PHOOLGADI INDIA posted: "
references Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
Reading of the sentencing part of the judgment, reproduced supra, one finds the Trial Judge, to have only concluded, without assigning any reason, that the nature of the offence and th"
| Respond to this post by replying above this line |
New post on PHOOLGADI
|
 |
references Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
- Reading of the sentencing part of the judgment, reproduced supra, one finds the Trial Judge, to have only concluded, without assigning any reason, that the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed to fall within the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’.
Principles of Capital Punishment Sentencing
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
56/60
- Judicial decisions over the years have developed the following principles, which guide the death penalty sentencing by the courts:
- Rarest of rare cases: The normal rule of punishment for murder is sentence for life and exception is death penalty. Death penalty must only be given in rarest of the rare cases. To depart from the normal rule and give death sentence. [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277, Santosh Kumar Sarish Bhushan Bariar (2009) 6 SCC 498, Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 19, Dharmendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 679, IshwariLalYadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 10 SCC 423]. Exceptional Circumstances are not limited to cases where security of state and society and public interest in general are at issue. [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684]
- Judicial discretion on sentencing must be accompanied by application of judicial mind, and governed by rule of law. [Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP (1973) 1 SCC 20, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277, State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2013) 3 SCC 346, Ravi v. The State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 622]
- The judgment must be supported by special reasons. [Section 354 (3) of the Code; Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1976) 1 SCC 425, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684,Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5, Shashi Nayar v. Union (1992) 1 SCC 96, Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767, Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar (2013) 10 SCC 421, Sandesh v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 479]
- Balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: As listing all possible aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not possible, judicial discretion on a case-
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
57/60
to-case basis depending on an analysis of facts and circumstances of each case is the best safeguard. Doctrine of proportionality of gravity of offence and punishment becomes relevant. [Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP (1973) 1 SCC 20, Rajendra Prasad v. State of UP (1979) 3 SCC
646, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470,Vashram Narshibhai Rajpara v. State of Gujarat (2002) 9 SCC 168, Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 19, Dharmendra Sinha v. State of Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 679, Santosh Kumar Sarish Bhushan
Bariar (2009) 6 SCC 498, Vsanta Sampat Dupare v.
State of Maharashtra (2017) 6 SCC 631, Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2019) 4 SCC 415, Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 10 SCC 423]
- Weightage to every relevant circumstance relating to the crime and the criminal: Weightage must be given to the motive, manner and anti-social or abhorrent nature, magnitude of the crime, personality of the victim i.e. the court must examine the manner in which the crime is committed, offender's mental condition at the relevant time, motive of offence, brutality with which crime was committed and who it was committed on. [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, Dharmendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 679, Mohan v. State of T.N. (1998) 5 SCC 336, State of UP v. Sanjay Kumar (2012) 8 SCC 537, Shabnam v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 632, Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 10 SCC 423]
- Residual doubt becomes a mitigating circumstance, more so, for cases based on circumstantial evidence. [Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura (2014) 4 SCC 747, Ravishankar v. State of MP (2019) 9 SCC 689, Sudam v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 388]
- Judicial approach must be cautious, circumspect and careful. Court must exercise prudence, and each court - from Sessions court to the Supreme Court - must peruse and analyze facts of the case at hand and reach independent conclusion. [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
58/60
SCC 684, Dharmendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 679, Sandesh v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 479]
- Sessions court, in particular, must rigorously apply the rarest of rare case principle, they cannot do lip service to application of judicious mind, and their discretion is liable to be corrected by superior courts as a safeguard. [Section 366 of the Code; Sandesh v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 479, State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2013) 3 SCC 346]
- Principle of retribution: Capital punishment is based on the principle of denunciation of wrongdoing. It is a reflection of revulsion felt by society against crimes so outrageous that the wrongdoer gets 'punishment they deserve' - where life imprisonment is an inadequate punishment for the crime. [Rajendra Prasad v. State of UP (1979) 3 SCC 646,Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, Ravi v. The State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 622,Manoharan v. State (2020) 5 SCC 782]
- Doctrine of rehabilitation: The court must take into account where there is a possibility of rehabilitation of the offender and not determine the punishment on the ground of proportionality alone. [Dharmendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 679, Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 4 SCC 317, Ravi v. The State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 622]
- The court must not be an oracle of the public opinion and recognize limits to judicial power. They must ensure that individual rights guaranteed by the constitution are at a higher pedestal than public opinion. [Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 19, Dharmendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 679, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498]
- What is the basis of his conclusion of the case being the rarest of rare cases is not discussed. What are the special
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
59/60
reasons for grant of capital punishment; whether there were any mitigating circumstances; what was the mental state, motive, or the brutality of the crime were never thought of much less considered by the learned trial judge. The approach adopted is casual and perfunctory in nature, unmindful of the consequences of the decision which when implemented becomes irrevocable and irreversible.
- We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Trial Judge, either on the sentence of awarding death penalty or applying the principles of sentencing. The sentence for each one of the offences was required to be pronounced which, perhaps Trial Judge forgot to do so.
- The Death Reference is answered accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
WordPress.com
