2008 Supreme(SC) 1107

2008(5) Supreme 482
Supreme Court of india
B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra — Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 2006
Decided on : 22-07-2008

Important Points
1.When an appellant comes to Supreme court carrying a death sentence awarded by trial court and confirmed by High Court, and Court finds that case just falls short of rarest of rare category and feels somewhat reluctant in endorsing death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to nature of crime, Court feels that a sentence of life imprisonment that subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. Then it makes out a very strong case to make a special category for very few cases where death penalty might be substituted by punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of fourteen years and to put that category beyond the application of remission.
2.No one can undo an executed death sentence.
3.Question of death penalty is not free from the subjective element and the confirmation of death sentence or its commutation by Court depends a good deal on the personal predilection of the judges constituting the bench.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Prosecution of appellant for causing death of her wife by administering her sleeping pills and thereafter putting her body inside a large wooden box that he had earlier got made for the purpose and dropping box into a pit that he had got specially dug up in grounds of his house just outside their common bed-room – Appellant then got the pit filled up by earth and the ground-surface cemented and covered up with stone slabs – Prosecution case that deceased victim of the crime, came from a highly reputed and wealthy background and appellant had married her for her wealth-After causing death of deceased, appellant went about selling off her properties as fast as possible-Appellant constantly even fed lies and represented to world at large that deceased was alive and well but was simply avoiding any social contacts – Trial Court sentenced appellant to death for offence of murder –Appeal – High Court confirmed conviction and death sentence awarded to appellant dismissing appellant's appeal and accepting reference made by trial Court-Appeal- Appellant's conviction was upheld by bench of two judges unanimously but they were unable to agree to the punishment meted out to appellant – One of the judges felt that in facts and circumstances of case punishment of life imprisonment, rather than death would serve ends of justice making however clear that appellant would not be released from prison till the end of his life – Other judge on the other hand, took the view that appellant deserved nothing but death-Appeal thereagainst on question of sentence – Held even though it was undeniable that appellant killed deceased in a planned and cold blooded manner but at least this much could be said in his favour that he devised the plan so that the victim could not know till the end and even for a moment that she was betrayed by the one she trusted most – Again even though the way of killing appeared quite ghastly, it did not cause any mental or physical pain to the victim – Hence held that death penalty awarded to appellant by the trial Court and confirmed by High Court could not be endorsed. (Paras 36, 37)

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Offence of murde – Sentence – Prosecution of appellant for causing death of her wife by administering her sleeping pills and thereafter putting her body inside a large wooden box that he had earlier got made for the purpose and dropping box into a pit that he had got specially dug up in grounds of his house just outside their common bed-room – Trial Court sentenced appellant to death for offence of murder – Appeal – High Court confirmed conviction and death sentence awarded to appellant dismissing appellant's appeal and accepting reference made by trial Court – Appeal – Appellant's conviction was upheld by bench of two judges unanimously but they were unable to agree to the punishment meted out to appellant – One of the judges felt that in facts and circumstances of case punishment of life imprisonment, rather than death would serve ends of justice making however clear that appellant would not be released from prison till the end of his life – Other judge on the other hand, took the view that appellant deserved nothing but death – Appeal thereagainst on question of sentence – The sentence of imprisonment for a term of 14 years, that goes under the euphemism of life imprisonment held unacceptable – Appellant was taken in custody on 28 March, 1994 and by virtue of the provisions relating to remission, the sentence of life imprisonment, without any qualification or further direction would, in all likelihood, have led to his release from jail in the first quarter of 2009 since he had already completed more than 14 years of incarceration – This eventuality was held not acceptable to Court – Court held that only option lay in breaking standardisation that, in practice, rendered the sentence of life imprisonment equal to imprisonment for a period of no more than 14 years and in making it clear that sentence of life imprisonment when awarded as a substitute for death penalty would be carried out strictly as directed by the Court – It was observed that Court, therefore, must lay down a good and sound legal basis for putting the punishment of imprisonment for life, awarded as substitute for death penalty, beyond any remission and to be carried out as directed by the Court so that it may be followed, in appropriate cases as a uniform policy not only by this Court but also by the High Courts, being the superior Courts in their respective States-Court modified death sentence to imprisonment for life or in some cases imprisonment for a term of twenty years with the further direction that the convict must not be released from prison for the rest of his life or before actually serving out the term of twenty years, as the case may be, mainly on two premises; one, an imprisonment for life, in terms of section 53 read with section 45 of the Penal Code meant imprisonment for the rest of life of the prisoner and two, a convict undergoing life imprisonment has no right to claim remission. (Paras 38, 39)

       (1979) 3 SCC 745 – Relied upon.

