation;
4. Criminal Antecedents: No criminal antecedents;
5. Conduct in jail: Nothing adverse reported by the jail authorities.

However, considering the gravity of the offence the sentence of life imprisonment was fixed at 30 years, without remission.

Pappu v. State of UP Criminal Appeal Nos. 1097-1098 of 2018

Prosecution's case: The appellant enticed a seven year old girl to accompany him on the pretext of picking lychee fruits. It was alleged that he had raped the child, caused her death and dumped her body near a bridge on a river bank.

Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Kushinagar convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 376, 302, 201 IPC and Section 5 read with Section 6 POCSO and, inter alia, awarded death sentence.

High Court: The Allahabad High Court affirmed the conviction as well as the death sentence.

Supreme Court: It upheld the conviction, but commuted death sentence to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years without remission.

Reasoning: The Apex Court referred to a catena of judgments to stress on the statutory requirement (Section 354(3) CrPC) of providing 'special reasons' for awarding death penalty instead of the alternative of imposing life imprisonment. It referred to the earlier decisions of the Court wherein it had emphasised on applying both the 'crime test' and the 'criminal test' before awarding death sentence.

Did not apply the criminal test

Both the Trial Court and the High Court only looked at the gravity of the offence to base their decision to impose and affirm the death sentence respectively.

Sentencing order does not indicate if reasonable opportunity was extended to the accused

The Trial Court's sentencing order does not indicate if the appellant was extended reasonable opportunity to make out a case of mitigating circumstances. It also doesn't indicate if the mitigating circumstances were considered before finding it to be a 'rarest of rare case'. While commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, the Apex Court considered the following mitigating circumstances, which, it reckoned, indicated that there was scope for reformation and rehabilitation -

1. Criminal antecedent: No criminal antecedents; not hardened criminal;
2. Socio-economic background: Came from a poor family; has a wife, children and aged father;
3. Conduct in jail: Unblemished jail conduct

Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019

Prosecution's case: Firoz visited the house of the deceased seeking accommodation for a day. The deceased child's grandmother turned him down. While Firoz was sitting at the courtyard of the house he saw the deceased, a four year old girl playing with her brother and cousins. Thereafter the deceased and Firoz went missing. The brother of the deceased informed their mother that Firoz had taken her with him. A missing report was lodged at the local police station. Next day the girl was found unconscious and blood was oozing from her mouth and nostril. When she was taken to the hospital, the doctor confirmed that she was raped. Eventually she passed away. The cause of death was identified as "bronchopneumonia and cerebral hypoxia, which was caused by smothering the nose and mouth". An FIR was registered and subsequently the accused was arrested.

Trial Court: The Sessions Court at Seoni convicted Firoz for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(I), 376(2)(m), 363, 366 IPC and Section 5(i) read with Section 6 and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 POCSO Act. He was, inter alia, sentenced to death.

High Court: The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence.

Supreme Court: It upheld the conviction, but commuted the sentence of death to life imprisonment for a minimum period of 20 years.

Reasoning: While considering the issue of sentencing, at the threshold, the Apex Court noted that all the Constitutional guarantees have failed to protect the victim from the clutches of the demonizing act of the accused. However it observed -

In a series of prior judgments Court has not treated such offence as rarest of rare/ Mitigating factors to be considered as well

The Court noted that in the catena of judgments of the Apex Court, the offence as the one committed in the present case has not been considered as a rarest of rare case, befitting imposition of death penalty in tune with the principles set out in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.

As opposed to Section 302 IPC, under Section 376A IPC a wide spectrum of punishment can be awarded by the Court

The Court referred to the judgment in Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra wherein for a similar offence the Court had commuted the death sentence. It noted that since Section 376A IPC is also applicable, considering the gravity of the offence a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the accused would be appropriate. However, following the principles of restorative justice it was thought fit to give an opportunity to the accused to repair the damage caused and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. It added -

"The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender. Hence, while balancing the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice, we deem it appropriate to impose upon the appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC."

The judgment quotes Oscar Wilde - "The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner a future".

