i. Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1974) 4 SCC 443
CITATION: (1974) 4 SCC 443
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 1973
CORAM: V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
AUTHOR: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.
DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 11 1974
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The appeal before the Supreme Court pertained to a woman convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a woman and her child.
Findings
The Supreme Court, while considering the question of sentence, came up with a list of ‘positive indicators against death sentence under Indian law’. It found that both young age and old age would be relevant factors to be considered in favour of the convict. It also held that ‘socio-economic, psychic or penal compulsions’ that might not be enough to warrant a legal exception might still be relevant as sentencing factors. The Court enumerated other favourable factors, like the culpability of other accused persons, the lack of premeditation, and the duration of time spent under sentence of death. On the other hand, the manner of commission of the crime, the weapon used, the nature of the victim would be among the factors relevant to impose a sterner sentence. It was held that since crime and punishment are functionally related to society, the prevailing societal conditions must be taken into consideration and the deterrent element of punishment must be balanced with the possibility of reformation of the individual. In the facts of this case, the Court commuted the sentence of death to life imprisonment.
ii. Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
CITATION: (1979) 3 SCC 646 TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512-513 OF 1978
CORAM: A.N. SEN, D.A. DESAI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
AUTHOR: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J. (MAJORITY OPINION); A.N. SEN, J. (MINORITY OPINION)
DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 9, 1979
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and had been granted pardon. He committed a murder on his release. The case came up as a criminal appeal and the Supreme Court was to determine whether the case qualified as having ‘special reasons’ required under Section 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to impose death sentence.
Findings
This was the first case where the Supreme Court discussed the “special reason” mentioned in Section 354 (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court in its analysis held that special reasons related not to the crime but to the criminal. One of the tests for imposing the death penalty is to determine if the person poses a traumatic threat to the survival of the social order. The death penalty must be imposed where the peril to social security is to such an extent that extinction of such a person becomes essential for the survival of society. The majority, speaking through Justice Krishna Iyer, also acknowledged the class bias implicit in the administration of the death penalty, noting that white collar or corporate criminals who inflict mass death through their economic or environmental offences rarely have to fear the gallows. The majority observed that criminals belonging to this category also deserve the death sentence, though it is rarely given to them. The death sentence of the appellants was commuted to life imprisonment by the majority judgment, with the dissenting opinion of Justice Sen upholding the sentence of death.
iii. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
CITATION: (1980) 2 SCC 684
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 273 OF 1979
CORAM: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJ., P.N. BHAGWATI, R.S. SARKARIA, A.C. GUPTA, N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
AUTHOR: R.S. SARKARIA, J (MAJORITY JUDGMENT)
DECIDED ON: MAY 9, 1980
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
A batch of Writ Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
Findings
While upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty, the Supreme Court stated that the mandatory requirement of a pre-sentencing hearing introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 made it necessary not only to consider the circumstances of the crime, but also those of the criminal.The Constitution Bench also overruled Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,holding that ‘special reasons’ cannot just pertain to the criminal alone. The Court enumerated several circumstances as indicators of aggravating and mitigating circumstances relevant for determining sentence. Young age of the accused, the probability of reform and rehabilitation, lack of recidivism, mental condition were some of the mitigating factors illustrated by the Court. It was stated that the sentencing policy enshrined in Section 354 (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, entailed that the scope and concept of mitigating factors must be interpreted liberally and expansively. The Court reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception which, the Court held, should be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases when the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
iv. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
CITATION: (1983) 3 SCC 470 TYPE:CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 78 OF 1981
CORAM: M.P. THAKKAR, A. VARADARAJAN, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, JJ.
AUTHOR: M.P. THAKKAR, J.
DECIDED ON: JULY 20, 1983
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
17 members of a family were murdered due to an on-going feud between two families. Death sentence was given to the appellants by the Trial Court and the sentence was confirmed by the High Court. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the case satisfied the standard of ‘rarest of the rare’ laid down in Bachan Singh v. Union of India.
Findings
In assessing the various aggravating and mitigating circumstances as per Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court laid down five categories where society might mandate judges to impose the death sentence. These were the manner of commission of murder, motive of the murder, anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, magnitude of the crime and personality of the victim. The Court also listed illustrative instances under each category. It was stated that Bachan Singh laid down certain guidelines on choosing appropriate sentences, one of which required a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be drawn up. In doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances. In order to apply these guidelines inter-alia the courts must answer whether the crime rendered life imprisonment inadequate and whether the circumstances of the crime were such that there was no alternative but to impose the death sentence. Courts may proceed with imposing the death sentence if upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances, the circumstances of the case are such that the death sentence is warranted.
v. Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan
CITATION: 1996 (2) SCC 175 TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1595 OF 1995
CORAM: V.R KRISHNA IYER, R.S SARKARIA, JJ.
AUTHOR: G.N. RAY, J.
DECIDED ON: DECEMBER 5, 1995
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
* Held to be per incuriam in Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 for non-consideration of the circumstances of the criminal, as required in Bachan Singh.
Facts
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his wife, his three minor children and a neighbour.
Findings
Looking at the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had a duty to protect and care for his wife and children. The brutality and heinousness of the crime, without any provocation, was sufficient to merit the death sentence. The Court noted that the Appellant was not remorseful as he did not attend the funeral of his wife and children. It was held that the nature and gravity of the offence and not the criminal were germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The punishment must be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime is perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal.
vi. Swamy Shraddananda & Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767
CITATION: (2008) 13 SCC 767
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 454 OF 2006
CORAM: AFTAB ALAM, B.N. AGRAWAL, G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.
