Supreme Court of India
SANGEET & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 522
- Decided
- 20 November 2012
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
The death sentences awarded to the appellants are converted to life imprisonment as the option of life imprisonment is not unquestionably foreclosed.
Summary
Six persons, including appellants Sandeep and Narender, were convicted of murder, attempt to murder, rioting and other offences for the killings of Ranbir, Simla, Seema and a child, Rahul. The trial court sentenced the appellants to death and the others to life imprisonment; the High Court affirmed the death sentences. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the "rarest of rare" doctrine justified the death penalty, scrutinised the relevance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances under *Bachan Singh*, and considered the statutory framework for remission under the CrPC. Finding uncertainty about whether life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed—especially given the lack of evidence for certain aggravating facts—the Court held that the death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment. The judgment also clarified that remission is a statutory right of the appropriate Government, subject to procedural and substantive checks, and cannot be arbitrarily denied by courts.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of the death penalty for the appellants under the 'rarest of rare' principle.
- The applicability and relevance of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances approach post *Bachan Singh*.
- The extent to which courts can restrict the remission powers of the appropriate Government under the CrPC.
- The interpretation of life imprisonment versus death sentence under IPC s.302 and related statutory provisions.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1-B)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 235(2), s. 354(3), s. 432, s. 433-A
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 45
Subjects
death penaltyrarest of rareaggravating circumstancesmitigating circumstancesremissionlife imprisonmentIPCCrPCcapital punishmentsentencing policy
Judgment
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 85
SANGEET & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 490-491 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 20, 2012
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
Death sentence - Award of - By courts below - On
Conviction under provisions of /PC - On appeal held: In the C
facts of the case and in view of the uncertainty as to whether
the punishment should be life imprisonment or death
sentence, death sentence is reduced to sentence of life
imprisonment - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 148.
D
Death sentence - Grant of - Approach of court -
Approach of aggravating and mitigating circumstances while
granting death sentence needs a fresh look - Such approach
was not endorsed in *Bachan Singh's case, but still it is
adopted by courts - Aggravating circumstances relate to the E
crime while mitigating circumstances relate to the criminal and
a balance sheet cannot be drawn up for comparing the two
as both are distinct and unrelated - Even though *Bachan
Singh's case intended 'principled sentencing', the sentencing
has become Judge centric' - Nature of crime continues to play F
a more important role than the 'crime and criminal' - *Bachan
Singh case has not encouraged standardization and
categorization of crimes and even otherwise it is not possible
to categorize and standardize all crimes - Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 - s. 354(3).
G
Remission of Sentence to a life convict - Consideration
for grant of remission is statutory right- Courts cannot restrain
the appropriate Government from granting remission or
restrain a convict to apply for remission - To prevent arbitrary
85 H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A exercise of power to grant remission, legislature has built-in
procedural and substantive checks in Cr. P. C. - Life
imprisonment means imprisonment for the life span of the
convict with procedural and substantive checks laid down in
Cr. P. C. for his early release - Before exercising powers of
8
remission u/s. 432 Cr.P. C., appropriate Government must
obtain the opinion of the presiding Judge of the convicting or
confirming court - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.
432 and 433A - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 45.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - s. 432 - Application
C of - Discussed.
Six accused, including the appellants-accused were
convicted ulss. 302, 307, 148. 449 rlw s. 149 IPC and five
of the accused were convicted uls. 25 (1-8) of Arms Act,
o 1959. Appellants-accused were sentenced to death and
others were sentenced to life imprisonment. High Court
confirmed the judgment of trial court. In the present
appeal, notice was limited to the question of sentence.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1. In the present case, there is considerable
uncertainty on the punishment to be awarded in capital
offences - whether it should be life imprisonment or death
sentence. Due to this uncertainty, awarding a sentence
F of life imprisonment, in cases such as the present one is
not unquestionably foreclosed. More so when, in this
case, there is no evidence {contrary to the conclusion of
the High Court) that the body of one of the deceased was
burnt by appellant-accused 'S' from below the waist with
G a view to destroy evidence of her having been subjected
to sexual harassment and rape. There is also no evidence
{again contrary to the conclusion of the High Court) that
appellant-accused 'N' was a professional killer. Therefore,
the appeals are allowed to the extent that the death
H penalty awarded to the appellants is converted into a
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 87
sentence of life imprisonment. The appellants should be A
awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful
implementation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. [Paras 1, 81
and 82] [96-A-B; 128-C-E]
2.1 This Court has not endorsed the approach of
8
aggravating and mitigating circumstances in *Bachan
Singh case. However, this approach has been adopted
in several decisions. This needs a fresh look. In any
event, there is little or no uniformity in the application of
this approach. The conclusion of the Constitution Bench C
in *Bachan Singh case was that the sentence of death
ought to be given only in the rarest of rare cases and it
should be given only when the option of awarding the
sentence of life imprisonment is "unquestionably
foreclosed". *Bachan Singh case, therefore, made two
very significant departures from **Jagmohan Singh case. D
The departures were: (i) in the award of punishment by
deleting any reference to the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances of a crime and (ii) in introducing the
circumstances of the criminal. Despite the legislative
change outlined in Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. viz. that for E
persons convicted of murder, "life imprisonment is the
rule and death sentence an exception" and *Bachan
Singh case discarding proposition (iv)( a) of ** Jagmohan
Singh case, this Court in ***Machhi Singh case revived the
"balancing" of aggravating and mitigating circumstances F
through a balance sheet theory and this theory held the
field post ***Mach hi Singh case. [Paras 24, 25, 29 and 80]
[105;C-E; 107-E-F; 126-H; 127-A]
*Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC G
684;**Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 20;
Swamy Shraddananda (2) vs. State of Kamataka (2008) 13
SCC 767: 2008 (11) SCR 93; Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of
West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230: 2006 (10) Suppl.
SCR 662; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498: 2009 (9) SCR 90; ***Machhi
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470:1983
(3) SCR 413 - referred to.
2.2 Aggravating circumstances relate to the crime
while mitigating circumstances relate to the criminal. A
8
balance sheet cannot be drawn up for comparing the two.
The considerations for both are distinct and unrelated.
The aggravating and mitigating circumstances approach
not only need a fresh look but the necessity of adopting
this approach also needs a fresh look in the light of the
C conclusions in *Bachan Singh case. Even though *Bachan
Singh case intended "principled sentencing", sentencing
has now really become judge-centric. This aspect of the
sentencing policy i.e. focus should be on 'crime and the
criminal', as introduced by the Constitution Bench in
D *Bachan Singh case, seems to have been lost in
transition. Despite *Bachan Singh case primacy still seems
to be given to the nature of the crime. The circumstances
of the criminal, referred to in *Bachan Singh appear to
have taken a bit of a back seat in the sentencing process.
E In the sentencing process, both the crime and the
criminal are equally important. [Paras 33, 34 and 80] [108-
G-H· 109-A-C· 127-8-C]
' '
*Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
F Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13
SCC 767: 2008 (11) SCR 93; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra. (2009) 6 SCC 498: 2009 (9)
SCR 90; B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of
Karnataka (2011) 3 SCC 85:2011 (2) SCR 367; Sushi/
G Murmu v. State of Jharkhand (2004) 2 SCC 338: 2003 (6)
Suppl. SCR 702; Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2001) 2 SCC 28; Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of
Maharashtra (2010) 1 SCC 775:2009 (16) SCR 322;
Sebastian v. State of Kera/a (2010) 1 SCC 58; Rajesh Kumar
H v. State (2011) 13 SCC 706; Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 89
(2012) 4 SCC 107:2012 (1) SCR 1009; Santosh Kumar A
Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC
498: 2009 (9) SCR 90; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 2
SCC 175: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195; Dilip Premnarayan
Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 1 SCC 775: 2009
(16) SCR 322; Shivu v. Registrar General High Court of B
Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 713: 2007 (2) SCR 555; Rajendra
Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC-
37: 2012 (2) SCR 225; Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar
(2011) 5 SCC 317: 2011 (5) SCR 518 - referred to.
