Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
State of Kerala, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottarakkara – Appellant
Versus
Gireesh Kumar, S/o. Gopalakrishnan Chettiar – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
Kauser Edappagath, J.
The power and jurisdiction of the High Court to order enquiry as to the mitigating circumstances of the convict in a proceeding for confirmation of death sentence under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr. P.C’) falls for consideration in these Death Sentence References (for short ‘DSRs’).
2. The respondents in the above six DSRs were convicted, inter alia, under section 302 of IPC and awarded capital punishment. The respective Sessions Court submitted the proceedings to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence. All the respondents, except respondent No.2 in DSR No.6/2018, have challenged their conviction and sentence in the separate appeals filed by them, which are also pending at this Court.
3. A Division Bench of this Court recently in State of Kerala v. Nino Mathew, (2023 KHC OnLine 369) held that the High Court can order to carry out study as to the mitigating circumstances of a death convict even before the hearing of the appeal filed by him against conviction. Project 39A of the National Law University, Del
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....
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....
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 importance of assessing the character and behavior of the accused, obtaining psychological evaluations, and allowing access to mitigating circumstances before making a final ....
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.
The court emphasized that death penalty cannot be imposed without strict adherence to procedural safeguards, and mitigating factors must be considered against aggravating circumstances when sentencin....
The court held that death sentence should be imposed only in rarest of rare cases considering the possibility of rehabilitation, thereby modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
The court upheld that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation when sentencing for serious crimes, mandating consideration of the offender's background and potent....
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
Listen Article