AUTHOR: AFTAB ALAM, J.
DECIDED ON: JULY 22, 2008
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Appellant was sentenced to death by both the trial court and the high court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the conviction was upheld but the Division Bench did not agree on the sentence. On the question of sentence, the case was referred to a larger Bench.
Findings
The Court held that in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab five categories of murder were enumerated for the application of the rarest of rare principle to impose a death sentence. It was observed that this enlarged the scope of the death penalty which was sought to be restricted by Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. The decision in Machhi Singh was rendered 25 years ago by looking at murder as an act of a maladjusted individual criminal. The Court felt that if a classification were to be made now, developments in kinds of crime seen in society presently would definitely find mention. Therefore, it was held that even though the categories framed in Machhi Singh provided useful guidelines, they could not be taken as inflexible and absolute, as Bachan Singh itself allowed for flexibility even in these categories. It was noticed that in later decisions neither the rarest of rare cases principle nor the Machhi Singh categories were followed uniformly and consistently leading to a marked imbalance in the end results. These observations made the Court reluctant to confirm the death sentence. However, it was also felt that life imprisonment simpliciter was also unacceptable and therefore, the Court stipulated a special category of “fixed term sentence”.
vii. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
CITATION: 2009 (6) SCC 498 TYPE:CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1478 OF 2005 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2006
CORAM: S.B SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.
AUTHOR: S.B SINHA, J.
DECIDED ON: MAY 13, 2009
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
This was a case of kidnapping for ransom by four persons which lead to the murder of the person held hostage. The question before the Supreme Court was what weight should be given to mitigating circumstances while considering the question of sentence.
Findings
The Supreme Court interpreted the “rarest of rare” dictum in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab to consist of an “authoritative negative precept” that states that death ought not to be imposed except when the alternative of life imprisonment is completely out of the question. It formulated a two step test to determine whether a case deserves the death sentence- i.e., firstly, that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category; and secondly, that the option of life imprisonment would just not suffice. For the first step, ascertaining whether a case fell into the “rarest of rare” category would require identification and balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating both to the crime and the criminal. For the second step of the test, the Court held that the alternative of life imprisonment is ‘unquestionably foreclosed’, only when the sentencing aim of reformation can be said to be achievable. For this, it held that “the court will have to provide clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme”. In the facts of the case, the death sentence was reduced to one of rigorous imprisonment for life.
viii. Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
CITATION: 2013 5 SCC 546 TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 362-363 OF 2010
CORAM: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
AUTHOR: M B LOKUR, J.
DECIDED ON: APRIL 25, 2013
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a minor with intellectual disability. The Supreme Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.
Findings
It was held that the tests which need to be applied while imposing the sentence are the “crime test”, “criminal test” and the “R-R test” and not the “balancing test”. This, the court explained, meant that even if aggravating circumstances are present to the fullest extent and there are no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused, the rarest of the rare case test had to be applied before the court could impose the death sentence. The Court held that the application of the “rarest of rare” test depended on whether society would approve awarding of the death sentence. In his concurring opinion, Justice Lokur added that the Law Commission of India could examine whether the death penalty is a deterrent punishment or is retributive justice or serves an incapacitative goal. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 292 held that the observations in Shankar Kishanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra might be contrary to Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab which had cautioned against treating aggravating and mitigating circumstances as watertight compartments.
ix. Sangeet v. State of Haryana
CITATION: (2013) 2 SCC 452
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 490-491 OF 2011
CORAM: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
AUTHOR: MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
DECIDED ON: NOVEMBER 20, 2012
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
There were multiple accused who were convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Arms Act, 1959.
Findings
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The court observed that the aggravating circumstances pertained to the crime while mitigating circumstances referred to the criminal which are distinct elements incapable of being compared. Further, it was held that though Bachan Singh sought to shift focus from the crime to the crime and the criminal, the notion of principled sentencing had not developed and the circumstances of the criminal were not considered enough. The Court observed that Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab tried to standardize the procedure but in effect made sentencing judge centric and sentencing principles were not being applied uniformly. In light of this, the Court held that where there is uncertainty as to the propriety of punishment, awarding of life imprisonment does not stand unquestionably foreclosed.
x. Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police
CITATION: (2019) 7 SCC 716 TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1174-1175 OF 2019
CORAM: ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SANJIV KHANNA, SURYA KANT, JJ.
AUTHOR: ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, J.
DECIDED ON: AUGUST 1, 2019
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Supreme Court was considering the appeal of a convictc sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a minor girl and the murder of her minor brother.
Findings
The Supreme Court, through the majority opinion of Justice Nariman, upheld the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant. Justice Sanjeev Khanna dissented on the question of sentence and chose the lesser sentence of life imprisonment without remission. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna noted that the Court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab required two questions to be answered to determine if a case was rarest of rare. These were whether there was something uncommon about the crime which rendered life imprisonment inadequate and whether the circumstances of the crime were such that there was no alternative but to impose the death sentence. Justice Khanna opined that the five categories indicated by the Court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (manner of commission of murder, motive of the murder, anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, magnitude of the crime and personality of the victim) related to the first question. The second question also has to be answered which could be done by reference to mitigating circumstances. He reiterated that the death sentence could be imposed only when the sentence for life is unquestionably foreclosed. In the facts of the case, Justice Khanna noted that the Appellant had confessed to the crime before a magistrate without compulsion and this, he stated, was the first step back into society and should be treated as a mitigating circumstance. He therefore opined that the appropriate punishment in this case would be life imprisonment without remission.