IMPORTANT POINT
Life imprisonment is rule and death sentence an exception.
Uncommon nature of the offence or improbability of reformation or rehabilitation of the accused is factors to be considered while awarding death sentence.
Court showing concern about instances of inconsistent application of the principles laid down in Bachan Singh.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 235 and 354 – Conviction and hearing for sentence on same day – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Life imprisonment is rule and death sentence an exception – Exceptional reasons required for awarding death sentence – Rarest of rare cases – Balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. (Para 8)
       (1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (2013) 5 SCC 546; (2009) 6 SCC 498 – Relied upon
       (2012) 4 SCC 97 – Referred
       (b) Indian Penal; Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Death sentence – Rarest of rare cases – Instantly no evidence of uncommon nature of the offence or improbability of reformation or rehabilitation of appellant – High Court not undertaking any analysis as to whether appellant would be a threat to society – Appellant’s conduct in jail has been good – Held, not beyond reform –Proper psychological/psychiatric evaluation not done – conviction and sentencing on same day – Not proper – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. (Para 13, 15, 17, 18)
       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Sentencing – Death penalty – Constitution Bench judgment in Bachan Singh binding on all Benches – Instances of inconsistent application of the principles laid down therein – Burden to be satisfied by the Judge in awarding death punishment must be high. (Para 19, 25)
       (1980) 2 SCC 684; (2013) 2 SCC 452; (2013) 5 SCC 546; (2009) 6 SCC 498 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       On 19.10.2011, it is alleged that the appellant entered the house of Anandram Sahu, Firanteen Bai (wife of Anandram Sahu) and Smt. Ratna Sahu (daughter-in-law of Anandram). The appellant caused fatal injuries to Anandram, Ratna Sahu and Firanteen Bai with a knife. Thereafter, the appellant entered the house of Durga Banchhor with a blood-stained knife and assaulted Meera Banchhor and inflicted grievous injuries. When Durga Banchhor tried to intervene, she was pushed away by the appellant who then fled from the spot.
       The trial court convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, threatening to kill under Section 506 (2) IPC and house trespass under Section 450 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, imposed fines and awarded him death sentence.
       The High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence,
       Finding of the Court:
       Court is concerned about instances of inconsistent application of the principles laid down in Bachan Singh.
       Result: Appeals partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 11.04.2014 confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Durg vide its judgment in Sessions Trial No. 288/2011 dated 25.06.2013. The appellant has challenged both the conviction and the sentence.

3. The brief facts in the present case are as follows. On 19.10.2011, it is alleged that the appellant entered the house of Anandram Sahu, Firanteen Bai (wife of Anandram Sahu) and Smt. Ratna Sahu (daughter-in-law of Anandram). The appellant caused fatal injuries to Anandram, Ratna Sahu and Firanteen Bai with a knife. Thereafter, the appellant entered the house of Durga Banchhor with a blood-stained knife and assaulted Meera Banchhor and inflicted grievous injuries. When Durga Banchhor tried to intervene, she was pushed away by the appellant who then fled from the spot.

4. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, threatening to kill under Section 506 (2) IPC and house trespass under Section 450 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, imposed fines and awarded him death sentence. The Court took the view that this is a case of the rarest of the rare category. The way the appellant also picked and chose the people indicated that the act was pre-meditated. And since the appellant exhibited cruelty in the process, the Court held it as a case under the rarest of the rare cases category and the appellant was awarded death sentence.

5. The High Court while confirming the conviction and death sentence, relied upon the testimony of PW-15 Sonu who is a child witness, PW-11 Durga Bai, PW-8 Basanta, PW-9 Sukhdev Yadav and PW-10 Jailal Dhankar, apart from post-mortem reports. The aggravating and mitigating circumstances were also considered. While balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the following have been viewed as aggravating circumstances:

i. That the appellant has committed murder of three persons.
ii. That the appellant knew what he was doing and the consequences thereof and yet he committed the offence.
iii. That the murder of Ratna Bai was committed as he was previously charged of rape with the deceased Ratna and detained in jail for a year although he was later acquitted.
iv. Apart from committing murder of three persons, he has also caused grievous injuries to three persons.
v. That two of the deceased and one of the injured persons were women.

The only mitigating circumstance that the Court took note of was the fact that the appellant had been previously accused of committing rape and was detained in jail for one year only to be acquitted later. Another factor that the High Court placed reliance on was that the appellant either feigned ignorance to or denied the questions put to him by the Trial Judge. The Court thus drew the inference that he did not make a case that the offence was committed by him in an emotional or highly disturbed state of mind owing to false implication in the rape case. The Court held that “the appellant did not mitigate the circumstance for not imposing the death sentence.” In conclusion, the High Court held that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and the case thus fell within the ambit of rarest of the rare case which calls for the imposition of death penalty. Having regard to the strong evidence on record, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the appellant finally, and according to us rightly, submitted that at least the sentence may be commuted to life.

6. The learned senior counsel has pointed out that the hearing for conviction and sentencing was done on the same day in violation of the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and that the appellant should have been given ample time to adduce evidence in mitigation and thereafter to be heard on the question of sente

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 1185

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAKURIAN JOSEPH, DEEPAK GUPTA, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.CHHANNU LAL VERMA – APPELLANT(S)VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1482-1483 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No(s). 5898-5899 OF 2014] Decided On : 28-11-2018

Cases Referred (6)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, DEEPAK GUPTA, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
CHHANNU LAL VERMA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1482-1483 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No(s). 5898-5899 OF 2014]
Decided On : 28-11-2018