Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 1 of 19
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITON (CRL.) NO.245 OF 2010
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2009
M.A. Antony @ Antappan …Petitioner
versus
State of Kerala ….Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The broad allegations against the appellant have been stated in the
decision of this Court in the criminal appeal out of which the present
Review Petition arises. It would be more convenient to reproduce the
allegations from the decision:
“On the intervening night of 6th and 7th January, 2001,
when inmates of Aluva Municipal Town of Ernakulam
District in the State of Kerala were in deep sleep,
Manjooran House located in the midst of the town
became a scene of ghastly crime. Six members of one
family in the Manjooran House lost their lives in a matter
of three hours, Antony @ Antappan, the appellant herein,
in search of greener pastures abroad for which purpose
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 2 of 19
he needed money but was refused to be paid by the
members of the Manjooran family, and therefore as per
the prosecution’s version used knife, axe, and
electrocuted and strangulated Kochurani and Clara at
about 10 in the night of 6.1.2001 and Augustine, his wife
Mary, and their children – Divya and Jesmon at midnight.
The Manjooran House full of life at 10 in the night by the
stroke of midnight became a graveyard. The appellant
after causing the death of Kochurani and Clara is said to
have waited for the arrival of other four members of the
family who had gone to see a film show. On their arrival
he turned them into corpses. He waited for their arrival
to kill them as he knew that for the two murders
committed earlier by him he would be suspected by them,
as he was in the house when they left the house for the
film show. The prosecution alleges that all these murders
were cold blooded, planned and executed with precision
and the appellant ensured that there is no trace of life left
in them before he left the scene of occurrence. When put
to trial for murders, appellant, however, pleaded
innocence and claimed trial.”
2. After trial, the Sessions Court in Ernakulam in Kerala in Sessions
Case No.154 of 2004 found the appellant guilty of the offences and
convicted him by judgment and order dated 31st January, 2005. It appears
that submissions on the question whether the appellant should be awarded
life sentence or death sentence were addressed on the same day or
immediately thereafter since on 2nd February, 2005 the Trial Judge
sentenced the appellant “to be hanged by the neck till he is dead”.
3. The Trial Judge stated, while awarding the sentence of death, as
follows:
“231. The cruel tendency of the accused was writ large even
in the manner of attack. His conduct and behaviour is
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 3 of 19
repulsive to the collective conscience of the society. It is clear
that he does not value the lives of others in the least. The fact
that the murders in this case were committed in such a
deliberate and diabolic manner even beyond the slight
expectation of the victims, without any provocation
whatsoever from the side of the victims that too having
enjoyed the hospitality and kindness of the victims, indicate
the cold blooded and premeditated approach of the accused to
put to death the victims which included two innocent children
in their earlier teenages also, for a sordid purpose.
232. It was clearly come out that his wife and child are not
residing with the accused. He does not know even the school
at which his wife is working as teacher. Even according to
him, she has not cared to come to reside with him after the
incident in this case. In fact, all my searches for extenuating
circumstances in this case are in vain. From various judicial
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
the subject, it has come out that in the choice of sentence the
court has to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors
available on the facts of the case to find out whether special
reasons do exist to categories [categorize] the case as one
among the “rarest of rare cases”.
233. The accused is a hardened criminal beyond any
correction and rehabilitation. In this case the culpability has
assumed the preparation of extreme depravity. The accused
is a preferred example of blood thirsty, irreclaimable and
hardened criminal. This court is of the view that, to spare such
a criminal from the gallows is to render the justicing system
suspect and to have recourse to the lesser alternative in
sentencing this accused will be a mockery of justice. As this
incident had sent tremors in the society and the collective
conscience of the community as such was shocked, it is not to
be humane but to be callous to allow such a criminal to return
to the society. When multiple murders are committed in the
most cruel, inhuman, extreme, brutal, gruesome, diabolic,
revolting and dastardly manner, this court cannot wriggle out
of the infliction of the extreme penalty. Matters being so,
special reasons do exist in this case under Section 354(3) Cr.