2.3 The standardization and categori21ation of crimes
c
which was attempted in ***Machhi Singh case for the
practical application of the rarest of the rare case
principle, has not received further importance from
Supreme Court, although it is referred to from time to time.
This only demonstrates that though emphasis on 'crime D
and criminal' in the development of a sound sentencing
policy is still alive, it is a little unsteady in its application,
despite *Bachan Singh case. Even otherwise it is not
possible to standardize and categorize all crimes. [Paras
52, 54 and 80] [114-A-B, G-H; 127-D-E] E
*Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
684;***Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) 3
SCC 470:1983 (3) SCR 413 - referred to.
3.1 Some decisions delivered by this Court seems to F
suggest that the remission power of the appropriate
Government has effectively been nullified by awarding
sentences of 20 years, 25 years and in some cases
without any remission. This is not permissible. This
Court (or any Court for that matter) cannot restrain the G
appropriate Government from granting remission of a
sentence to a convict. The appropriate Government
cannot be told that it is prohibited from granting
remission of a sentence. Similarly, a convict cannot be
told that he cannot apply for a remission in his sentence, H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A whatever be the reason. It is true that a convict
undergoing a sentence does not have right to get a
remission of sentence, but he certainly does have a right
to have his case considered for the grant of remission.
The grant of remissions is statutory. However, to prevent
B its arbitrary exercise, the legislature has built in some
procedural and substantive checks in the statute. These
need to be faithfully enforced. [Paras 58, 59 and 80] [115-
H; 116-A-D; 127-E-F]
State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh (2007) 13 SCC 606:
C 2007 (11) SCR 932; State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4
SCC 216: 2010 (3) SCR 716 - relied on.
Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 3 SCC 745:1979
(3) SCR 1059; Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of
D Kamataka (2008) 13 SCC 767: 2008 (11) SCR 93 - referred
to.
3.2 Section 45 of IPC defines life as denoting the life
of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the
context. Therefore, when a punishment for murder is
E awarded u/s. 302 IPC, it must be imprisonment for life,
where life denotes the life of the convict or death. The
term of sentence spanning the life of the convict, can be
curtailed by the appropriate Government for good and
valid reasons in exercise of its powers u/s. 432 Cr.P.C.
F Broadly, this Section statutorily empowers the
appropriate Government to suspend the execution of a
sentence or to remit the whole or any part of the
punishment of a convict [sub-section (1)]. But, the statute
provides some inherent procedural and substantive
G checks on the arbitrary exercise of this power. [Para 61]
[117-A-C]
Samjuben Gordhanbhai Ko/i v. State of Gujarat (2010)
13 SCC 466: 2010 (12) SCR 247 - referred to.
H
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 91
3.3 An exercise of power by the appropriate A
Government under sub-section (1) of Section 432 Cr.P.C.
cannot be suo motu for the simple reason that this sub-
section is only an enabling provision. The appropriate
Government is enabled to "override" a judicially
pronounced sentence, subject to the fulfillment of certain B
conditions. Those conditions are found either in the Jail
Manual or in statutory rules. [Para 63) (119-D-F]
3.4 The statutory procedure uls. 432 Cr.P.C. seems
quite reasonable in as much as there is an application of
mind to the issue of grant of remission. It also eliminates C
"discretionary" or en masse release of convicts on
"festive" occasions since each release requires a case-
by-case basis scrutiny. [Para 63) (120-A-B]
State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394: D
2000 (1) SCR 698 - referred to.
3.5 For exercising the power of remission to a life
convict, the Cr.P.C. places not only a procedural check
but also a substantive check. This check is through E
Section 433-A of the Cr.P .C. which provides that when the
remission of a sentence is granted in a capital offence,
the convict must serve at least fourteen years of
imprisonment. [Para 65) (120-D-E]
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 F
SC 600: 1961 SCR 210; Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981)
1 SCC 107; Ashok Kumar v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC
498: 1991 (2) SCR 858; Kishori Lal v. Emperor AIR 1945
PC 64; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh (1976) 3
SCC 470: 1976 SCR 552 - referred to. G
3.6 There is a misconception that a prisoner serving
a life sentence has an indefeasible right to release, on
completion of either fourteen years or twenty years
imprisonment. The prisoner has no such right. A convict H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A undergoing life imprisonment is expected to remain in
custody till the end of his life, subject to any remission
granted by the appropriate Government under Section
432 Cr.P.C., which in turn is subject to the procedural
checks in that Section and the substantive check in
B Section 433-A Cr.P.C. [Para 74) [124-G-H; 125-A]
3.7 The application of Section 432 Cr.P.C. to a
convict is limited. A convict serving a definite term of
imprisonment is entitled to earn a period of remission or
even be awarded a period of remission under a statutory
C rule framed by the appropriate Government or under the
Jail Manual. This period is then offset against the term of
punishment given to him. In such an event, if he has
undergone the requisite period of incarceration, his
release is automatic and Section 432 Cr.P.C. will not even
D come into play. This Section will come into play only if
the convict is to be given an "additional" period of
remission for his release, that is, a period in addition to
what he has earned or has been awarded under the Jail
Manual or the statutory rules. [Para 75) [125-A-D]
E
3.8 In the case of a convict undergoing life
imprisonment, he will be in custody for an indeterminate
period. Therefore, remissions earned by or awarded to
such a life convict are only notional. In his case, to reduce
F the period of incarceration, a specific order u/s. 432
Cr.P.C. will have to be passed by the appropriate
Government. However, the reduced period cannot be
less than 14 years as per Section 433-A Cr.P.C. [Para 76)
[125-D-E]
G 3.9 What Section 302 IPC provides for, is only two
punishments - life imprisonment and death penalty. In
several cases, this Court has proceeded on the postulate
that life imprisonment means fourteen years of
incarceration, after remissions. The calculation of
H fourteen years of incarceration is based on another
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 93
postulate, namely that a sentence of life imprisonment is A
first commuted (or deemed converted) to a fixed term of
twenty years on the basis of the Karnataka Prison Rules,
1974 and a similar letter issued by the Government of
Bihar. Apparently, rules of this nature exist in other States
as well. Thereafter, remissions earned or awarded to a B
convict are applied to the commuted sentence to work
out the period of incarceration to fourteen years. [Para 78]
[125-G-H; 126-A-C]
Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Kamataka (2008) C
13 SCC 767:2008 (11) SCR 93 - referred to.
3.10 This re-engineered calculation can be made only
after the appropriate Government artificially determines
the period of incarceration. The procedure apparently
being followed by the appropriate Government is that life D
imprisonment is artificially considered to be
imprisonment for a period of twenty years. It is this
arbitrary reckoning that has been prohibited in #Ratan
Singh case. A failure to implement #Ratan Singh case has
led this Court in some cases to carve out a special E
category in which sentences of twenty years or more are
awarded, even after accounting for remissions. If the law
is applied meaning thereby that life imprisonment is
imprisonment for the life span of the convict, with
procedural and substantive checks laid down in the F
Cr.P.C. for his early release the court would reach a
legally satisfactory result on the issue of remissions. This
makes an order for incarceration for a minimum period
of 20 or 25 or 30 years unnecessary. [Para 79] [126-C-F]
#State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh (1976) Suppl. G
3 SCC470:1976 Suppl. SCR 552 - referred to.
3.11 Remission can be granted under Section 432
Cr.P.C. in the case of a definite term of sentence. The
power under this Section is available only for granting H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A "additional" remission, that is, for a period over and
above the remission granted or awarded to a convict
under the Jail Manual or other statutory rules. If the term
of sentence is indefinite (as in life imprisonment), the
power u/s. 432 Cr.P.C. can certainly be exercised but not
B on the basis that life imprisonment is an arbitrary or
notional figure of twenty years of imprisonment. [Para 80)
(127-F-H; 128-A]
3.12 Before actually exercising the power of
remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. the appropriate
c Government must obtain the opinion (with reasons) of
the presiding judge of the convicting or confirming Court.
