- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Capital Punishment An Exception;...
Capital Punishment An Exception; Even In Cases Of Multiple Murders, Avoid Death Sentence If There's Possibility Of Reform : Supreme Court
Yash Mittal
29 Jan 2025 3:53 PM
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for murdering his wife and four minor daughters but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, citing a lack of criminal antecedents, prison reports indicating reform potential, and precedents against the death penalty in multiple-murder cases.The Court added that even in cases involving multiple murders, no...
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for murdering his wife and four minor daughters but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, citing a lack of criminal antecedents, prison reports indicating reform potential, and precedents against the death penalty in multiple-murder cases.
The Court added that even in cases involving multiple murders, no death sentence could be imposed if the convicts display a reform potential supported by other mitigating factors such as age, lack of criminal antecedents, income, etc.
"this Court has consistently recognized that the imposition of capital punishment is an exception and not the rule. Even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred.", the court observed.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta heard the case in which the appellant was convicted of murdering his wife and four minor daughters based on circumstantial evidence and was sentenced to death, a verdict later upheld by the High Court.
The Appellant challenged the imposition of the death penalty contending that the offence does not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting the death penalty.
The Court considered whether the brutal murder of his entire family qualified as a "rarest of rare" case warranting the death penalty.
Answering in negative, the Court observed that the case does not fall within the rarest of rare doctrine propounded in the Case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). As stated in Bachan Singh's case, the death sentence is to be imposed only in exceptionally grave circumstances such as when:
a. The crime is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, or revolting, shocking the collective conscience of society.
b. The crime demonstrates extreme depravity or inhumanity, such as mass murders, heinous sexual offenses followed by murder, or killings of law enforcement officers.
c. There is no possibility of the convict being reformed and sentencing them to life imprisonment would be inadequate in serving justice.
Before determining whether a case falls under the "rarest of rare" category, the Court emphasized the need to consider factors such as the motive, manner of execution, severity of the crime, and the convict's potential for rehabilitation. If reform is possible, the Court held that life imprisonment should be imposed instead of the death penalty.
“we must scrutinize not only the nature of the offence but also the totality of the offender's circumstances. In the instant case, while the offence is undoubtedly brutal, certain mitigating factors, especially the Appellant's lack of criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation. There is no material demonstrating that he would remain a perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond reform. Indeed, the Probation Officer's input and the Superintendent of District Jail's report show a potentially reformable individual. Further, this Court has consistently recognized that the imposition of capital punishment is an exception and not the rule. Even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred.”, the Court observed.
Possibility of Reform Grounds Commutation of Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment, Even in Cases of Multiple Murders
The Court rejected the State's argument that the appellant should not benefit from commutation of the death sentence due to the brutal murder of his family. It stated that despite the multiple murders, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of commutation, citing mitigating factors such as his potential for reform and lack of a criminal record.
The Court cited the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 324, and Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 35, where despite wiping out an entire family, the Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, acknowledging the potential for reformation or considering other mitigating factors.
Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, while maintaining the conviction but modifying the sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission conceptualized in the case of Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008).
Case Title: DEEN DAYAL TIWARI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2220-2221 OF 2022
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 124
Click here to read/download the order
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shri Singh, Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Malvika Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.