Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2001 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (5) TMI 936 - SC - Indian LawsReview petition against sentence Held that - The mandate of the Legislature is clear and unambiguous that no adjournment can be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed upon him. In a case punishable with death or imprisonment for life there is no difficulty for the court where the sentence proposed to be imposed is alternative sentence of life imprisonment but if it proposes to award the death sentence it has discretion to adjourn the case in the interests of justice. I have no doubt in holding that despite the bar of third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 309 the Court in appropriate cases can grant adjournment for enabling the accused persons to show cause against the sentence proposed on him particularly if such proposed sentence is sentence of death. We hold that in all cases where a conviction is recorded in cases triable by the Court of Sessions or by Special Courts the court is enjoined upon to direct the accused convict to be immediately taken into custody if he is on bail and kept in jail till such time the question of sentence is decided. After the sentence is awarded the convict is to undergo such sentence unless the operation of the sentence awarded is stayed or suspended by a competent court of jurisdiction. Such a course is necessitated under the present circumstances prevalent in the country and is in consonance with the spirit of law. A person granted bail has no right to insist to remain at liberty on the basis of the orders passed in his favour prior to his conviction. Upon consideration of all relevant circumstances and in view of the settled position of law I have no doubt in my mind that the present Review Petition is without merit the grounds mentioned therein have been concocted and carved out for escaping the rigours of law and the sentence imposed upon the accused by well considered judgments of the trial court High Court and this Court. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of Death Sentence 2. Review of Sentence Based on Juvenile Status 3. Scope and Limitations of Review under Article 137 of the Constitution 4. Determination of Age and Applicability of Juvenile Justice Act 5. Procedural Compliance under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Death Sentence The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to the petitioner for causing the death of four persons, including women and a child. The Court held that the crime was "most cruel, heinous and dastardly," warranting the maximum penalty under the law. The awarding of a lesser sentence due to the appellant's youth was not considered a mitigating circumstance. 2. Review of Sentence Based on Juvenile Status The petitioner contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and thus could not be sentenced to death. The Court examined this claim critically, noting that the issue of the petitioner's age was raised only at a very late stage and appeared to be an afterthought. The Court found no credible evidence to support the claim that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the crime. 3. Scope and Limitations of Review under Article 137 of the Constitution The Court discussed the scope of review under Article 137, emphasizing that review is not an appeal in disguise and can only be exercised to correct mistakes or prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court cited several precedents to underline that review is permissible only on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that could not have been produced earlier with due diligence. 4. Determination of Age and Applicability of Juvenile Justice Act The Court examined the evidence regarding the petitioner's age, including school records and medical examinations. The trial court and High Court had found the petitioner to be over 20 years old at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court agreed with these findings, noting discrepancies and inconsistencies in the school records and the credibility of the medical evidence. The Court held that the petitioner was not a juvenile and thus not entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act. 5. Procedural Compliance under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The petitioner argued that the trial court violated Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by pronouncing the sentence on the same day as the conviction. The Court clarified that while the law mandates a hearing on the question of sentence, the trial court had complied with this requirement. The Court also noted that the amendment to Section 309 of the Code allows for no adjournment solely for the purpose of enabling the accused to show cause against the sentence proposed. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, finding no merit in the grounds raised. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's claims were concocted and aimed at escaping the rigor of the law. The death sentence was confirmed, and the procedural and substantive grounds for review were found to be without merit.
|