Remissions can, therefore, be given only on a case-by-
case basis and not in a wholesale manner. [Para 80] [128-
A-8]
D
Case Law Reference:
(1980) 2 sec 684 Referred to Para 29
(1973) 1 sec 20 Referred to Para 29
E 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 662 Referred to Para 30
2009 (9) SCR 90 Referred to Paras 30,
32 and 34
2008 (11) SCR 93 Referred to Paras 30,32,
F 55,58 and 78
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195 Referred to Para 34
2009 (16) SCR 322 Referred to Para 35
2007 (2 ) SCR 555 Referred to Para 36
G
2012 (2) SCR 225 Referred to Para 37
2011 (5) SCR 518 Referred to Para 38
2011 (2) SCR 367 Referred to Para 42
H 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 702 Referred to Para 43
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 95
(2001 > 2 sec 28 Referred to Para 45 A
2009 (16) SCR 322 Referred to Para 46
(2010) 1 sec 58 Referred to Para 47
(2011) 13 sec 706 Referred to Para 49
B
2012 (1) SCR 1009 Referred to Para 50
1983 (3) SCR 413 Referred to Para 52
2007 (11) SCR932 Relied on Para 59
2010 (3) SCR 716 Relied on Para 59 c
1979 (3) SCR 1059 Referred to Para 60
2010 (12) SCR 247 Referred to Para 62
2000 (1) SCR 698 Referred to Para 64
1961 SCR 210 Referred to Para 67 D
(1981) 1 sec 101 Referred to Para 67
1991 (2) SCR 858 Referred to Para 67
1976 Suppl. SCR 552 Referred to Paras 70
and 73 E
AIR 1945 PC 64 Referred to Para 72
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 490-491 of 2011.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.07.2010 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in criminal appeal
No. 6-DB of 2010 and in Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Shekhar Prit Jha, Vikarant Bhardwaj, Bipin Kumar Jha for G
the Appellants.
Kamal Mohan Gupta, Sanjeev Kumar, Gaurav Teotia for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 13 S.C.R.
A MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. In these appeals, this Court
issued notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded
to the appellants. They were awarded the death penalty, which
was confirmed by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellants
in these appeals against the order of the High Court should be
B awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful implementation
of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973.
The facts:
2. In view of the limited notice issued in these appeals, it
C is not necessary to detail the facts. However, it may be
mentioned that as many as six persons (including the
appellants) were accused of various offences under the Indian
Penal Code (for short the IPC) and the Arms Act, 1959. They
were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by
D his judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 in Sessions
Case No. 47 of 2004/2009 of the offence of murder (Section
302 of the IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 of the IPC),
rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (Section 148 of the IPC),
house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with
E death (Section 449 of the IPC) read with Section 149 of the
IPC (every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an
offence committed in prosecution of a common object). Five
of the accused were convicted of an offence under Section
25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959. Except the appellants, all of
F them were given a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life
and payment of fine. The appellants, as mentioned above, were
sentenced to death.
3. The Trial Judge found the accused guilty of having
committed the murder of Ranbir, Simla (his wife), Seema (wife
G of Amardeep) and Rahul the three-year-old child of Amardeep
and Seema and grandson of Ranbir.
4. The Trial Judge found that accused Ram Phal believed
that Amardeep's family had performed some black magic
H which led to the death of his (Ram Phal) son Ved Pal soon after
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 97
[MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
his marriage. Apparently, with a view to take revenge, Ram Phal A
and the other accused committed the crimes aforementioned.
5. The Trial Judge found that the bodies of Ranbir, Simla
(his wife) and Seema (wife of Amardeep) had bullet injuries and
other injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon called 'Kukri'. 8
The body of Seema was also burnt from below the waist. As
far as Rahul (a three-year-old boy) is concerned the upper
portion of his head was blown off by a firearm injury. Amardeep
also had a grievous injury but he survived and was the star
witness for the prosecution. On these broad facts the Trial C
Judge convicted the appellants and others.
6. Thereafter, the Trial Judge heard the convicts under
Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the
question of sentence. In his brief statement, appellant Sandeep
stated that he is married and has a five-year-old daughter and D
aged parents to look after. Appellant Narender also gave a
brief a brief statement that he is not married and has aged
parents to look after. The Trial Judge considered the judgments
of this Court, inter alia, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of E
Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. Thereafter, by his order dated 18th
November, 2009 the Trial Judge handed down the sentences
mentioned above.
7. The Trial Judge found that the crime committed by the F
appellants was brutal in nature. As far as Narender is
concerned he had blown off the upper portion of the head of
three-year-old Rahul, son of Amardeep by the use of a firearm.
As far as Sandeep is concerned, even after giving a gun shot
injury on the head of Seema he poured kerosene oil on her and
set her ablaze. Taking note of the fact that the entire family of G
Ranbir (except Amardeep) was wiped out by the accused in a
brutal and merciless manner, the Trial Judge held that the crime
committed by them fell in the category of the rarest of rare
cases, inviting the death penalty. The death sentence awarded
to the appellants was however, subject to confirmation by the H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Punjab & Haryana High Court to which a reference was
separately made.
8. The Punjab & Haryana High Court by its Judgment and
Order dated 21st July, 2010 in Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009
confirmed the death sentence.
8
9. The High Court opined that the crime was committed
in a pre-meditated, cold-blooded, cruel and diabolic manner
while the victims were sleeping. The convicts were armed with
deadly weapons like firearms and kukris etc. which they used
C unhesitatingly and indiscriminately to commit murders and
cause a life threatening injury to Amardeep. It was held that
Seema's body was burnt by Sandeep from below the waist with
a view to destroy evidence of her having been subjected to
sexual harassment and rape. Narender was found to be a
o professional killer. It was held that the act of the appellants fell
in the category of rarest of rare cases and as such a death
penalty was warranted.
10. We heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of
the appellants and record our appreciation for the keen interest
E taken by him in the case and the efforts put in. We also heard
learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record
as well as the statement given by the appellants under Section
235 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. We have given our
anxious consideration to the question of sentence to be
F awarded to the appellants.
Leading judgments on the death penalty:
11. Any discussion on the subject of death penalty should
actually commence with the Constitution Bench decision in
G Bachan Singh. However, it may be more appropriate to travel
back in time to Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) 1
sec 20 for the limited purpose of indicating an important
legislative change that had taken place in the meanwhile.
H 12. Jagmohan Singh was decided when the Code of
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 99
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short the old Code) was in force. A
Section 367(5) of the old Code provided that if an accused
person is convicted of an offence punishable with death, and
he is sentenced to a punishment other than death, the Court
was required to state the reason why a sentence of death was
not passed. Section 367(5) of the old Code reads as follows:- B
"If the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with
death, and the court sentences him to any punishment
other than death, the court shall in its judgment state the
reason why sentence of death was not passed."
c
13. Bachan Singh was, however, heard and decided when
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C)
had come into force with effect from 1st April, 1974. The Cr.P.C
contained Section 354(3), which provided that for an offence
punishable with death, the first option for punishment would be D
imprisonment for life (or imprisonment for a term of years) and
the second option would be a sentence of death. Section
354(3) of the Cr.P.C reads as follows:-
"When the conviction is for an offence punishable with E
death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state
the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of
sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence."
14. The Cr.P.C. effectively reversed the position as it F
existed under the old Code and also placed a requirement that
if a sentence of death is awarded, the Court should record
special reasons for awarding that sentence.
15. In Bachan Singh, two issues came up for G
consideration before the Constitution Bench. The first issue
related to the constitutional validity of the death penalty for
murder as provided in Section 302 of the IPC and the second
related to "the sentencing procedure embodied in sub-section
(3) of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973".
H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 16. While answering the above issues, the following
questions were framed for consideration:-
"(i) Whether death penalty provided for the offence of
murder in Section 302 of the Penal Code is
unconstitutional.
B
(ii) If the answer to the foregoing question be in the
negative, whether the sentencing procedure provided in
Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Act 2 of 1974) is unconstitutional on the ground that it
c invests the court with unguided and untrammelled
discretion and allows death sentence to be arbitrarily or
freakishly imposed on a person found guilty of murder or
any other capital offence punishable under the Indian Penal
Code with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment
D for life."
17. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the
Constitution Bench answered it in the negative. As regards the
second question, the Constitution Bench referred to and
E considered Jagmohan Singh and culled out several
propositions from that decision. The Constitution Bench did not
disagree with any of the propositions, except to the extent of
tweaking proposition (iv)(a) and proposition (v)(b) in view of the
changed legislative policy. For the present, we are concerned
only with these two propositions. However for convenience, all
F the propositions culled out from Jagmohan Singh are
reproduced below:-
"(i) The general legislative policy that underlines the
structure of our criminal law, principally contained in the
G Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, is
to define an offence with sufficient clarity and to prescribe
only the maximum punishment therefor, and to allow a very
wide discretion to the Judge in the matter of fixing the
degree of punishment.
H
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 101
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
With the solitary exception of Section 303, the same A
policy permeates Section 302 and some other sections
of the Penal Code, where the maximum punishment is the
death penalty.
(ii)-(a). No exhaustive enumeration of aggravating or B
mitigating circumstances which should be considered
when sentencing an offender, is possible. "The infinite
variety of cases and facets to e,ach case would make
general standards either meaningless 'boiler plate' or a
statement of the obvious that no Jury (Judge) would need."
(referred to McGoutha v. California, (1971) 402 US 183). C
(b) The impossibility of laying down standards is at the very
core of the criminal law as administered in India which
invests the Judges with a very wide discretion in the matter
of fixing the degree of punishment. D
(iii) The view taken by the plurality in Furman v. Georgia
(1972) 408 US 238 decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States, to the effect, that a law which gives
uncontrolled and unguided discretion to the Jury (or the E
Judge) to choose arbitrarily between a sentence of death
and imprisonment for a capital offence, violates the Eighth
Amendment, is not applicable in India. We do not have in
our Constitution any provision like the Eighth Amendment,
nor are we at liberty to apply the test of reasonableness F
with the freedom with which the Judges of the Supreme
Court of America are accustomed to apply "the due
process" clause. There are grave doubts about the
expediency of transplanting western experience in our
country. Social conditions are different and so also the
general intellectual level. Arguments which would be valid G
in respect of one area of the world may not hold good in
respect of another area.
(iv)(a) This discretion in the matter of sentence is to be
exercised by the Judge judicially, after balancing all the H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime.
(b) The discretion is liable to be corrected by superior
courts. The exercise of judicial discretion on well
recognised principles is, in the final analysis, the safest
possible safeguard for the accused.
8
In view of the above, it will be impossible to say t~at
there would be at all any discrimination, since crifillel as
crime may appear to be superficially the same but• the facts
and circumstances of a crime are widely qifferent. Thus
c considered, the provision in Section 302, Penal Code is
not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground
that it confers on the Judges an unguided and uncontrolled
discretion in the matter of awarding capital punishment or
imprisonment for life.
D
(v)(a) Relevant facts and circumstances impinging on the
nature and circumstances of the crime can be brought
before the court at the preconviction stage, notwithstanding
the fact that no formal procedure for producing evidence
regarding such facts and circumstances had been
E
specifically provided. Where counsel addresses the court
with regar.d to the character and standing of the accused,
they are duly considered by the court unless there is
something in the evidence itself which belies him or the
Public Prosecutor challenges the facts.
F
(b) It is to be emphasised that in exercising its discretion
to choose either of the two alternative sentences provided
in Section 302 Penal Code, "the court is principally
concerned with the facts and circumstances whether
G aggravating or mitigating, which are connected with the
particular crime under inquiry. All such facts and
circumstances are capable of being proved in accordance
with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act in a trial
regulated by the CrPC. The trial does not come to an end
H until all the relevant facts are proved and the counsel on
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 103
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
both sides have an opportunity to address the court. The A
only thing that remains is for the Judge to decide on the
guilt and punishment and that is what Sections 306(2) and
309(2), CrPC purport to provide for. These provisions are
part of the procedure established by law and unless it is
shown that they are invalid for any other reasons they must B
be regarded as valid. No reasons are offered to show that
they are constitutionally invalid and hence the death
sentence imposed after trial in accordance with the
procedure established by law is not unconstitutional under
Article 21"."(emphasis added in the judgment). c
18. It will be seen from proposition (iv)(a) that Jagmohan
Singh laid down that discretion in the matter of sentencing is
to be exercised by the judge after balancing all the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances "of the crime".
D
19. Jagmohan Singh also laid down in proposition (v)(b)
that while choosing between the two alternative sentences
provided in Section 302 of the IPC (sentence of death and
sentence of life imprisonment), the Court is principally
concerned with the aggravating or mitigating circumstances E
connected with the "particular crime under inquiry".
20. Since the focus was on the crime, we call this, for
convenience, Phase I of an evolving sentencing policy.
21. As mentioned above, while accepting all other F
propositions laid down in Jagmohan Singh, the Constitution
Bench in Bachan Singh did not fully accept proposition (iv)(a)
and (v)(b). This is explained in paragraph 161 to paragraph 166
of the Report where it is specifically mentioned that these two
propositions need to be "adjusted and attuned" to the shift in G
the legislative policy.
22. The Constitution Bench observed that under the old
Code, both the sentence of death and the sentence of
imprisonment for life provided under Section 302 of the IPC H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 13 S.C.R.
A could be imposed after weighing the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances of the particular case. However, in
view of Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C. a punishment of
imprisonment for life should normally be imposed under
Section 302 of the IPC but a sentence of death could be
B imposed as an exception. Additionally, as per the legislative
requirement if a sentence of death is to be awarded, special
reasons need to be recorded. In a sense, the legislative policy
now virtually obviated the necessity of balancing the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances of the crime for the award of
c punishment in respect of an offence of murder (although
"aggravating and mitigating circumstances" are repeatedly
referred to in the judgment, including as "relevant circumstances"
that must be given "great weight"). Therefore, the Constitution
Bench (after a discussion in paragraphs 161 and 162 of the
Report) "adjusted and attuned" proposition (iv)(a) by deleting
0
the reference to "balancing all the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances of the crime" to read as follows:-
"(a) The normal rule is that the offence of murder shall be
punished with the sentence of life imprisonment. The court
E can depart from that rule and impose the sentence of death
only if there are special reasons for doing so. Such
reasons must be recorded in writing before imposing the
death sentence."
F 23. The Constitution Bench also did not fully accept the
postulate in proposition (v)(b) that while making the choice of
sentence, including the sentence under Section 302 of the IPC,
the Court should be principally concerned with the
circumstances connected with the particular crime under inquiry
G (paragraph 163 of the Report). The Constitution Bench laid
down that not only the relevant circumstances of the crime
should be factored in, but due consideration must also given
to the circumstances of the criminal. Consequently, the
Constitution Bench re-formulated proposition (v)(b) to read as
follows: -
H
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 105
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
"(b) While considering the question of sentence to be A
imposed for the offence of murder under Section 302 of
the Penal Code, the court must have regard to every
relevant circumstance relating to the crime as well as the
criminal. If the court finds, but not otherwise, that the
offence is of an exceptionally depraved and heinous B
character and constitutes, on account of its design and the
manner of its execution, a source of grave danger to the
society at large, the court may impose the death
sentence."
24. The conclusion of the Constitution Bench under these C
circumstances was that the sentence of death ought to be given
only in the rarest of rare cases and it should be given only when
the option of awarding the sentence of life imprisonment is
"unquestionably foreclosed".
D
25. Bachan Singh, therefore, made two very significant
departures from Jagmohan Singh. The departures were: {i) in
the award of punishment by deleting any reference to the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a crime and (ii)
in introducing the circumstances of the criminal. These E
departures are really the crux of the matter, as far as we are
concerned in this case.
26. Bachan Singh effectively opened up Phase II of a
sentencing policy by shifting the focus from the crime to the
F
crime and the criminal. This is where Bachan Singh marks a
watershed in sentencing. But, how effective has been the
implementation of Bachan Singh?
Issue of aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
G
27. In making the shift from the crime to the crime and the
criminal, the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh looked at the
suggestions given by learned counsel appearing in the case.