P.C. and this case comes within the category of “rarest of rare
case” in which the “lesser alternative is unquestionably
foreclosed.”
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 4 of 19
4. The conviction and sentence came up for confirmation before the
High Court of Kerala in Death Sentence Reference No.5 of 2005. The
appellant was also aggrieved by his conviction and sentence and he
preferred Criminal Appeal No.385 of 2005 against the judgment and
sentence of the Trial Court.
5. By a judgment and order dated 18th September, 2006 the High Court
confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
6. On the award of the death sentence, the High Court took the view
that the crime committed by the appellant was most cruel and diabolical.
It was observed that he had no respect, no care, no dignity, no mercy for
human life and his living in this world is most dangerous to society. The
High Court expressed its views on the sentence to be awarded to the
appellant in paragraph 49 of the judgement. This reads as follows:
“49. On the question of sentence all that has been urged
before us by Mr. Ramakumar is that the present is not a ‘rarest
of rare’ case where the appellant should be given capital
punishment. No arguments have been raised to show any
mitigating circumstances. We have reconsidered and yet
reconsidered every aspect of the case. On every
reconsideration, our view gets more and more strengthened
that in the present case, death penalty has to be imposed. It is
indeed a rarest of rare case. In this country of seers and sages,
even a worm unconsciously trampled under the foot is
considered to be a sin. Guided and motivated by tradition of
non-violence, people in this country do not even think of
physically harming anyone. Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of
the Nation and many other stalwarts brought freedom to this
Nation from the British Empire by fighting a bloodless war of
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 5 of 19
independence. The appellant has trampled these lofty ideals
and traditions of this country under his foot. He extinguished
all members of a family in a most cruel and gruesome manner.
He became instrumental in causing black and unmitigated
tragedy and caused shudders to the society. In causing death
of six members of a family, he acted in a most cruel and
diabolical manner. He used every possible instrument in the
house to cause their death. As the confession goes if knives
would not be enough to kill the inmates, he would use
furniture in the house to strike them, and if that be not enough
he would axe them, and even if that be not enough he would
electrocute them and if still not enough he would strangulate
them. In cruelty and brutality, he exceeded all limits. It is
unimaginable, unthinkable and difficult to believe that after
causing six murders by splashing blood all around the house,
he would sit in the same house for almost five hours as if he
was not siting amongst six dead people, but amongst trophies
won by him in a prestigious event. He has no respect, no care,
no dignity, no mercy for human life. His living in this world
is most dangerous to the society. We need not refer to various
judicial precedents as every case has its own facts, but would
hasten to make reference to only one case which appears
nearest on facts of the present case. In Dayanidhi Bisoi v.
State of Orissa, 2003 Crl.L.J. 3697 (SC), a case which was
based upon circumstantial evidence, accused was related to
the deceased. He was enjoying hospitality and kindness of
deceased in the evening. He killed entire family of deceased
which included a three years child in the night. Murders were
committed when the victims were sleeping and there was no
provocation from the victims. The motive was only to gain
financial benefits. The Supreme Court found it to be case of
cold blooded murder with premeditated approach of accused.
It was held to be a rarest of rare case. The accused was
sentenced to death.”
7. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and confirmation of the death
sentence, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2009 in this
Court which was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 22nd April,
2009. This Court did not at all advert to or discuss the quantum of sentence
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 6 of 19
awarded to the appellant. This was decided on its facts and dismissed.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant
preferred Review Petition (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 but that was dismissed by
an order dated 13th April, 2010.
9. In view of the decision of this Court in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v.
The Registrar Supreme Court of India & others1
the said review petition
was re-opened for consideration and that is how it is before us.