Review (Supreme Court): A review petition was filed. However, the Apex Court refused to restore the death penalty originally imposed on the accused by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court as prayed in the petition.

Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 5-6 of 2018

Prosecution's case: The father of the deceased child had sent her to purchase a bundle of bidi from a nearby shop. On her way she met Veerandra, who is an uncle of the deceased. He followed the deceased. Thereafter, she went missing. Eventually, it was reported and the appellant along with two others were arrested. As per the disclosure statement made by Veerandra the corpse of the deceased underneath gunny bags was recovered. Autopsy and post mortem report disclosed that she was raped in a diabolical and gruesome manner. Her death was caused by throttling.

Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Dabra convicted the accused for offences punishable under Section 376A, 372(2)(i), 302 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. Consequently, he was awarded the death sentence.

High Court: Conviction and sentence for offence under Section 376A IPC was set aside by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Death penalty was confirmed for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Supreme Court: It upheld the conviction, but commuted death sentence to imprisonment for life for a period of 30 years without remission.

Reasoning:

Conviction and Sentencing on the same day

The Court noted that the Trial Court considered the question of sentence and awarded the same on the very same day on which the appellant was convicted.

'Criminal Test' not applied

The punishment was solely based on the nature of the offence and to send a message of deterrence to the society. The mitigating circumstances noted by the Court, which points towards ample scope of reformation and rehabilitation are as under -

1. Criminal antecedents: No criminal antecedents;
2. Socio-economic background: He hails from a poor family;
3. Conduct in jail: Unblemished conduct inside the jail;
4. Age: He was 25 years of age at the time of commission of the offence.

Manoj And Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 248-250 of 2015

Prosecution's case: The accused persons (Manoj, Rahul and Neha) committed murder during the course of robbery. As soon as the neighbours discovered the dead bodies they lodged an FIR alleging that some unknown persons murdered the three deceased ladies with sharp weapons and fled the scene. The police found several articles of the deceased persons missing. During the course of the investigation, they found the ATM card of one of the deceased on the person of Neha. Her disclosure statements led to her arrest, as well as the arrest of Manoj and Rahul.

Trial Court: The First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore convicted the three accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 449 IPC and, inter alia, sentenced them to death. Two of them (Manoj and Rahul) were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act. Rahul was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act as well.

High Court: The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Supreme Court: It commuted the death penalty to life sentence for a minimum term of 25 years, for all three accused persons.

Reasoning: Apart from deciding the matter on its merits, the Apex Court laid down some death penalty framework for consideration of mitigating circumstances at the very threshold.

1. Mitigating circumstances must be considered at the trial stage; Court must elicit information from both, the accused and the State.
2. State must produce materials disclosing the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.
3. State must collect additional information including the age, family background, education, socio-economic background, criminal antecedents, income and employment, history of unstable social behaviour or mental or psychological ailments of the accused.
4. Information regarding the accused person's jail conduct, psychological evaluation reports, prison report and probation officer's report should be called for.
5. Courts can call for additional information to form opinions about the scope of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.

While passing the afore-said guidelines, the Court noted -

"The unfortunate reality is that in the absence of well-documented mitigating circumstances at the trial level, the aggravating circumstances seem far more compelling, or overwhelming, rendering the sentencing court prone to imposing the death penalty, on the basis of an incomplete, and hence, incorrect application of the Bachan Singh test."

In the present case, the Court culled out the mitigating circumstances as under -

Manoj

1. Jail conduct: Material states that his conduct was discipline, correctional in nature. It was satisfactory, barring one physical altercation during an earlier confinement period.
2. Family Background: He has a wife and two young children. He makes a special effort to be a part of his children's lives, demonstrating strong continued family ties.
3. Responsibility in prison: Owing to his interest in cricket, he became the Captain of the Jail Block team.
4. Probation officer's report: It states that Manoj seems remorseful, and keen to reintegrate into society with his family.
5. Age: He was 35 years of age at the time of commission of the offence.

