2013 Supreme(SC) 848

Supreme Court of India
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA & KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Sunil Damodar Gaikwad
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal Nos. 165-166 of 2011
Decided On : 10-09-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
The mitigating factors governing the award of life sentence in a murder are : the possibility of reforming and rehabilitating the accused, the accused had no prior criminal record, the accused was not likely to be a menace or threat or danger to society or the community and where the offender suffers from socio-economic, psychic or penal compulsions insufficient to attract a legal exception or to downgrade the crime into a lesser one, judicial commutation is permissible.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 354(3)- Mandatory for Courts to state special reasons for awarding death sentence- The requirement for reasons to be stated for awarding any sentence for a term of years found legislative expression in the Cr.PC for the first time in 1973. In the case of death sentence, there must be special reasons. That shows the paradigm shift to life imprisonment as the rule and death, as the exception. (Para 5)

        Before awarding a sentence of death, in view of Section 354(3) of the Cr.PC, the court has to first examine whether it is a case fit for awarding of life sentence and if not and only then, the death sentence can be awarded. At the risk of redundancy, we may note that the rule is life imprisonment for murder, and death is the exception for which special reasons are to be stated. (Para 15)

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 354(3)- Award of death sentence- Aggravating and mitigating factors- Poverty, socio-economic, psychic compulsions, undeserved adversities in life are thus some of the mitigating factors to be considered, in addition to those indicated in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh cases. (Para 18)

        Socio-economic compulsions such as poverty are also factors that are to be considered by Courts while awarding a sentence. (Para 24)

        If we analyse the facts of the case in the backdrop of the circumstances of the appellant at the time of commission of the offence and on applying the crime test and the criminal test, it is fairly clear that the case does not fall under the rarest of rare category of cases so as to warrant a punishment of death. The ’individually inconclusive and cumulatively marginal facts and circumstances’ tend towards awarding lesser sentence of life imprisonment. (Para 26)

       Facts of the Case :

        The appellant had three children, one daughter and two sons. The appellant and his wife were staying in two rooms in a house belonging to his maternal aunt. He was a tailor by profession and employed as such in a cloth shop. One of his sons had been suffering from asthma which required constant medication. The appellant’s income was hardly sufficient to maintain his family and he was under stress in that regard. On 08.07.2008, during the early hours of the morning while the members of the family were sleeping, he assaulted his wife and his two sons with the separated parts of a pair of sharp scissors and inflicted multiple stab injuries causing their instantaneous death. On his daughter also, he inflicted stab injuries. The appellant faced trial under Section 302 read with Section 307 of IPC. The Sessions Court convicted him under both Sections. Under Section 302, he was sentenced to death and under Section 307, to life imprisonment. On reference, the High Court confirmed the death sentence. The appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 307. The Sessions Court and the High Court are of the view that the case falls under the rarest of the rare category and the appellant did not deserve any mercy.

       Findings of the Court :

        The appellant suffered from economic and psychic compulsions. The possibility of reforming and rehabilitating the accused cannot be ruled out. The accused had no prior criminal record. On the facts available to the Court, it can be safely said that the accused is not likely to be menace or threat or danger to society. There is nothing to show that he had any previous criminal background.

       Result : Appeal allowed.