These suggestions, if examined, indicate that in so far as
aggravating circumstances are concerned, they refer to the H
crime. They are:-
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A "(a) if the murder has been committed after previous
planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b) if the murder involves exceptional depravity; or
(c) if the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces
B of the Union or of a member of any police force or of any
public servant and was committed-
(i) while such member or public servant was on duty;
or
c (ii) in consequence of anything done or attempted
to be done by such member or public servant in the
lawful discharge of his duty as such member or
public servant whether at the time of murder he was
such member or public servant, as the case may
D be, or had ceased to be such member or public
servant; or
(d) if the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful
discharge of his duty under Section 43 of the Code of
E Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had rendered
assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer demanding
his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and
Section 129 of the said Code."
F In so far as mitigating circumstances are concerned, they refer
to the criminal. They are: -
"(1) That the offence was committed under the influence
of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
G (2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old,
he shall not be sentenced to death.
(3) The probability that the accused would not commit
criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing
threat to society.
H
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 107
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and A
rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the
accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above.
(5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the
accused believed that he was morally justified in B
committing the offence.
(6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination
of another person.
(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was c
mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his
capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct."
28. The Constitution Bench made it absolutely clear that
the suggestions given by learned counsel were only indicators
and not an attempt to make an exhaustive enumeration of the D
circumstances either pertaining to the crime or the criminal. The
Constitution Bench hoped and held that in view of the "broad
illustrative guide-lines" laid down, the Courts "will discharge the
onerous function with evermore scrupulous care and humane
concern, directed along the highroad of legislative policy E
outlined in Section 354(3) [of the Cr.P.C.] viz. that for persons
convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence an exception."
29. Despite the legislative change and Bachan Singh F
discarding proposition (iv)(a) of Jagmohan Singh, this Court
in Machhi Singh revived the "balancing" of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances through a balance sheet theory. In
doing so, it sought to compare aggravating circumstances
pertaining to a crime with the mitigating circumstances G
pertaining to a criminal. It hardly need be stated, with respect,
that these are completely distinct and different elements and
cannot be compared with one another. A balance sheet cannot
be drawn up of two distinct and different constituents of an
H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A incident. Nevertheless, the balance sheet theory held the field
post Machhi Singh.
30. The application of the sentencing policy through
aggravating and mitigating circumstances came up for
consideration in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of
8 Kamataka, (2008) 13 sec 767. On a review, it was concluded
in paragraph 48 of the Report that there is a lack of evenness
in the sentencing process. The rarest of rare principle has not
been followed uniformly or consistently. Reference in this context
was made to Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2007)
C 12 SCC 230 which in turn referred to several earlier decisions
to bring home the point.
31. The critique in Swamy Shraddananda was mentioned
(with approval) in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v.
D State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 while sharing this
Court's "unease and sense of disquiet" in paragraphs 109, 129
and 130 of the Report. In fact, in paragraph 109 of the Report,
it was observed that
" ... the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
E circumstances approach invoked on a case-by-case basis
has not worked sufficiently well so as to remove the vice
of arbitrariness from our capital sentencing system. It can
be safely said that the Bachan Singh threshold of "the
rarest of rare cases" has been most variedly and
F inconsistently applied by the various High Courts as also
this Court."
32. It does appear that in view of the inherent multitude of
possibilities, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
G approach has not been effectively implemented.
33. Therefore, in our respectful opinion, not only does the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances approach need a
fresh look but the necessity of adopting this approach also
needs a fresh look in light of the conclusions in Bachan Singh.
H
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 109
[MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
It appears to us that even though Bachan Singh intended A
"principled sentencing", sentencing has now really become
judge-centric as highlighted in Swamy Shraddananda and
Bariyar. This aspect of the sentencing policy in Phase II as
introduced by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh seems
to have been lost in transition. B
Issue of crime and the criminal:
34. Despite Bachan Singh, primacy still seems to be
given to the nature of the crime. The circumstances of the
criminal, referred to in Bachan Singh appear to have taken a C
bit of a back seat in the sentencing process. This was noticed
in Bariyar with reference to Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996)
2 SCC 175. It was observed that "curiously" only characteristics
relating to the crime, to the exclusion of the criminal were found
relevant to sentencing. It was noted that Ravji has been followed D
in several decisions of this Court where primacy has been given
to the crime and circumstances concerning the criminal have
not been considered. In paragraph 63 of the Report it is noted
that Ravji was rendered per incuriam and then it was observed
that:- E
"It is apparent that Ravji has not only been considered but
also relied upon as an authority on the point that in heinous
crimes, circumstances relating to [the] criminal are not
pertinent."
F
35. It is now generally accepted that Ravji was rendered
per incuriam (see, for example, Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v.
State of Maharashtra, (2010) 1 SCC 775). Unfortunately,
however, it seems that in some cases cited by learned counsel
the circumstances pertaining to the criminal are still not given G
the importance they deserve.
36. In Shivu v. Registrar General, High Court of
Kamataka, (2007) 4 SCC 713, the principle of 'just desserts'
was applied and the death penalty awarded to the convicts was H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A upheld. The circumstances of the convicts were not considered
for reducing the death penalty.
37. Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra,
(2012) 4 sec 37 was a case of rape and murder of a three-
s year-old child in a vicious and brutal manner. This Court
confirmed the sentence of death after taking into consideration
the brutal nature of the crime but not the circumstances of the
criminal.
38. Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 317
C was a case of a brutal rape and murder of a seven-year-old
girl. While confirming the sentence of death, this Court referred
to the nature of the crime and the extreme indignation of the
community. On that basis, it leaned towards awarding the death
sentence and observed in paragraph 24 of the Report as
D follows:-
"When the crime is committed in an extremely brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as
to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the
community and when collective conscience of the
E
community is petrified, one has to lean towards the death
sentence."
39. A little later in paragraph 26 of the Report, this Court
concluded that the convict was a menace to society and it was
F held as follows:
"We are of the opinion that the appellant is a menace to
the society and shall continue to be so and he cannot be
reformed. We have no manner of doubt that the case in
G hand falls in the category of the rarest of rare cases and
the trial court had correctly inflicted the death sentence
which had rightly been confirmed by the High Court."
40. The judgment does not, with respect, indicate the
material that led this Court to conclude what aroused the intense
H and extreme indignation of the community. Except the nature
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 111
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
of the crime, it is not clear on what basis it concluded that the A
criminal was a menace to society and "shall continue to be so
and he cannot be reformed".
41. In some other cases, aggravating circumstances
pertaining to the criminal (not the crime) have been considered
8
relevant. Reference may be made to two decisions rendered
by this Court which, incidentally, seem to have overlooked the
presumption of innocence.
42. B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of
Kamataka, (2011) 3 sec 85 was a case where the convict C
was found guilty of rape, murder and robbery. The crime was
carried out in a depraved and merciless manner. Two days
after the incident, the local public caught him while he was
attempting to escape from a house where he made a similar
attempt to rob and assault a lady. There was nothing in law to D
show that the convict was guilty of the second offence in as
much as no trial was held. There were some recoveries from
his house, which indicated that the convict had committed
crimes in other premises also. Again, there was nothing in law
to show that he was found guilty of those crimes. On these E
facts, despite the guilt of the criminal not having been
established in any other case, the convict was found incapable
of rehabilitation and the death sentence awarded to him was
confirmed.
43. Sushi/ Murrnu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC F
338 was a case of child sacrifice. This Court confirmed the
death sentence awarded to the criminal after considering the
fact that he was being tried for a similar offence. Significantly,
the convict was ·still an under-trial and had not been found guilty
of that similar offence. Nevertheless, this was found relevant for G
upholding the death sentence awarded to him.
44. We also have some cases where, despite the nature
of the crime, some criminals have got the benefit of "mitigating
circumstances" and their death penalty has been reduced to H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A imprisonment for life or for a term without remission.
45. Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 2
SCC 28 was a case where the convict had raped a one-and-
a-half year old child who died as a result of the unfortunate
incident. This Court found that the crime committed was serious
8
and heinous and the criminal had a dirty and perverted mind
and had no control over his carnal desires. Nevertheless, this
Court found it difficult to hold that the criminal was such a
dangerous person that to spare his life would endanger' the
community. This Court reduced the sentence to imprisonment
C for life since the case was one in which a "humanist approach"
should be taken in the matter of awarding punishment.
46. Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari was a case in which three
convicts had killed two persons and grievously injured two
D others, leaving them for dead. A third victim later succumbed
to his injuries. While noticing that the crime was in the nature
of, what is nowadays referred to as 'honour killing', this Court
reduced the death sentence awarded to two of the criminals
to imprisonment for life with a direction that they should not be
i:: released until they complete 25 years of actual imprisonment.
The third criminal was sentenced to undergo 20 years of actual
imprisonment. That these criminals were young persons who
did not have criminal antecedents weighed in reducing their
death sentence.
F 47. Sebastian v. State of Kera/a, (2010) 1 SCC 58 was
a case in which the criminal had raped and murdered a two-
year-old child. He was found to be a pedophile with "extremely
violent propensities". Earlier, in 1998, he was convicted of an
offence under Section 354 of the IPC, that is, assault or use of
G criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty,
an offence carrying a maximum sentence of two years
imprisonment with fine. Subsequently, he was convicted for a
more serious offence under Sections 302, 363 and 376 of the
IPC but an appeal was pending against his conviction. The
H convict also appears to have been tried for the murder of
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 113
[MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
several other children but was acquitted in 2005 with the benefit A
of doubt, the last event having taken place three days after he
had committed the rape and murder of the two year old child.
48. Notwithstanding the nature of the offence as well as his
"extremely violent propensities", the sentence of death awarded 8
to him was reduced to imprisonment for the rest of his life.
49. Rajesh Kumar v. State, t2011) 13 SCC 706 was a
case in which the appellant had murdered two children. One of
them was four and a half years old and the criminal had slit his
throat with a piece of glass which he obtained from breaking C
the dressing table. The other child was an infant of eight months
who was killed by holding his legs and hitting him on the floor.
Despite the brutality of the crime, the death sentence awarded
to this convict was reduced to that of life imprisonment. It was
held that he was not a continuing threat to society and that the D
State had not produced any evidence to show that he was
incapable of reform and rehabilitation.
50. Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 107 was
a case in which a three-year-old child was subjected to rape, E
an unnatural offence and murder. The convict was also found
guilty of causing the disappearance of evidence. The sentence
of death awarded to him was reduced to imprisonment for life
subject to remissions. It was held that there was nothing to
suggest that he would repeat the offence. This Court proceeded F
on the premise that the convict might reform over a period of
years since there was no evidence of any earlier offence
committed by him.
51. Reference has been made to these decisions cited by
learned counsel, certainly not with a view to be critical of the G
opinion expressed, but with a view to demonstrate the judge-
centric approach to sentencing adverted to in Swamy
Shraddananda and endorsed in Bariyar and the existence of
the uncertainty principle in awarding life imprisonment or the
death penalty. H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Standardization and categorization of crimes:
52. Despite Bachan Singh, the "particular crime" continues
to play a more important role than the "crime and criminal" as
is apparent from some of the cases mentioned above.
Standardization and categorization of crimes was attempted
B in Machhi Singh for the practical application of the rarest of
rare cases principle. This was discussed in Swamy
Shraddananda. It was pointed out in paragraph 33 of the Report
that the Constitution Bench in Jagmohan Singh and Bachan
Singh "had firmly declined to be drawn into making any
C standardization or categorization of cases for awarding death
penalty". In fact, in Bachan Singh the Constitution Bench gave
over half a dozen reasons against the argument for
standardization or categorization of cases. Swamy
Shraddananda observed that Machhi Singh overlooked the
D fact that the Constitution Bench in Jagmohan Singh and
Bachan Singh had "resolutely refrained" from such an attempt.
Accordingly, it was held that even though the five categories of
crime (manner of commission of murder, motive for commission
of murder, anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime,
E magnitude of crime and personality of victim of murder)
delineated in Machhi Singh provide very useful guidelines,
nonetheless they could not be taken as inflexible, absolute or
immutable.
F 53. Indeed, in Swamy Shraddananda this Court went so
far as to note in paragraph 48 of the Report that in attempting
to standardize and categorize crimes, Machhi Singh
"considerably enlarged the scope for imposing death penalty"
that was greatly restricted by Bachan Singh.
G 54. It appears to us that the standardization and
categorization of crimes in Machhi Singh has not received
further importance from this Court, although it is referred to from
time to time. This only demonstrates that though Phase II in the
development of a sound sentencing policy is still alive, it is a
H little unsteady in its application, despite Bachan Singh.
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 115
[MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
Issue of remission of sentence: A
55. Swamy Shraddananda and some of the decisions
referred to therein have taken us to Phase Ill in the evolution of
a sound sentencing policy. The focus in this phase is on criminal
law and sentencing, and we are really concerned with this in
the present case. The issue under consideration in this phase 8
is the punishment to be given in cases where the death penalty
ought not to be awarded, and a life sentence is inadequate
given the power of remission available with the appropriate
Government under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. In such a
situation, what is the punishment that is commensurate with the C
offence?
56. In Swamy Shraddananda this Court embarked on a
journey to answer this question. In doing so, this Court noted
the mandate of Bachan Singh that we must not only look at the
0
crime but also give due consideration to the circumstances of
the criminal. It was noted that this Court "must lay down a good
and sound legal basis for putting the punishment of
imprisonment for life, awarded as substitute for death penalty,
beyond any remission and to be carried out as directed by the E
Court so that it may be followed in appropriate cases as a
uniform policy not only by this Court but also by the High Court,
being the superior courts in their respective States.• The subject
of discussion in this phase, therefore, is remission under
Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. of a sentence awarded for a capital
offence. F
57. It is necessary, in this context, to be clear that the
constitutional power under Article 72 and Article 161 of the
Constitution is, as yet, not the subject matter of discussion,
particularly in this case. Nor is the power of commutation under G
Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. under discussion. What is under
limited discussion in this case is the remission power available
to the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the
Cr.P.C.
58. A reading of some recent decisions delivered by this H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Court seems to suggest that the remission power of the
appropriate Government has effectively been nullified by
awarding sentences of 20 years, 25 years and in some cases
without any remission. Is this permissible? Can this Court (or
any Court for that matter) restrain the appropriate Government
a from granting remission of a sentence to a convict? What this
Court has done in Swamy Shraddananda and several other
cases, by giving a sentence in a capital offence of 20 years or
30 years imprisonment without remission, is to effectively injurict
the appropriate Government from exercising its power of
c remission for the specified period. In our opinion, this issue
needs further and greater discussion, but as at present
advised, we are of the opinion that this is not permissible. The
appropriate Government cannot be told that it is prohibited from
granting remission of a sentence. Similarly, a convict cannot
be told that he cannot apply for a remission in his sentence,
0
whatever the reason.
59. It is true that a convict undergoing a sentence does not
have right to get a remission of sentence, but he certainly does
have a right to have his case considered for the grant of
E remission, as held in State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh,
(2007) 13 sec 606 and State of Haryana V. Jagdish, (2010.)
4 sec 216.
60. Swamy Shraddananda approached this issue from a
particular perspective, namely, what could be the "good and
F sound legal basis" to give effect to the observations of this Court
in Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 745 that:
"..... we may suggest that life imprisonment which strictly
means imprisonment for the whole of the man's life but in
practice amounts to incarceration for a period between 10
G and 14 years may, at the option of the convicting court, be
subject to the condition that the sentence of imprisonment
shall last as long as life lasts, where there are exceptional
indications of murderous recidivism and the community
cannot run the risk of the convict being at large."
H
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 117
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
61. We look at the iss·ue from a slightly different A
perspective. Section 45 of the IPC defines life as denoting the
life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the
context. Therefore, when a punishment for murder is awarded
under Section 302 of the IPC, it might be imprisonment for life,
where life denotes the life of the convict or death. The term of B
sentence spanning the life of the convict, can be curtailed by
the appropriate Government for good and valid reasons in
exercise of its powers under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C.
