Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1977 (5) TMI SC This
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the discretion of the convicting judge in choosing between capital sentence and life term u/s 354(3) of the Penal Code, the legality of the affirmation of the death sentence by the Judicial Commissioner's court of Goa, Daman, and Diu, and the jurisdiction of the Judicial Commissioner in confirming the death sentence u/s 377 of the old Criminal Procedure Code. Discretion of Convicting Judge: The convicting judge, in a murder charge, has the discretion to choose between capital sentence and life term u/s 354(3) of the Penal Code. The legislative emphasis is on life imprisonment as the rule and capital sentence as an exception, to be resorted to for specific reasons. The discretion is limited, and courts must consider aggravating circumstances and the depraved state of mind of the perpetrator before imposing the death penalty. The trial court's exercise of discretion in imposing the death sentence, if based on valid reasons and in line with precedents, should not be easily overturned on appeal or review. Legality of Affirmation of Death Sentence: The affirmation of the death sentence by the Judicial Commissioner's court of Goa, Daman, and Diu was challenged as illegal u/s 377 of the old Criminal Procedure Code. The section requires confirmation of the sentence by at least two judges when the court consists of two or more judges. In this case, when the judgment was pronounced, there was only one Judicial Commissioner, although the sanctioned strength was two. The absence of two judges does not render the confirmation illegal, as exceptional situations may arise where two judges are not available, and the Code permits a single judge to decide the reference. Jurisdiction of Judicial Commissioner: The petitioner argued that the Judicial Commissioner's court did not have the jurisdiction to confirm the death sentence u/s 377 of the old Criminal Procedure Code based on the Goa, Daman, and Diu (Judicial Commissioners Court) Regulation, 1963. However, the court held that the Criminal Procedure Code is self-contained and complete, defining a High Court to include a Judicial Commissioner's court. The Regulation does not limit the Judicial Commissioner's jurisdiction in confirming death sentences, as the terms 'Court of Appeal and Revision' in the Regulation encompass all proceedings by way of judicial review for a higher level. The Judicial Commissioner's confirmation of the death sentence was deemed to be within jurisdiction. In conclusion, the Supreme Court refused special leave and dismissed the petition challenging the affirmation of the death sentence by the Judicial Commissioner's court of Goa, Daman, and Diu.
|