9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. 2. Constitutional validity of the death penalty. 3. Discretion in sentencing under Section 302 IPC. 4. Alleged violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction and Sentence of the Appellant Under Section 302 IPC: The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Chhotey Singh and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court granted special leave limited to the question of sentence only. The facts of the case indicate a premeditated murder motivated by longstanding ill-feelings. The appellant armed with a pistol and Jagbir Singh with a lathi concealed themselves and attacked Chhotey Singh, who was shot in the back while trying to escape. The trial court and High Court both found no extenuating circumstances and upheld the death sentence. The Supreme Court, upon review, found no breach of principles governing sentencing and upheld the High Court's discretion. 2. Constitutional Validity of the Death Penalty: The appellant's counsel argued that the death penalty violates fundamental rights under Article 19 and is unreasonable, not in public interest, and involves excessive delegation of legislative function. The Court examined whether Section 302 IPC passes the test of reasonableness and public interest. Referring to the Law Commission's Thirty-Fifth Report, the Court noted that the Commission recommended retaining the death penalty considering India's social conditions, the need for law and order, and the diversity of its population. The Court also considered international perspectives, including the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia, but emphasized that Indian social conditions and legal framework differ. The Court concluded that capital punishment is not per se unreasonable or unconstitutional. 3. Discretion in Sentencing Under Section 302 IPC: The appellant contended that the absence of legislative standards for imposing death or life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC constitutes excessive delegation. The Court noted that the Indian Penal Code provides a maximum penalty for the worst cases and leaves the determination of the extent of punishment to the Judge's discretion. This discretion, exercised judicially, considers aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Court referenced the Royal Commission's findings and American judicial experience, which acknowledged the difficulty in standardizing sentencing criteria. The Court held that judicial discretion, subject to appellate review, is the most effective safeguard for the accused. 4. Alleged Violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution: The appellant argued that the unguided discretion in sentencing violates Article 14, leading to unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals. The Court rejected this argument, stating that judicial decisions depend on the unique facts and circumstances of each case, making uniformity impractical. The Court also addressed the contention under Article 21, asserting that the Criminal Procedure Code provides sufficient procedural safeguards, including the right to a fair trial, examination of evidence, and appellate review. The Court concluded that the procedural framework under the Criminal Procedure Code ensures that the death penalty is imposed according to the procedure established by law, thus not violating Article 21. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the death sentence imposed by the High Court, affirming that the sentence was imposed following the procedure established by law and did not violate constitutional provisions.
|
