i. Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal
CITATION:(1994) 2 SCC 220
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 584 OF 1992
CORAM:DR. A.S. ANAND, N.P SINGH, JJ.
AUTHOR: DR. ANAND, J.
DECIDED ON: JANUARY 11, 1994
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of an 18-year old girl. His conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the High Court.
Judgment
While confirming the death sentence, the Supreme Court held that the punishment must befit the crime so that courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It held that courts must consider not only the rights of the criminal, but also the rights of the victim and society at large while considering the question of appropriate sentence.
ii. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
2009 (6) SCC 498
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1478 OF 2005
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.
Findings
With respect to the impact of public opinion on death penalty adjudication, the Court held that it is difficult to fit public opinion in the rarest of rare matrix as it is inarticulate and is neither a circumstance relating to the crime nor to the criminal. The Court held that public opinion may also run counter to the rule of law and constitutionalism and since safeguards in capital sentencing continuously take strength from the Constitution, public opinion does not have any role to play on that end. The Court commuted the sentence of death to life imprisonment in this case.
iii. M.A. Antony v. State of Kerala
TYPE: REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 245 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2009
CORAM: MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
AUTHOR: MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
DECIDED ON: DECEMBER 12, 2018
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Petitioner was sentenced to death for the murder of six persons. The conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was considering the review petition filed to reconsider its own judgment upholding the death sentence.
Judgment
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence into life imprisonment and noted that the trial court committed an error by taking into account the disturbance caused by the crime to the collective conscience of the society. It was held that reference to public opinion and what is perceived by the judges to be the collective conscience of the society must be avoided while sentencing a convict guilty of a brutal crime. The Court quoted with approval the opinion in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Santhosh Kumar Satishbushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, that judges must not become spokesmen of public opinion and that they must exercise judicial restraint.
iv. Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh
CITATION: (2019) 12 SCC 438
TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1482-83 OF 2018
CORAM: KURIAN JOSEPH, DEEPAK GUPTA, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
AUTHOR: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. (DEEPAK GUPTA AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ. PARTLY DISAGREEING ON THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEATH PENALTY IN SUPPLEMENTING OPINION).
DECIDED ON: NOVEMBER 28, 2018
FULL TEXT AVAILABLE HERE
Facts
The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of three persons. Conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court and the appellant challenged both before the Supreme Court.
Judgment
While deliberating upon the propriety of death penalty, the Court emphasized on the duty of courts to be constitutionally correct, even if its views are counter-majoritarian. Public opinion is generally formed by emotionally charged narratives which need not necessarily be legally correct, properly informed. They may even be against the values of rule of law and constitutionalism that courts are bound by. The court reiterated the view in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra that in death penalty sentencing, public opinion is neither an objective circumstance relating to crime nor to the criminal. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after taking into consideration the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant that was evidenced by his good conduct in prison.
https://www.project39a.com/resources-landmark-judgments#