Broadly, this Section statutorily empowers the appropriate
Government to suspend the execution of a sentence or to remit c
the whole or any part of the punishment of a convict [sub-section
(1)]. But, the statute provides some inherent procedural and
substantive checks on the arbitrary exercise of this power.
Procedural check on arbitrary remissions:
62. There does not seem to be any decision of this Court D
detailing the procedure to be followed for the exercise of power
under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. But it does appear to us that
sub-section (2) to sub-section (5) of Section 432 of the Cr.P.C.
lay down the basic procedure, which is making an application
to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission E
of a sentence, either by the convict or someone on his behalf.
In fact, this is what was suggested in Samjuben Gordhanbhai
Kofi v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 13 SCC 466 when it was
observed that since remission can only be granted by the
executive authorities, the appellant therein would be free to seek F
redress from the appropriate Government by making a
representation in terms of Section 432 of the Cr.P.C.
Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
432. Power to suspend or remit sentences - (1)
When any person has been sentenced to punishment for G
an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time,
without conditions or upon any conditions which the person
sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence
or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which
he has been sentenced. H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A (2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate
Government for the suspension or remission of a
sentence, the appropriate Government may require the
presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the
conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as
8 to whether the application should be granted or refused,
together with his reasons for such opinion and also to
forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy
of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.
(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been
c suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate
Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may
cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the
person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended
or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police
D
officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the
unexpired portion of the sentence.
(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or
remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by
E the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or
remitted, or one independent of his will.
(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or
special orders, give directions as to the suspension of
F sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be
presented and dealt with:
Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than
a sentence of fine) passed on a male person above the
age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person
G
sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be
entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and-
(a) where such petition is made by the person sentenced,
it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or
H
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 119
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
(b) where such petition is made by any other perso~ it A
contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail.
(6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also
apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any
section of this Code or of any other law which restricts the
liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or 8
his property.
(7) In this section and in Section 433, the expression
"appropriate Government" means, -
(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence C
against, or the order referred to in sub-section (6)
is passed under, any law relating to a matter to
which the executive power of the Union extends, the
Central Government;
(b) in other cases, the Government of the State D
within which the offender is sentenced or the said
order is passed.
63. It appears to us that an exercise of power by the
appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 432 E
of the Cr.P.C. cannot be suo motu for the simple reason that
this sub-section is only an enabling provision. The appropriate
Government is enabled to "override" a judicially pronounced
sentence, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Those
conditions are found either in the Jail Manual or in statutory
rules. Sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be
F
read to enable the appropriate Government to "further override"
the judicial pronouncement over and above what is permitted
by the Jail Manual or the statutory rules. The process of granting
"additional" remission under this Section is set into motion in
a case only through an application for remission by the convict G
or on his behalf. On such an application being made, the
appropriate Government is required to approach the presiding
judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was made
or confirmed to opine (with reasons) whether the application
H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 13 S.C.R.
A should be granted or refused. Thereafter, the appropriate
Government may take a decision on the remission application
and pass orders granting remission subject to some conditions,
or refusing remission. Apart from anything else, this statutory
procedure seems quite reasonable in as much as there is an
B application of mind to the issue of grant of remission. It also
eliminates "discretionary" or en masse release of convicts on
"festive" occasions since each release requires a case-by-case
basis scrutiny.
64. It must be remembered in this context that it was held
C in State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394 that
the power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The
decision to grant remission has to be well informed,
reasonable and fair to all concerned. The statutory procedum
laid down in Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. does provide thi·s
D check on the possible misuse of power by the appropriate
Government.
Substantive check on arbitrary remissions:
65. For exercising the power of remission to a life convict,
E the Cr.P.C. places not only a procedural check as mentioned
above, but also a substantive check. This check is throurJh
Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. which provides that when t.he
remission of a sentence is granted in a capital offence, the
convict must serve at least fourteen years of imprisonmenft. Of
F course, the requirement of a minimum of fourteen y1ears
incarceration may perhaps be relaxed in exercising power
under Article 72 and Article 161 of the Constitution and 'Section
433 of the Cr.P.C. but, as mentioned above, we are presently
not concerned with these provisions and say nothing in this
G regard, one way or the other.
66. Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. reads as folfows:-
433-A. Restriction on powers of remisuion or
commutation in certain cases.- Notwith~;tanding
anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of
H imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 121
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
for an offence for which death is one of the punishments A
provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed
on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into
one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be
released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen
years of imprisonment. B
67. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decisions
of the Constitution Bench in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600 and Maru Ram v. Union of
India, (1981) 1 SCC 107. Both these decisions were
considered in Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC C
498.
68. In Godse the Constitution Bench dealt with the plea of
premature release and held that life imprisonment means that
the prisoner will remain in prison for the rest of his life. Credit
0
for remissions given or awarded has a meaning only if the
imprisonment is for a definite period. Since life imprisonment
is for an indefinite period, remissions earned or awarded are
really theoretical. This is what this Court had to say:-
"Briefly stated the legal position is this: Before Act 26 of E
1955 a sentence of transportation for life could be
undergone by a prisoner by way of rigorous imprisonment
for life in a designated prison in India. After the said Act,
such a convict shall be dealt with in the same manner as
one sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the same term.
F
Unless the said sentence is commuted or remitted by
appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of the
Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure, a
prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law to
serve the life term in prison. The rules framed under the G
Prisons Act enable such a prisoner to earn remissions -
ordinary, special and State - and the said remissions will
be given credit towards his term of imprisonment. For the
purpose of working out the remissions the sentence of
transportation for life is ordinarily equated with a definite
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 13 S.C.R.
A period, but it is only for that particular purpose and not for
any other purpose. As the sentence of transportation for
life or its prison equivalent, the life imprisonment, is one
of indefinite duration, the remissions so earned do not in
practice help such a convict as it is not possible to
B predicate the time of his death. That is why the rules
provide for a procedure to enable an appropriate
government to remit the sentence under Section 401 [now
Section 432) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a
consideration of the relevant factors, including the period
c of remissions earned."
69. Maru Ram affirmed the view taken in Godse that in
matters of life imprisonment, remissions earned or awarded
are unreal and become relevant only if there is a fictional
q\,lantification of the period of imprisonment. More importantly,
D it was held that remissions earned or awarded cannot be the
basis for the determination of the fictional period of
imprisonment. It was held (in paragraph 25 of the Report):-
"Ordinarily where a sentence is for a definite term, the
calculus of remissions may benefit the prisoner to instant
E release at that point where the subtraction result is zero.
Here, we are concerned with life imprisonment and so we
come upon another concept bearing on the nature of
sentence which has been highlighted in Godse case.
Where the sentence is indeterminate and of uncertain
F duration, the result of subtraction from an uncertain quantity
is still an uncertain quantity and release of the prisoner
cannot follow except on some fiction of quantification of a
sentence of uncertain duration."
70. It was then held in the same paragraph:-
G
"Since death was uncertain, deduction by way of
remission did not yield any tangible date for release and
so the prayer of Godse was refused. The nature of a life
sentence is incarceration until death, judicial sentence of
H imprisonment for life cannot be in jeopardy merely because
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 123
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
of the long accumulation of remissions." (emphasis given A
by us).
71. On the basis of the above decisions, the conclusion
drawn in Ashok Kumar was that remissions have a limited
scope. They have no significance till the exercise of power
under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. It was held, in the following B
words:-
"lt will thus be seen from the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
two cases that where a person has been sentenced to
imprisonment for life the remissions earned by him during C
his internment in prison under the relevant remission rules
have a limited scope and must be confined to the scope
and ambit of the said rules and do not acquire significance
until the sentence is remitted under Section 432, in which
case the remission would be subject to limitation of Section
0
433-A of the Code, or constitutional power has been
exercised under Article 72/161 of the Constitution."
