Convict's Age During Crime, Family's Social & Criminal Background Relevant While Commuting Death Sentence : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the age of the convict at the time of the commission of an offence would be of relevance along with other mitigating circumstances while commuting the sentence of the death penalty.

Upon noting that the convict was of the age of 22 years at the time of the commission of the offence and came from a socio-economic backward stratum of the society, where he along with his family members does not have a criminal background, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan provided relief to him by commuting his death sentence to that of fixed life imprisonment of 20 years.

It was the case where the convict was sentenced to the death penalty for committing a rape and murder of a minor. The appellant was convicted under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A, and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO'). He was awarded the death penalty under Sections 376A and 302 IPC life imprisonment under Section 376D of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 450 of the IPC.

The sentence was affirmed by the High Court. Following this an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Counsel for appellant/convict that the courts below did not consider the balance between the mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances while awarding the death penalty. According to him, the fact that the appellant lost his mother and brother at a tender age, the socio-economic background of the appellant, and the age of the appellant at the time of the commission of crime so also his conduct and behavior in the prison entitled him for commutation of sentence.

Per contra, Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Dy. AG submitted that the present case would squarely fit in the category of 'rarest of the rare' cases as the appellant taking advantage of the circumstances that the deceased was alone in the house has committed the heinous crime. He submitted that merely the age of the appellant cannot be taken into consideration while commuting the sentence of the appellant.

Issue

The question that appeared for the Court's consideration was whether the case would fall in the category of 'rarest of rare case' to confirm the death penalty or the sentence could be commuted.

Findings

Before coming to its findings, the court noted that it would be appropriate to take into consideration various factors while considering whether the death penalty needs to be confirmed or not.

The court had perused the psychological assessment report of the appellant while he was in prison and found that the appellant's conduct in prison was satisfactory. The reports further reveal that though not allotted any work, the appellant is engaging himself in the plantation of trees, and cleaning the temple and surrounding area.

The Court was not inclined to accept the respondent's argument that the appellant's tender age could not form a basis for commuting the death sentence. Instead, the court had taken into consideration various mitigating circumstances along with the appellant's tender age while deciding the plea for commutation of sentence.

“Though, Shri Singh is right that the age of the appellant at the time of commission of crime solely cannot be taken into consideration, however the age of the appellant/accused at the time of commission of crime along with other factors can certainly be taken into consideration as to whether the death penalty needs to be commuted or not.”, the judgment authored by Justice Gavai said.

“In the present case, it is to be noted that the appellant comes from a socio-economic backward stratum of the society. As already discussed hereinabove, he lost his mother and brother at the tender age. The appellant and his family members do not have any criminal background. The appellant was of a tender age of 22 years when the aforesaid incident occurred.”, the court added.

Based on the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, the court observed that “It cannot be said that the appellant is a hardened criminal, who cannot be reformed. The possibility of the appellant, if given the chance of being reformed, cannot be ruled out.”

Accepting the appellant's argument, the court was inclined to commute the death sentence to of 20 years life imprisonment without remission.

“We, therefore, find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the death penalty needs to be commuted to fixed imprisonment without remission for a period of 20 years.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to the extent that the death penalty awarded under Sections 376A and 302 IPC is commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.

Case Title: RABBU @ SARVESH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 449-450 OF 2019

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 730

Click here to read/download the judgment