Submissions
10. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a variety of grounds for
commuting the death sentence awarded to the appellant into one of life
sentence. It was contended that the case was one of circumstantial
evidence and therefore the sentence of death should not be awarded. It
was also contended that this Court as well the High Court and the Trial
Court failed to consider the probability of reformation of the appellant. It
was also contended that the prior history and criminal antecedents of the
appellant were not relevant in awarding the sentence. It was submitted that
the Trial Judge had erroneously described the appellant as a hardened
criminal. In fact, we find that learned counsel for the appellant is correct in
this submission since there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the
appellant had previously committed any crime whatsoever. Indeed, there
1
(2014) 9 SCC 737
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 7 of 19
is nothing on record to even suggest that the appellant was a hardened
criminal.
11. We do not propose to deal with the submissions advanced by learned
counsel since similar submissions were raised before us in Rajendra
Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra in which we have delivered
judgment today. The cases cited by learned counsel for the appellant in
this petition as well as in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik were the same and
we would only be duplicating our efforts and repeating what we have
already said.
12. Apart from the above submissions, it was contended by learned
counsel for the appellant that the socio-economic circumstances relating to
the appellant are relevant for an objective consideration of the award of
sentence and these have not been considered by any court including this
Court.
13. It was submitted that the “collective conscience of the society” and
reference to it for the purposes of imposition of a sentence is totally
misplaced. It is not possible to determine public opinion through evidence
recorded in a trial for an offence of murder and it is even more difficult, if
not impossible, to determine something as amorphous as the collective
conscience of the society.
14. Finally, it was submitted that the appellant has been in custody for a
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 8 of 19
considerable period of time and that by itself is a good ground for
commutation of his sentence from death to life imprisonment. In this
context, it was stated that the appellant was arrested on 18th February, 2001.
He remained in custody until he was granted bail on 25th January, 2002.
He was again arrested when the Trial Court convicted him on 31st January,
2005 and since then he is continuously in custody having spent about 14
years in custody and about three years on bail.
Consideration of socio-economic factors
15. There is no doubt that the socio-economic factors relating to a
convict should be taken into consideration for the purposes of deciding
whether to award life sentence or death sentence. One of the reasons for
this is the perception (perhaps misplaced) that it is only convicts belonging
to the poor and disadvantaged sections of society that are awarded capital
sentence while others are not. Although Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab2
does not allude to socio-economic factors for being taken into
consideration as one of the mitigating factors in favour of a convict, the
development of the law in the country, particularly through the Supreme
Court, has introduced this as one of the factors to be taken into
consideration. In fact, in Bachan Singh this Court recognised that a range
of factors exist and could be taken into consideration and accepted this
2
(1980) 2 SCC 684
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 9 of 19
position. In paragraph 209 of the Report it is rather felicitously stated as
follows:
“209. There are numerous other circumstances justifying the
passing of the lighter sentence; as there are countervailing
circumstances of aggravation. “We cannot obviously feed into a
judicial computer all such situations since they are astrological
imponderables in an imperfect and undulating society.”
Nonetheless, it cannot be over-emphasised that the scope and
concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must
receive a liberal and expansive construction by the courts in
accord with the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3).
Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers
has never been too good for them.3 Facts and Figures, albeit
incomplete, furnished by the Union of India, show that in the past,
courts have inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme infrequency
— a fact which attests to the caution and compassion which they
have always brought to bear on the exercise of their sentencing
discretion in so grave a matter. It is, therefore, imperative to voice
the concern that courts, aided by the broad illustrative guide-lines
indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function with evermore
scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad
of legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3) viz. that 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 by us).
16. Following the view laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
Court, we endorse and accept that socio-economic factors must be taken
into consideration while awarding a sentence particularly the ground
realities relating to access to justice and remedies to justice that are not
easily available to the poor and the needy.
3 We may add that hanging of murderers has never been too good for them either!
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 10 of 19
17. The consideration of socio-economic factors is tied up with another
important issue (which need not necessarily or always be taken into
consideration for sentencing purposes, but could be relevant in a given
case) and that is whether the convict has had adequate legal representation.
