9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Appropriateness of the death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Interpretation of the judicial discretion in awarding the death penalty. 3. Relevance of the criminal's personal circumstances in sentencing. 4. The role of public opinion and legislative function in the abolition of the death penalty. 5. Confirmation of death sentences by higher courts. 6. Application of precedents and the binding nature of judicial decisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: The judgment emphasizes that the death penalty should be sparingly applied, aligning with the principles of humanism and constitutional values. It discusses the cultural and societal implications of capital punishment, referencing historical and contemporary views against it. The judgment states, "Death sentence on death sentence is Parliament's function," highlighting the legislative role in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty. The court also references the British Royal Commission's findings, indicating that released murderers rarely commit further violent crimes, suggesting the potential for reformation. 2. Interpretation of Judicial Discretion in Awarding the Death Penalty: The judgment critiques the lower courts' application of the death penalty, arguing that sentencing should consider the criminal's personal circumstances and not solely the nature of the crime. It references the case of Rajendra Prasad, emphasizing that "the prosecution must make out, by special factors, why the graver penalty should be inflicted." The judgment asserts that "the forensic exercise at the sentencing stage" has often been inadequate, leading to unjust imposition of the death penalty. 3. Relevance of the Criminal's Personal Circumstances in Sentencing: The judgment underscores the importance of considering the criminal's background, including factors like provocation, intoxication, and the absence of premeditation. It states, "Special reasons necessary for imposing death penalty must relate, not to the crime as such but to the criminal." The court highlights the need for a holistic approach to sentencing, considering the potential for reformation and the criminal's personal history. 4. The Role of Public Opinion and Legislative Function in the Abolition of the Death Penalty: The dissenting opinion argues that the question of the death penalty's abolition is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary. It states, "The question whether the scope of death sentence should be curtailed or not is for the Parliament to decide." This perspective emphasizes that judicial pronouncements should not encroach on legislative functions, reflecting concerns about judicial overreach. 5. Confirmation of Death Sentences by Higher Courts: The judgment discusses the procedural safeguards in place for confirming death sentences, including the requirement for High Court confirmation and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. It highlights the importance of these safeguards in ensuring that death sentences are not imposed arbitrarily. The judgment criticizes the lower courts for not adequately considering the personal circumstances of the accused, leading to a wrongful imposition of the death penalty. 6. Application of Precedents and the Binding Nature of Judicial Decisions: The dissenting opinion challenges the majority's reliance on the Rajendra Prasad case, arguing that it does not constitute binding precedent. It states, "A decision on a question of sentence depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, can never be regarded as a binding precedent." The dissenting judge emphasizes that the interpretation of "special reasons" in Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be limited to factors concerning the criminal alone but should also consider the nature of the crime. Conclusion: The majority judgment reduces the death sentences of the appellants to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for a more humane and holistic approach to sentencing. The dissenting opinion, however, upholds the death sentences, arguing that the decision to curtail the scope of the death penalty lies with the legislature and not the judiciary. The case highlights the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of the death penalty and the respective roles of the judiciary and legislature in its application.
|
