IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1899-1900 OF 2011
MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1961 OF 2011 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT VERSUS FAHIM HARSHAD MOHAMMAD YUSUF ANSARI & ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS AND TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.30 OF 2012 RADHAKANT YADAV … PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
IN THIS LENGTHY JUDGEMENT, HON’BLE SC REITERATED THE PRINCIPLES/GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE AS FOLLOWS:- 565. Coming back to the legalese of the matter: The Constitutional validity of death penalty was tested in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[105] and in that case a Constitution Bench of this Court, while upholding the Constitutional validity of death sentence, observed that the death penalty may be invoked only in the rarest of rare cases. This Court stated that: “209. ….For persons convicted of murder life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 566. The Bachan Singh principle of the ‘rarest of rare cases’ came up for consideration and elaboration in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab[106]. It was a case of extraordinary brutality (from normal standards but nothing compared to this case!). On account of a family feud Machhi Singh, the main accused in the case along with eleven (11) accomplices, in the course of a single night, conducted raids on a number of villages killing seventeen (17) people, men, women and children, for no reason other than they were related to one Amar Singh and his sister Piyaro Bai. The death sentence awarded to Machhi Singh and two other accused by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court was also confirmed by this Court. 567. In Machhi Singh this Court observed that though the “community” revered and protected life because “the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of reverence for life principle” it may yet withdraw the protection and demand death penalty. The kind of cases in which protection to life may be withdrawn and there may be the demand for death penalty were then enumerated in the following paragraphs: “32. … It may do so “in rarest of rare cases” when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community may entertain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for instance: 1. Manner of commission of murder 33. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. For instance, (i) when the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in view to roast him alive in the house. (ii) when the victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or cruelty in order to bring about his or her death. (iii) when the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his body is dismembered in a fiendish manner. II. Motive for commission of murder 34. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness. For instance when (a) a hired assassin commits murder for the sake of money or reward (b) a cold-blooded murder is committed with a deliberate design in order to inherit property or to gain control over property of a ward or a person under the control of the murderer or vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or (c) a murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland. III. Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime 35. (a) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community, etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath. For instance when such a crime is committed in order to terrorise such persons and frighten them into fleeing from a place or in order to deprive them of, or make them surrender, lands or benefits conferred on them with a view to reverse past injustices and in order to restore the social balance. (b) In cases of “bride burning” and what are known as “dowry deaths” or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. IV. Magnitude of crime 36. When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. V. Personality of victim of murder 37. When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child who could not have or has not provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder (b) a helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or infirmity (c) when the victim is a person vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a position of domination or trust (d) when the victim is a public figure generally loved and respected by the community for the services rendered by him and the murder is committed for political or similar reasons other than personal reasons.” 568. The above principles are generally regarded by this Court as the broad guidelines for imposition of death sentence and have been followed by the Court in many subsequent decisions. |
|
|