Several accused persons belonging to the weaker sections of society cannot
afford defence counsel and they are obliged to turn to the National Legal
Services Authority, the State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal
Services Committee for legal representation. While these authorities
provide the best legal assistance possible at their command, it sometimes
falls short of expectations resulting in the conviction of an accused and,
depending upon the facts of the case and the sentencing process followed,
a sentence of death follows.
18. That the poor are more often than not at the receiving end in access
to justice and access to the remedies available is evident from a fairly recent
report prepared by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee4 which
acknowledges, through Project Sahyog, enormous delays in attending to
cases of the poor and the needy. Quality legal aid to the disadvantaged and
weaker sections of society is an area that requires great and urgent attention
and we hope that a vigorous beginning is made in this direction in the new
year.
4 Website of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee – www.sclsc.nic.in
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 11 of 19
19. Reverting to the issue of socio-economic factors, we are not sure
when this was introduced as a mitigating factor for consideration in
deciding whether life imprisonment or death sentence should be awarded.
Be that as it may, the earliest decision to which our attention was drawn is
State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony5
in which this Court cautioned against being
overwhelmed by the gravity or brutality of the offence. As held in Bachan
Singh, it is not only the crime that is of importance in the sentencing
process but it is also the criminal. With this in view, this Court considered
the plight of the have-not and commuted the death sentence into one of
imprisonment for life. This is what this Court said in paragraph 23 of the
Report:
“23. The last question is what sentence should be imposed upon
the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge has imposed
maximum penalty that could be imposed under the law, namely,
sentence of death. The murder of near and dear ones including two
innocent kids is gruesome. We must however be careful lest the
shocking nature of crime may induce an instinctive reaction to
the dispassionate analysis of the evidence both as to offence
and the sentence. One circumstance that stands out in favour of
the respondent for not awarding capital punishment is that the
respondent did not commit murder of his near and dear ones
actuated by any lust, sense of vengeance or for gain. The plight of
an economic have-not sometimes becomes so tragic that the
only escape route is crime. The respondent committed murder
because in his utter helplessness he could not find few chips to
help his ailing wife and he saw the escape route by putting an
end to their lives. This one circumstance is of such an
overwhelming character that even though the crime is detestable
we would refrain from imposing capital punishment. The
5
(1985) 1 SCC 505
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 12 of 19
respondent should accordingly be sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life.” (Emphasis supplied by us).
20. In Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal v. State of Gujarat6
this Court
considered the socio-economic condition of the appellant therein, namely
that he was a migrant labourer and was living in impecunious
circumstances and therefore it could not be said that he would be a menace
to society in future. The sentence of death was converted into one of
imprisonment for life. This is what this Court said in paragraph 13 of the
Report:
“…..The appellant was aged 36 years at the time of the occurrence
and there is no evidence that the appellant had been involved in
any other criminal case previously and the appellant was a migrant
labourer from U.P. and was living in impecunious circumstances
and it cannot be said that he would be a menace to society in future
and no materials are placed before us to draw such a conclusion.
We do not think that the death penalty was warranted in this
case…...”
21. Similarly, in Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab7
the poverty of the
convict was taken into consideration as a factor for sentencing. This Court
in paragraph 46 of the Report held as follows:
“Extreme poverty had driven the appellant to commit the
gruesome murder of three of his very near and dear family
members – his wife, minor son and daughter. There is nothing on
record to show that appellant is a habitual offender. He appears to
be a peace-loving, law abiding citizen but as he was povertystricken, he thought in his wisdom to completely eliminate his
family so that all problems would come to an end. Precisely, this
appears to be the reason for him to consume some poisonous
substances, after committing the offence of murder.” (Emphasis
supplied by us).
