Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
State of Kerala – Petitioner
Versus
Nino Mathew S/o T.J. Mathew – Respondent
Crl. M.A. No. 1 of 2023, Death Sentence Reference No. 2 of 2016
Decided On : 11-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. death penalty status and appeal process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. need for mitigation investigation process. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. role and appointment of amici curiae. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. separate sentencing hearing requirements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. rarest of rare doctrine established. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. importance of evaluating reformation and rehabilitation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. judicial obligation to assess mitigating circumstances. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. legal and state responsibility in mitigation studies. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. the timing for mitigation investigations. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. divergence in case law approaches. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. precedents regarding mitigation assessments. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. emerging processes in death penalty cases. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 13. necessity for a proactive judicial role. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 14. mitigation studies to avoid protraction. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 15. making mitigation assessments meaningful and effective. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 16. project 39a's role in mitigation studies. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 17. confidentiality of mitigation studies noted. (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 18. administrative directions regarding proceedings. (Para 57) |
| 19. final orders and commencement of actions. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
ORDER :
1. The pleas in the afore interim reports dated 27.1.2023 & 31.1.2023 filed by the Amici Curiae in the afore captioned Death Sentence References have come up for consideration. The former reference case arose out of the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2016 in SC No. 1480/2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The latter reference arose out of the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2017 in SC No. 662/2016 on the file of Court of Sessions and Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Ernakulam.
2. As per the afore impugned judgments of the Courts concerned, the respondent/accused concerned in these references have been convicted for the offences as per Sec.302 of the IPC and have been imposed death sentence. The afore references have been initiated in compliance of the mandate in Sec.366(1), contained in Chapter XXVIII of the CrPC., which stipulates that, when the Sessions Court passes a death sentence, the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court concerned and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court concerned. The Death Sentence Reference will be hereinafter referred for convenience as DSR The first case will be referred for convenience either as DSR 2/2016 or as the former case, whereas, the latter reference will be referred for convenience as DSR 2/2018 or as the latter case.
3. Two persons were arrayed as the accused in SC No. 1480/2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which has now led to DSR No. 2/2016 and by the impugned judgment, the Sessions Court has inter alia convicted both A-1 & A-2 for the offence as per Sec.302 of the IPC. A1 has been awarded Death Sentence and A2, who is a lady, has been awarded life sentence. Whereas, there is only a sole accused in SC No. 662/2016 on the file of the latter Sessions Court and by the afore impugned judgment of the Sessions Court in the latter case, the sole accused has been inter alia convicted for the offence as per Sec.302 of the IPC and has been awarded Death Sentence. In the former case, A1 has filed separate Criminal Appeal as Criminal Appeal 639/2016 before this Court to challenge his conviction and death sentence. Whereas, A-2 in the former Sessions Case has filed a separate Criminal Appeal No. 683/2016 to challenge her conviction and the life sentence. In the latter case, the sole accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 113/2018 before this Court to challenge his conviction and death sentence.
4. When these cases have come up for consideration on 15.12.2022, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondent accused in these DSRs, had submitted that, in view of the various later rulings of the Apex Court,
Sections 235(2) and 354(3) of Cr.P.C mandates sentencing court to enquire into mitigating circumstances as well as to foreclose possibility of reformation and rehabilitation before imposing death pen....
The court established that the High Court has a duty to proactively gather and consider mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases, ensuring compliance with the procedural mandates of the Cr.P.C....
(1) Video Conferencing – Act of securing presence of accused through video conferencing at the time of judicial remand for first time or police remand, is not a matter of course and it is to be exerc....
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
Trial courts are foreclosed from imposing such a modified or specific term sentence, or life imprisonment for the remainder of convict’s life, as an alternative to death penalty.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
The court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing while acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
