2012 (11) TMI 1335 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sentence awarded to the Appellants.
2. Leading judgments on the death penalty.
3. Issue of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
4. Issue of crime and the criminal.
5. Standardization and categorization of crimes.
6. Issue of remission of sentence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sentence Awarded to the Appellants:
The Supreme Court issued notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded to the Appellants, who were given the death penalty, confirmed by the High Court. The Court opined that the Appellants should be awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful implementation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Leading Judgments on the Death Penalty:
The judgment references significant cases like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab. It explains the legislative change from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reversed the previous stance and required special reasons for awarding the death penalty. The Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh laid down that the death penalty should be awarded only in the "rarest of rare cases" and when the option of life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed."

3. Issue of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances:
The judgment discusses the shift from focusing solely on the crime to considering both the crime and the criminal. It critiques the balance sheet theory introduced in Machhi Singh, which compared aggravating circumstances of the crime with mitigating circumstances of the criminal. The Court notes that this approach has not been uniformly or consistently applied and highlights the need for a fresh look at the aggravating and mitigating circumstances approach.

4. Issue of Crime and the Criminal:
Despite Bachan Singh, primacy has often been given to the nature of the crime, with less consideration of the criminal's circumstances. The judgment cites several cases where the focus remained on the crime, such as Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, which was rendered per incuriam. The Court emphasizes the need to consider both the crime and the criminal in sentencing.

5. Standardization and Categorization of Crimes:
The judgment discusses the attempt at standardization and categorization of crimes in Machhi Singh and its critique in Swamy Shraddananda. It notes that the Constitution Bench in Jagmohan Singh and Bachan Singh had refrained from such attempts, and even though Machhi Singh provided useful guidelines, they could not be taken as inflexible or absolute.

6. Issue of Remission of Sentence:
The judgment explores the power of remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting that it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It emphasizes that remission can be granted only on a case-by-case basis and not in a wholesale manner. The Court also discusses the procedural and substantive checks on the exercise of this power, including the requirement of obtaining the opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting or confirming Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that there is considerable uncertainty in awarding punishment in capital offences, whether it should be life imprisonment or the death sentence. Due to this uncertainty, awarding a sentence of life imprisonment is not unquestionably foreclosed. Therefore, the death penalty awarded to the Appellants is converted into a sentence of life imprisonment.