i. Jawed Khan @ Tingrya v. State of Maharashtra
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL 622-623 OF 2016
CORAM: A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 6, 2019
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
This was an appeal in the Supreme Court against death sentence enhanced by the High Court for conviction under offences pertaining to rape and murder.
Findings
In this case, the Supreme Court drew a direct link between the prison conduct of the convict and his ability to reform. While in jail the Appellant had participated in the examination on Gandhian Thoughts organized by the Sahyog Trust based on the life and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. The Court also noted that the Appellant had also qualified B.P.P. (Bachelor Preparatory Programme) from Indira Gandhi National Open University (“IGNOU”) which qualifies him to get admission in B.A. and was pursuing B.A. course from IGNOU. The Court considered all of this as material on record to show that the Appellant was on the path to reformation, and may have even become reformed. Consequently the Court commuted the sentence of death to life imprisonment.
ii. Dyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v. State of Maharashtra
CITATION: (2019) 15 SCC 546
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1411 OF 2018
CORAM: A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
AUTHOR: M.R. SHAH, J.
DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 20, 2019
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
This was an appeal against sentence of death imposed for the offence of kidnapping and murder of a minor boy. The appeal had already been dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court in 2006, and was restored back to the appeal stage in the review hearing in 2018.
Findings
In this judgment, the Supreme Court again looked at the prison conduct of the Appellant to understand his ability to reform. While commuting the death sentence, the Court took notice of the fact that the Appellant completed his graduation from jail in B.A, and had written poems in jail that evidenced his remorse and reform. The Court held that these circumstances show that the Appellant would not commit similar criminal acts in the future. The other mitigating circumstances in this case were the young age of the Appellant at the time of the offence (22-23 years); the fact that he has undergone 18 years of incarceration; and that he did not have prior criminal antecedents.
iii. Bharat Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
TYPE: DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2013 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2013 (HIGH COURT OF DELHI)
CORAM: S. MURALIDHAR, MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
AUTHOR: S. MURALIDHAR, J.
DECIDED ON: OCTOBER 31, 2014
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
This was a confirmation case before the High Court of Delhi wherein the Appellant had been sentenced to death for the offence of raping and murdering a minor.
Findings
The High Court upheld the conviction imposed by the Trial Court. On the question of sentence, it noted that no material had been placed by the State to show whether the Appellant could be reformed and rehabilitated in terms of the dictum of Bachan Singh. Thus, in a first of its kind move, the Court called for a report from a Probation Officer to see if the accused would be a continuing threat to society and if there was a probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. Pursuant to this, a detailed Social Investigation Report (SIR) was filed by the Probation Officer based on personal interviews with the Appellant, interviews with his family members and neighbours, the report of the local panchayat and a report from the Police Station. The SIR also incorporated inputs of the Clinical Psychologist, Psychiatric Social Worker and Superintendent of Jail as well as the assessment by the Medical Board of the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS). The SIR recommended that the Appellant may be reformed with the intervention of social correctional measures. The Delhi High Court concluded that there existed a probability that the Appellant could be reformed and rehabilitated and therefore, commuted the sentence to Life Imprisonment.
iv. Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State Of Maharashtra
CITATION: (2014) 4 SCC 69
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1419-1420 OF 2012
CORAM: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
AUTHOR: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 20, 2014
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for subjecting a 10 year old boy to carnal intercourse and strangulating him. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for a minimum of term of 30 years.
Findings
The Supreme Court held that while determining sentence Courts take for granted that the accused would be a menace to society and there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, while it is the duty of the Court to ascertain those factors. The State is obliged to furnish materials for and against the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. The Supreme Court directed that criminal courts, while dealing with offences like Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 may call for a report to determine whether the accused could be reformed or rehabilitated.
v. Mukesh and anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi and ors.
CITATION: (2017) 3 SCC 717 TYPE: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 3119-3120 OF 2014
CORAM: DIPAK MISRA, R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
AUTHOR: DIPAK MISRA, J.
DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 3, 2017
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Appellants were convicted for the rape and murder of a 23 year old woman.
Findings
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the mandate of Section 235 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not followed by the lower courts as aggravating and mitigating circumstances were not considered in respect of each individual accused. The Court stated that there are two modes to cure sentencing defects- 1. to remand the matter; 2. to direct the accused persons to produce necessary data and advance the contention on the question of sentence. Following the second mode, the Court gave an opportunity to the accused persons to file affidavits along with documents stating the mitigating circumstances. The counsels for the accused were allowed daily visits to the jail in order to communicate with the accused persons and file the requisite affidavits and materials. The final judgment in this case was delivered on May 5, 2017 reported as Mukesh and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1.
vi. In Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2019) 2 SCC 435
CITATION: (2019) 2 SCC 435 TYPE: IA NO. 26542 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 406 OF 2013
CORAM: MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER, DEEPAK GUPTA JJ.
AUTHOR: MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
DECIDED ON: DECEMBER 13, 2018
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
In 2013 a letter written by Retd. Justice R.C. Lahoti to the then Chief Justice of India was admitted as a writ petition seeking to remedy the inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons in India. Following this, a series of directions were passed between 2016-2018 to remedy the situation.
Findings
By the instant order, the Supreme Court held that prisoners on death row are permitted to have meetings and interviews with their lawyers or members of their immediate family or even mental health professionals. It was held that the view expressed in Francis Coralie Mullin v. State (UT of Delhi) (1981) 1 SCC 608 would be equally applicable to death row prisoners for meeting mental health professionals for a reasonable period of time with reasonable frequency so that their rights can be adequately protected at all stages.
vii. Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar
TYPE: REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 308 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2009
CORAM: N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 14, 2019
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
In this case the Supreme Court was deciding a review petition of a convict sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a minor.
Findings
It was held by the Supreme Court that the imposition of death sentence on the same day as the conviction may not, in itself, vitiate the sentence, provided that the convict is given a meaningful and effective hearing on the question of sentence under Section 235(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with an opportunity to bring on record mitigating factors. Advancement by the Trial Court of hearing under Section 235(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at a short notice, which in effect provided no notice, denied the Petitioner an effective hearing. The Court noted that in terms of the procedure adopted in Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi, the legal representative of the Petitioner had met him and his family members and presented that information before the Supreme Court in the review proceedings. The opinion of Dr Kaustubh Joag, a psychiatrist was also presented to the Court which took judicial notice of it. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without remission by the Supreme Court