Rahul

1. Jail conduct: Though involved in an altercation during his previous confinement period, his overall conduct was stated to appear normal and correctional in nature.
2. Responsibility in prison: He voluntarily worked as a health worker, transporting sick inmates to the Jail Hospital.
3. Education: He completed his 12th standard education and proceeded to pursue B. Com from IGNOU, New Delhi while he was in prison.
4. Family background: He has an ailing father, mother and three married sisters. He expressed concern for his old parents and wished to help them financially by rejoining society.
5. Age: He was 20 years of age at the time of commission of the offence.

Neha

1. Jail conduct: On a few occasions, she got into prison fights. Her conduct improved after counselling. Her conduct was found to be disciplined and corrective in nature.
2. Responsibilities in prison: She actively participated in cultural programmes, has undergone training for embroidery, knitting and lamination. In 2017, she received a national award for Jardosi work in Indore District Court. She has received other accolades for participation in various activities.
3. Education: She completed her B. Com degree while she was in prison.
4. Family background: Her family consists of her parents and two married brothers (one is paralysed).
5. Age: She was 22 years of age at the time of commission of the offence.

B.A. Umesh v. Union of India And Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1892 of 2022

Prosecution's case: The deceased was raped and murdered in her home which led to the registration of criminal case. After due investigation Umesh, an ex cop, was arrested.

Trial Court: The Trial Court convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 and 392 IPC and, inter alia, sentenced him to death.

High Court: The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction, but was divided in confirming the death reference. The matter was referred to a third judge, who affirmed the death sentence.

Supreme Court: It affirmed the appellant's conviction and death sentence.

Mercy Petition: It was rejected on 12.05.2013.

Review petition (Supreme Court): It was dismissed on 07.09.2011.

Writ Petition for open court hearing: It was allowed. The review petition was re-heard, wherein the Court upheld the death sentence.

Writ petition challenging decision in mercy plea: The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Supreme Court: It commuted death sentence to sentence for life imprisonment for a minimum period of 30 years without remission.

Reasonings:

Kept in Solitary Confinement

The accused was kept in solitary confinement since his admission to the prison in October, 2006. The effect of solitary confinement was that Umesh was suffering from various ailments including diarrhea, fever, running nose and backache, psychosis and depression. In Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India And Anr. segregation from the day death sentence was awarded till the mercy petition was dispose of was held to be in violation of the law laid down in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration And Ors. and death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment. In the present case, the solitary confinement from 2006, when death sentence was awarded till the mercy petition was disposed of in 2013, was without the sanction of law and in blatant violation of the principles laid down in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration And Ors. The Court noted that in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India solitary confinement was accepted as one of the grounds on the basis of which death sentence can be commuted.

DEATH SENTENCE TO ACQUITTAL

Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 361-362 of 2018

Prosecution's case: Chotkau (accused) took her niece, who was 6 years old, to show dance and song performances on the occasion of Holi. The child went missing and eventually her dead body was found in a sugarcane field. A villager claimed that Chotkau was seen leaving the sugarcane field after about half an hour, which led to the invocation of the last seen theory. On the basis of the same, as well as, circumstantial evidence Chotkau was charged for raping and murdering the child.

Trial Court: The accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and was, inter alia, sentenced to death.

High Court: The Allahabad High Court confirmed the death reference.

Supreme Court: It set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused of charges framed against him.

Reasoning: The Court questioned the trustworthiness of testimonies of those prosecution witnesses on the basis of whose statements the guilt of the accused was said to have been established. There were discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses about the mode of lodging of the FIR. There were contradictions regarding the place where the dead body was first seen by the police; the person who took the dead body; and the place to which the dead body was taken. The Court also took note that there was delay in transmitting FIR to court, failure to conduct medical examination of the accused by a medical practitioner as per the mandate of Section 53A of CrPC. In conclusion it observed -

"We cannot shy away from the fact that it is a ghastly case of rape and murder of a 6 year old child. By not conducting the investigation properly, the prosecution has done injustice to the family of the victim. By fixing culpability upon the appellant without any shred of evidence which will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the appellant (accused). Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime."