6
(2005) 3 SCC 127
7
(2009) 10 SCC 434
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 13 of 19
22. In Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh8
this Court specifically noted in
paragraph 80 of the Report that one of the factors that appears to have been
left out in judicial decision-making on the issue of sentencing, is the socioeconomic factor which is a mitigating factor although it may not dilute the
guilt of the convict. This is what this Court held:
“80. Another factor which unfortunately has been left out in
much judicial decision-making in sentencing is the socioeconomic factors leading to crime. We at no stage suggest that
economic depravity justify moral depravity, but we certainly
recognise that in the real world, such factors may lead a person
to crime. The 48th Report of the Law Commission also reflected
this concern. Therefore, we believe, socio-economic factors
might not dilute guilt, but they may amount to mitigating
circumstances. Socio-economic factors lead us to another related
mitigating factor i.e. the ability of the guilty to reform. It may not
be misplaced to note that a criminal who commits crimes due to
his economic backwardness is most likely to reform. This Court
on many previous occasions has held that this ability to reform
amounts to a mitigating factor in cases of death penalty.”
(Emphasis supplied by us).
23. In Kamleshwar Paswan v. Union Territory of Chandigarh9
this
Court noted the fact that the convict was a rickshaw puller and a migrant
with psychological and economic pressures. The socio-economic condition
of the convict was therefore taken into consideration for the purposes of
sentencing him. It was held in paragraph 8 of the Report as follows:
8
(2010) 3 SCC 508
9
(2011) 11 SCC 564
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 14 of 19
“8. We cannot also ignore the fact that the appellant was a
rickshaw-puller and a migrant in Chandigarh with the
attendant psychological and economic pressures that so often
overtake and overwhelm such persons. Village Kishangarh is a
part of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and at a stone's throw
from its elite sectors that house the Governors of Punjab and
Haryana, the Golf Club, and some of the city's most important and
opulent citizens. It goes without saying that most such
neighbourhoods are often the most unfriendly and indifferent to
each others' needs. Little wonder his frustrations apparently came
to the fore leading to the horrendous incident.” (Emphasis supplied
by us).
24. Finally, in Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra10 it
was noted that the convicts were living in acute poverty. However, their
conduct in jail was heartening inasmuch as they had educated themselves
and has shown that if given a second chance, they could live a meaningful
and constructive life. This Court noted as follows:
“38. At the same time, all the four accused were young in age at
the time of commission of the offence i.e. 23-29 years. They
belong to the economically, socially and educationally deprived
section of the population. They were living in acute poverty. It
is possible that, being young, they had a yearning for quick money
and it is these circumstances that had led to the commission of the
crimes in question. Materials have been laid before this Court to
show that while in custody all the accused had enrolled
themselves in Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open
University and had either completed the BA examination or
are on the verge of acquiring the degree…….. There is no
material or information to show any condemnable or reprehensible
conduct on the part of any of the appellants during their period of
custody. All the circumstances point to the possibility of the
appellant-accused being reformed and living a meaningful and
constructive life if they are to be given a second chance…….”
(Emphasis supplied by us).
10 (2014) 4 SCC 292
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 15 of 19
25. There is, therefore, enough case law to suggest that socio-economic
factors concerning a convict must be taken into consideration while taking
a decision on whether to award a sentence of death or to award a sentence
of imprisonment for life.
26. On the facts of the present case, we find from the decision of the
Trial Court that the convict was working as a driver on a casual basis. He
was desirous of obtaining employment in the Gulf and was making all
attempts in this direction. He managed to arrange a visa but had to pay the
agent Rs.62,000/-. Due to severe financial constraints he could only
arrange Rs.25,000/- for making the initial payment. He continued making
attempts to raise the amount. His economic condition was so severe that
for the purposes of going to Gulf he had to proceed from Ernakulam to
Mumbai by train and while he could manage to purchase the ticket, he was
unable to pay for reservation charges. Under these circumstances, he had
gone to the house of the deceased family for getting money or by stealing
it or by grabbing it by any other means. It is under this financial and
economic stress that his presence in the house of the deceased family was
explained. But unfortunately for him and the deceased family, he was
unable to obtain any funds from them and this led to his decision to kill all
of them.
