1. Conviction under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), and 342 IPC — Death penalty awarded — Challenge against conviction and sentence — Review of in limine dismissal of special leave petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1164
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Babasaheb Maruti Kamble – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Review Petition (Criminal) No. 388 of 2015 In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 458 of 2015
Decided On : 01-11-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Review petition in case of death penalty should be heard in open court giving opportunity to the convict.
Review petition in case of death penalty should be heard in open court giving opportunity to the convict.
Subject
Criminal Law - Death Penalty
Act Referred
Headnote
Review Petition (Criminal) No. 388 of 2015
(a) Constitution of India – Article 137 r/w Order XXII Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules – Review of death penalty u/s 302 – U/s 302 death penalty can be awarded in rarest of rare cases – Necessity of giving hearing to accused u/s 235 CrPC – For awarding death sentence court has to give special reasons – while reviewing death sentence concurrently awarded by courts below, Supreme Court has to give hearing to convict in open court – Instantly Supreme Court dismissing review petition in limine – Not proper – Order recalled. (Para 10, 14, 16)
(2011) 13 SCC 706; (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580; (2003) 9 SCC 310; (2014) 9 SCC 737 – Relied upon
(2012) 9 SCC 1 – Referred
Criminal Appeal No. 1440 OF 2018
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 376(2)(f) and 342 – Appellant convicted under all sections and awarded punishments variably – High Court affirming the same – Instant is case if circumstantial evidence but the proved circumstances, as much as 11, completing the chain – Conviction upheld. (Para 5)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 376(2)(f) and 342 – Death sentence u/s 302 – Instant case not falling under category of rarest of rare cases – Death sentence not justified – Appellant having no criminal antecedent – Death sentence commuted into life imprisonment with a cap of 20 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) – Meaning that appellant shall not be entitled to make any representation for remission till he completes 20 years of RI. (Para 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 342 IPC. He was awarded death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC by the trial court vide its judgment dated September 27, 2013 in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2012. For offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and for the offence under Section 342 of IPC, the trial court awarded simple imprisonment for two months.
On reference, the High Court upheld the conviction and also confirmed death sentence of the petitioner.
Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine.
Finding of the Court:
Review petition deserves to be allowed.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Special leave petitions challenging death sentences should not be dismissed in limine without recorded reasons — Death penalty not applicable as case not rarest of rare. (Para 4 , 6 , 8 )
3. Sentencing requires a genuine hearing under Section 235(2) CrPC — Death penalty requires special reasons and independent examination by the Supreme Court — Circumstantial evidence proved guilt. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 5 , 6 )
4. Special leave petitions against death sentences must not be dismissed in limine without reasoned orders regarding the sentence — Death penalty reserved for rarest of rare cases. (Para 15 , 6 )
5. Review petition allowed and SLP restored — Conviction upheld — Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment with a twenty-year minimum term without remission. (Para 16 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. Should a special leave petition challenging a death sentence be dismissed in limine?
No. Such petitions should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least regarding the death sentence, to ensure an independent examination and a reasoned order on the aspect of sentencing. (Para 15 )
7. What is the significance of the hearing on sentence under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
It is a mandatory requirement to provide a genuine opportunity for the accused to place relevant materials, such as social and economic background, before the court to ensure a fair decision on sentencing. (Para 10 )
8. Under what circumstances can a court award the death penalty?
The death penalty can be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases, requiring the court to record special reasons after weighing mitigating and aggravating circumstances. (Para 11 , 6 )
9. How is guilt established in cases based on circumstantial evidence?
Guilt is proven when the circumstances weave an unbroken chain that points exclusively toward the accused, leaving no reasonable doubt, especially when the accused fails to offer a plausible explanation. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
This Review Petition is filed by the petitioner who has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). He was awarded death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC by the trial court vide its judgment dated September 27, 2013 in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2012. For offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and for the offence under Section 342 of IPC, the trial court awarded simple imprisonment for two months.
2. Since sentence of death was imposed on the petitioner, the Sessions Judge made a Reference to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence. The petitioner also challenged his conviction and sentences imposed by filing Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2014 before the High Court. The said appeal as well as Reference were heard together by the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction under the aforesaid provisions and also confirmed death sentence of the petitioner vide its judgment dated July 09/10, 2014. Against that judgment, the review petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 458 of 2015. The special leave petition came up for preliminary hearing on January 06, 2015 which was dismissed by passing the following order:
"Delay condoned.
Dismissed."
3. Present review petition is filed seeking review of the aforesaid order of dismissal in limine.
4. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a case where conviction is followed by death sentence, and the special leave petition is filed thereagainst, such petition should not be dismissed in limine and in case the Supreme Court still finds it fit to do so, some reasons need to be recorded.
5. Learned senior counsel has referred to the provisions of Article 137 of the Constitution which provide for review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court and reads as under:
"137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court.- Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it."
6. He submits that the scope of review in criminal cases is broader than in civil cases and unless some reasons are recorded while dismissing the special leave petition, the remedy of review would become illusive. He also referred to the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 where the Court succinctly stated the approach that is needed in dealing with the cases of death sentence, with the following observations:
"5. We may also state here that since it is a case of death sentence, we intend to examine the materials on record first hand, in accordance with the time-honoured practice of this Court, and come to our own conclusions on all issues of facts and law, unbound by the findings of the trial court and the High Court."
7. Mr. Naphade also referred to the provisions of Order XXII Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules which provide for summoning of the trial court record for deciding the appeals and reads as under:
"7. (1) If the petitioner is in jail and is not represented by an advocate-on-record, he may present his petition for special leave to appeal together with the certified copy of the Judgment and any written argument which he may desire to advance to the officer in charge of the jail, who shall forthwith forward the same to the Registrar of this Court. Upon receipt of the said petition, the Registrar of the Court shall, whenever necessary call, from the proper officer of the Court or the Tribunal appealed from, the relevant documents for determination of the petition for special leave to appeal.
(2) As soon as all necessary documents are available the Registrar shall direct engagement of an Advocate from the panel of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, or assign a Panel Advocat