Ramanand @Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 64-65 of 2022

Prosecution's case: Ramanand (accused) murdered his wife and four children with a sharp cutting weapon (banka). The motive has been stated to be an extra marital affair of the accused. The brother-in-law of the accused lodged the FIR. It was stated that after committing the offence, the accused visited the brother-in-law and informed him about the incident.

Trial Court: Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death.

High Court: The Allahabad High Court confirmed the death sentence.

Supreme Court: It set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him.

Reasoning:

Poor investigation and inadequate legal representation

The Court recorded that the case on hand is one of the most perfunctory investigations. The cross examination of the witnesses were observed to be below average. The defense counsel (legal aid lawyer) was oblivious to the position of law (oral testimony is not the only method of discrediting a witness, if oral testimony of witnesses are contrary to the proved facts and on the face of it unacceptable their evidence might be disregarded); had put questions to the prosecution witnesses without realising the legal implications of the same. Hence the accused was not effectively represented by the legal aid counsel.

Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs And Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2022

Prosecution's case:An information was received in the Police Station-Chhawla from a police control room that a girl was kidnapped in the red-coloured Tata Indica Car near Chhawla and the car had proceeded towards Shyam Vihar. On the basis of the statement of the friend of the deceased who was with her when she was abducted, the police lodged an FIR. Eventually Rahul, who was roaming around in the Tata Indica car was interrogated. He confessed that he along with his brother Ravi and one Vinod kidnapped, raped and killed the deceased. All three were arrested and they admitted to the offences.

Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi had convicted all the three accused for offence punishable under Section 365/34, 367/34, 376(2)(g), 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and, inter alia, sentenced them to death.

High Court: The Delhi High Court affirmed the sentence of death.

Supreme Court: It set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused of charges framed against them. The parents of the deceased were directed to be entitled to compensation under Section 357(A) CrPC.

Reasoning: The Court noted that the material witnesses examined by the prosecution were not cross-examined or adequately examined; the trial court acted as a passive umpire; accused were deprived of their rights to have a fair trial; the truth could not be elicited by the Trial Court. No Test Identification parade was conducted by any of the Investigating Officers during the course of their respective investigations. Even the witnesses had not identified the accused in their depositions. Therefore, the identity of the accused was not established. Moreover, the circumstances under which the accused were arrested; the car was seized; incrimination articles were discovered; and the phone of the deceased recovered, raised serious doubts. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

Review (Supreme Court): Now, a review petition has been filed against the order acquitting the three accused persons. On 08.12.2022, the said review petition was mentioned for urgent listing. The Bench comprising CJI, D.Y. Chandrachud indicated that it would take a call after going through the petition.

DEATH PENALTY, LIFE IMPRISONMENT THEN ACQUITTAL

Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2019

Prosecution's case: The father of the deceased children filed a missing report. It was stated that the complainant's wife had a fight with one Ranjit Kumar Gupta and his wife, Sanju. Sanju had threatened them and therefore the complaint was suspicious that Ranjit and his wife had kidnapped his two sons. Eventually the dead bodies of both the children were found in a paddy field. During investigation, on the basis of statements of witnesses, Ravinder (appellant) and one Anita were nominated as accused.

Trial Court:Three accused persons, one of them being Ravinder Singh were convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B and Section 364 IPC. They were, inter alia, sentenced to death.

High Court: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside Ravinder's death penalty, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. The other two accused persons were acquitted.

Supreme Court: It set aside Ravinder's conviction and dismissed State's plea challenging the acquittal of the other two accused.

Reasoning: The conviction of Ravinder is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of circumstances is not complete, cogent and coherent. The last seen theory; the arrest of the accused; the recovery of material objects; and the call details produced, do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence and do not establish the fact that Ravinder committed the murder of the deceased children. Moreover, the evidence supporting the conviction is marred in inconsistencies and contradictions.

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 -

[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 cases, the Supreme Court had pronounced judgment in 6 cases in 2021 and in 10 cases in 2022. In 2 cases judgment was reserved in 2022. The remaining 22 cases are pending adjudication.