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 16 of 19
Public opinion or collective conscience of the society
27. With regard to the second submission made by learned counsel for
the appellant, that is, relating to the collective conscience of the society or
public opinion, we draw attention to an extremely educative discussion on
the topic in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of
Maharashtra11 in paragraphs 80 to 89 of the Report. We do not find the
necessity of repeating the enlightening discussion. We may only note that
in this decision, reference was made with regard to this topic in Bachan
Singh in paragraph 126 of the Report to the following effect:
“126. Incidentally, the rejection by the people of the approach,
adopted by the two learned Judges in Furman12, furnishes proof of
the fact that judicial opinion does not necessarily reflect the moral
attitudes of the people. At the same time, it is a reminder that
Judges should not take upon themselves the responsibility of
becoming oracles or spokesmen of public opinion: Not being
representatives of the people, if is often better, as a matter of
judicial restraint, to leave the function of assessing public
opinion to the chosen representatives of the people in the
legislature concerned.” (Emphasis supplied by us).
In our opinion therefore, the learned Trial Judge was in error in coming to
the conclusion that the collective conscience of the society was disturbed
and felt repulsed by the gravity of the crime committed by the appellant.
In view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Bachan Singh
and in Bariyar it would be wise if impressions gathered on what is
perceived to be public opinion or collective conscience of the society are
11 (2009) 6 SCC 498
12 Furman v. Georgia, 33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408 US 238 (1972)
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 17 of 19
eschewed while sentencing a convict found guilty of a grave or brutal
crime. On the facts of the present case, we find that there was no material
whatsoever to come to the conclusion that the gravity of the crime caused
revulsion in the society or that it had materially disturbed normal life in the
society. Consequently, the view expressed by the learned Trial Judge in
this regard must be disregarded for the purposes of imposing an appropriate
sentence on the appellant.
Conclusion
28. On an overall consideration of the facts of the case from the point of
view of the crime and the criminal, we are of opinion that even though the
case may be one of circumstantial evidence, it is now well settled that that
by itself is not enough to convert a sentence of death into a sentence of
imprisonment for life. We have held so in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik
and do not feel the necessity of repeating what has already been said.
29. We are also of opinion that all the courts including this Court
overlooked consideration of the probability of reform or rehabilitation and
social reintegration of the appellant into society. There is no meaningful
discussion on why, if at all, the appellant could not be reformed or
rehabilitated.
30. The Trial Court was in error proceeding on the basis, while awarding
a sentence of death to the appellant by observing that he was a hardened
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 18 of 19
criminal. There is no such evidence on material or on record.
31. The socio-economic condition of the appellant was a significant
factor that ought to have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court
as well the High Court while considering the punishment to be given to the
appellant. While the socio-economic condition of a convict is not a factor
for disproving his guilt, it is a factor that must be taken into consideration
for the purposes of awarding an appropriate sentence to a convict.
32. We do not think it necessary to consider on the facts of this case, the
period of incarceration of the appellant as a factor for deciding whether or
not he should be awarded the death sentence. This is a factor that ought to
have been placed before the Trial Judge and while we could certainly take
this into consideration, we hesitate to do so in view of some uncertainty in
this regard. In Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan13 an opinion was expressed
in paragraph 76 of the Report that since the appellant therein had been
languishing on death row for more than six years that would be a mitigating
circumstance in his favour. There are a number of cases where convicts
have been on death row for more than six years and if a standard period
was to be adopted, perhaps each and every person on death row might have
to be given the benefit of commutation of death sentence to one of life
imprisonment. The long delays in courts must, of course, be taken into
13 (2011) 3 SCC 685
R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 19 of 19
account, but what is needed is a systemic and systematic reform in criminal
justice delivery rather than ad hoc or judge-centric decisions.
33. In view of the above discussion, the death sentence awarded to the
appellant is converted into a sentence of imprisonment for life.
34. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
………………………J.
(Madan B. Lokur)
………………………J.
(S. Abdul Nazeer)
New Delhi; .……………………..J.
December 12, 2018 (Deepak Gupta)