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Offence of murder – Sentence – Convict undergoing life imprisonment –Whether has right to claim remission? – Contention that just as Court could not direct appropriate government for granting remission to a convicted prisoner, it was not open to the Court to direct the appropriate government not to consider the case of a convict for grant of remission in sentence – Held said contention was wholly misconceived and untenable – The issue of sentencing has two aspects – A sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or it may be highly disproportionately inadequate- When an appellant comes to Supreme court carrying a death sentence awarded by trial court and confirmed by the High Court, Supreme Court may find, as instantly that the case just falls short of rarest of rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence – But at the same time, having regard to nature of crime, Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment that subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate-A just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the court, i.e., the vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death – Court would take recourse to the expanded option primarily because in facts of case, sentence of 14 years imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all – Hence held that there was a good and strong basis for Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment or by a term in excess of fourteen years and further to direct that convict must not be released from prison for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified in the order, as the case may be – Death sentence given to appellant by trial court and confirmed by High Court substituted by imprisonment for life and direction given that he shall not be released from prison till rest of his life. (Paras 66 to 70)

       Death penalty – Award of – The truth of the matter is that the question of death penalty is not free from subjective element and the confirmation of death sentence or its commutation by Court depends a good deal on the personal predilection of the judges constituting the bench – The inability of Criminal Justice System to deal with all major crimes equally effectively and want of uniformity in the sentencing process by the Court lead to a marked imbalance in the end results – On the one hand there appears a small band of cases in which the murder convict is sent to gallows on confirmation of his death penalty by this Court and on the other hand there is a much wider area of cases in which the offender committing murder of a similar or a far more revolting kind is spared his life due to lack of consistency by the Court in giving punishments or worse the offender is allowed to slip away unpunished on account of the deficiencies in the Criminal Justice System – Thus the overall larger picture gets asymmetric and lop-sided and presents a poor reflection of the system of criminal administration of justice-This situation is matter of concern for this Court and needs to be remedied. (Paras 34, 35)

       Facts of the Case :

       1.Death to a cold blooded murderer or life, albeit subject to severe restrictions of personal liberty, is the vexed question that once again arose before this Court in present case. Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of her wife by administering her sleeping pills and thereafter putting her body inside a large wooden box that he had earlier got made for the purpose and dropping box into a pit that he had got specially dug up in grounds of his house just outside their common bed-room. Prosecution case that deceased victim of the crime, came from a highly reputed and wealthy background and appellant had married her for her wealth. After causing death of deceased, appellant went about selling off her properties as fast as possible. Appellant constantly even fed lies and represented to world at large that deceased was alive and well but was simply avoiding any social contacts. Trial Court sentenced appellant to death for offence of murder. On Appeal, High Court confirmed conviction and death sentence awarded to appellant dismissing appellant's appeal and accepting reference made by trial Court. On Appeal thereagainst Appellant's conviction was upheld by bench of two judges unanimously but they were unable to agree to the punishment meted out to appellant. One of the judges felt that in facts and circumstances of case punishment of life imprisonment, rather than death would serve ends of justice making however clear that appellant would not be released from prison till the end of his life. Other judge on the other hand, took the view that appellant deserved nothing but death.

       2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court on question of sentence.

       Findings of the Court :

       When an appellant comes to Supreme court carrying a death sentence awarded by trial court and confirmed by the High Court, Supreme Court may find, as instantly that the case just falls short of rarest of rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to nature of crime, Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment that subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. A just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the court, i.e., the vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death. Court would take recourse to the expanded option primarily because in facts of case, sentence of 14 years imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all. Hence held that there was a good and strong basis for Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment or by a term in excess of fourteen years and further to direct that convict must not be released from prison for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified in the order, as the case may be. Death sentence given to appellant by trial court and confirmed by High Court substituted by imprisonment for life and direction given that he shall not be released from prison till rest of his life.

       Result : Appeal disposed of.