72. On this issue, it was questioned in Godse whether
there is any provision of law where under a sentence for life
imprisonment, without any formal remission by the appropriate E
Government, can be automatically treated as one for a definite
period. It was observed that no such provision is found in the
Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure or the Prisons
Act. It was noted that though the Government of India stated
before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Kishori F
Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 64 that, having regard to Section
57 of the IPC, twenty years imprisonment was equivalent to a
sentence of transportation for life, the Judicial Committee did
not express its final opinion on that question. However, in
Godse the Constitution Bench addressed this in the light of the G
Bombay Rules governing the remission system and concluded
that orders of the appropriate Government under Section 401
of the Criminal Procedure Code [now Section 432 of the
Cr.P.C] are a pre-requisite for release. It was held that a
priso~er sentenced to transportation for life has no indefeasible H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A right to an unconditional release on the expiry of a particular
term including remissions. "The rules under the Prisons Act do
not substitute a lesser sentence for a sentence of transportation
for life."
73. This view was followed in State of Madhya Pradesh
B v. Ratan Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 470 in the following words:-
"lt is, therefore, manifest from the decision of this Court [in
Godse] that the Rules framed under the Prisons Act or
under the Jail Manual do not affect the total period which
the prisoner has to suffer but merely amount to
c administrative instructions regarding the various
remissions to be given to the prisoner from time to time
in accordance with the rules. This Court further pointed out
that the question of remission of the entire sentence or a
part of it lies within the exclusive domain of the appropriate
D
Government under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and neither Section 57 of the Indian Penal
Code nor any Rules or local Acts can stultify the effect of
the sentence of life imprisonment given by the court under
the Indian Penal Code. In other words, this Court has clearly
E held that a sentence for life would enure till the lifetime of
the accused as it is not possible to fix a particular period
of the prisoner's death and remissions given under the
Rules could not be regarded as a substitute [of a lesser
sentence] for a sentence of transportation for life. In these
F circumstances, therefore, it is clear that the High Court was
in error in thinking that the respondent was entitled to be
released as of right on completing the term of 20 years
including the remissions."
74. Under the circumstances, it appears to us there is a
G misconception that a prisoner serving a life sentence has an
indefeasible right to release on completion of either fourteen
years or twenty years imprisonment. The prisoner has no such
right. A convict undergoing life imprisonment is expected to
remain in custody till the end of his life, subject to any remission
H granted by the appropriate Government under Section 432 of
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 125
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
the Cr.P.C. which in turn is subject to the procedural checks in A
that Section and the substantive check in Section 433-A of the
Cr.P.C.
75. In a sense, therefore, the application of Section 432
of the Cr.P.C. to a convict is limited. A convict serving a definite
term of imprisonment is entitled to earn a period of remission B
or even be awarded a period of remission under a statutory
rule framed by the appropriate Government or under the Jail
Manual. This period is then offset against the term of
punishment given to him. In such an event, if he has undergone
the requisite period of incarceration, his release is automatic C
and Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. will not even come into play.
This Section will come into play only if the convict is to be given
an "additional" period of remission for his release, that is, a
period in addition to what he has earned or has been awarded
under the Jail Manual or the statutory rules. D
76. In the case of a convict undergoing life imprisonment,
he will be in custody for an indeterminate period. Therefore,
remissions earned by or awarded to such a life convict are only
notional. In his case, to reduce the period of incarceration, a
specific order under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. will have to be E
passed by the appropriate Government. However, the reduced
period cannot be less than 14 years as per Section 433-A of
the Cr.P.C.
77. Therefore, Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. has application F
only in two situations: (1) Where a convict is to be given
"additional" remission or remission for a period over and above
the period that he is entitled to or he is awarded under a
statutory rule framed by the appropriate Government or under
the Jail Manual. (2) Where a convict is sentenced to life
imprisonment, which is for an indefinite period, subject to G
procedural and substantive checks.
78. What Section 302 of the IPC provides for is only two
punishments - life imprisonment and death penalty. In several
cases, this Court has proceeded on the postulate that life H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 13 S.C.R.
A imprisonment means fourteen years of incarceration, after
remissions. The calculation of fourteen years of incarceration
is based on another postulate, articulated in Swamy
Shraddananda, namely that a sentence of life imprisonment is
first commuted (or deemed converted) to a fixed term of twenty
B years on the basis of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974 and a
similar letter issued by the Government of Bihar. Apparently,
rules of this nature exist in other States as well. Thereafter,
remissions earned or awarded to a convict are applied to the
commuted sentence to work out the period of incarceration to
c fourteen years.
79. This re-engineered calculation can be made only after
the appropriate Government artificially determines the period
of incarceration. The procedure apparently being followed by
the appropriate Government is that life imprisonment is
D artificially considered to be imprisonment for a period of twenty
years. It is this arbitrary reckoning that has been prohibited in
Ratan Singh. A failure to implement Ratan Singh has led this
Court in some cases to carve out a special category in which
sentences of twenty years or more are awarded, even after
E accounting for remissions. If the law is applied as we
understand it, meaning thereby that life imprisonment is
imprisonment for the life span of the convict, with procedural
and substantive checks laid down in the Cr.P.C. for his early
release we would reach a legally satisfactory result on the issue
F of remissions. This makes an order for incarceration for a
minimum period of 20 or 25 or 30 years unnecessary.
Conclusion:
80. The broad result of our discussion is that a relook is
G needed at some cpnclusions that have been taken for granted
and we need to continue the development of the law on the
basis of experience gained over the years and views expressed
in various decisions of this Court. To be more specific, we
conclude:
H 1. This Court has not endorsed the approach of •
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 127
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
aggravating and mitigating circumstances in A
Bachan Singh. However, this approach has been
adopted in several decisions. This needs a fresh
look. In any event, there is little or no uniformity in
the application of this approach.
2. Aggravating circumstances relate to the crime while B
mitigating circumstances relate to the criminal. A
balance sheet cannot be drawn up for comparing
the two. The considerations for both are distinct and
unrelated. The use of the mantra of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances needs a review. c
3. In the sentencing process, both the crime and the
criminal are equally important. We have,
unfortunately, not taken the sentencing process as
seriously as it should be with the result that in
D
capital offences, it has become judge-centric
sentencing rather than principled sentencing.
4. The Constitution Bench of this Court has not
encouraged standardization and categorization of
crimes and even otherwise it· is not possible to E
standardize and categorize all crimes.
5. The grant of remissions is statutory. However, to
prevent its arbitrary exercise, the legislature has
built in some procedural and substantive checks in
the statute. These need to be faithfully enforced. F
6. Remission can be granted under Section 432 of the
Cr.P.C. in the case of a definite term of sentence.
The power under this Section is available only for
granting "additional• remission, that is, for a period
over and above the remission granted or awarded G
to a convict under the Jail Manual or other statutory
rules. If the term of sentence is indefinite (as in life
imprisonment), the power under Section 432 of the
Cr.P.C. can certainly be exercised but not on the
basis that life imprisonment is an arbitrary or H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A notional figure of twenty years of imprisonment.
7. Before actually exercising the power of remission
under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. the appropriate
Government must obtain the opinion (with reasons)
of the presiding judge of the convicting or
B confirming Court. Remissions can, therefore, be
given only on a case-by-case basis and not in a
wholesale manner.
81. Given these conclusions, we are of the opinion that in
c cases such as the present, there is considerable uncertainty
on the punishment to be awarded in capital offences - whether
it should be life imprisonment or death sentence. In our opinion,
due to this uncertainty, awarding a sentence of life
imprisonment, in cases such as the present is not
0 unquestionably foreclosed. More so when, in this case, there
is no evidence (contrary to the conclusion of the High Court)
that Seema's body was burnt by Sandeep from below the waist
with a view to destroy evidence of her having been subjected
to sexual harassment and rape. There is also no evidence
E (again contrary to the conclusion of the High Court) that
Narender was a professional killer.
82. Therefore, we allow these appeals to the extent that
the death penalty awarded to the appellants is converted into
a sentence of life imprisonment, subject to what we have said
F above.
83. We place on record our appreciation for the efforts put
in by both learned counsel for the assistance rendered in this
case.
G K.K.T. Appeals partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "death penalty"Sign in to search