February 11, 2022

SC commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment, of a man accused of Rape and Murder of 7 year old.

~Preet

On 9th of February 2022, the honourable Supreme Court of India, in a judgement related to rape and murder of a 7 year old, commuted the death sentence of the convict to a life imprisonment. This decision can act as an important precedent and a landmark judgment as the Three Judge Bench led by the honourable Justice A.M. Khanwilkar explicitly suggested that "the Judges must not be swayed in favour of the death penalty."

The Author of the judgment, Honourable Justice Maheshwari, citing the progression in the concepts of penology (Penology is a sub-component of criminology that deals with the philosophy and practice of various societies in their attempts to repress criminal activities, and satisfy public opinion via an appropriate treatment regime for persons convicted of criminal offences.), held that, the prime motive of justice shall be "preservation of human life." He noted that, today judiciary has other option than death penalty.

The supreme court stated in this instance that both lower courts made "intense observations" about the abhorrence of the crime but did not thoroughly evaluate the mitigating reasons in the accused's favour before condemning him to death.

The courts should have given "full regard to the equally significant component relative to mitigating considerations before concluding that any other sentence than execution punishment was precluded," Justice Maheshwari concluded.

If the courts had looked, they would have found hope for the offender's reformation in the mitigating circumstances of the convict, who was not a hardened criminal, had a pristine jail record, a young family, and an elderly father, Justice Maheshwari stated.

"It would be dangerous to approach this case as if it were a regular case."

SC commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, with the rider that he shall not be entitled to “premature release or remission before undergoing actual imprisonment” for a period of 30 years.

For the most serious offences, the death sentence is viewed as the most appropriate punishment and effective deterrence. Those who oppose it, on the other hand, consider it cruel. As a result, the death penalty's morality is questionable, and many criminologists and socialists across the world have long called for its repeal.

One of the major tenets of retribution is that people should receive what they deserve in proportion to the gravity of their crime. This argument claims that true justice necessitates individuals suffering for their transgression and suffering in a manner commensurate with the offence. The notion that executing convicted murderers will dissuade would-be killers is frequently used to justify capital punishment. The death sentence is frequently suggested to bring closure for victims' families.

The statistical evidence does not support the idea that deterrence is effective. Because of mental illness or a flaw, some of them executed may not have been able to be discouraged. Despite the fact that death has been recommended in rape cases since 2013 (Section 376A of the IPC), rapes continue to occur, and the savagery of rapes has grown dramatically. This leads one to believe that the death penalty is an effective crime deterrent.

The most popular argument against death punishment is that due to faults or weaknesses in the court system, innocent people will be murdered sooner or later. One of the major concepts of retribution is that people should get what they deserve in proportion to the seriousness of their crimes.
According to Amnesty International, the possibility of killing the innocent will never be eradicated as long as human justice is flawed.
In most industrialised nations, death as a form of punishment has been abolished. The prisoner is neither rehabilitated or returned to society when they are sentenced to death.

In India, the death sentence was the rule and life imprisonment was the exception before the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Cr PC) of 1955.
Furthermore, the courts were required to provide a justification for granting a lesser sentence for capital offences than death.

Following the 1955 amendment, judges were free to sentence someone to death or life in prison.
Courts are compelled to provide reasons in writing for assigning the maximum sentence under Section 354 (3) of the Cr PC, 1973.

In capital cases, the situation has been flipped, with life sentences being the norm and the death penalty being the uncommon. Moreover, despite the United Nations' global ban on the death sentence, India continues to use it.

Allowing offenders who have committed purposeful, cold-blooded, deliberate, and horrific murders to escape with a reduced sentence, according to India, will undermine the law's effectiveness and result in a farce of justice.

In agreement with this, the Law Commission rejected a proposal to abolish the death sentence in its 35th report in 1967.

According to official figures, 720 individuals have been executed in India since it gained independence in 1947, which is a tiny percentage of those who have been sentenced to death by trial courts. The death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment in the majority of instances, while several defendants were acquitted by higher courts.

In the 1973 decision of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court declared that loss of life is legally allowed if done in accordance with legal procedures. As a result, the death penalty imposed following a trial conducted in conformity with the Cr.PC and the Indian Evidence Act 1872 is not illegal under Article 21.

In the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court declared that if a criminal's deadly activity jeopardises social security in a consistent, premeditated, and risky manner, his enjoyment of basic rights may be rightfully extinguished.

In the 1980 case Bachan Singh v. The State of Punjab, the Supreme Court established the "rarest of rare instances" dicta, which states that the death sentence should only be applied in the "rarest of rare circumstances" where no other option is absolutely excluded.

In the 1983 decision of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court established specific criteria for deciding whether a case comes into the category of the rarest of rare instances or not.

Combating crimes against women and children necessitates larger socio economic reforms, long-term governance initiatives, and strengthened investigation and reporting channels, rather than just increasing punishment.

Comments