‘Past Conduct Not Always A Factor When Imposing Death Penalty’: Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence
Case: Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, BV Nagarathna, and Prashant Kumar Mishra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1381-1382 of 2017
Court Observation: “There might be certain cases wherein the court may feel that the case just falls short of the rarest of the rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to the nature of the crime, the court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment subject to remission which normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. It has been held that the court cannot be limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years, and the other death. It has been held that a far more just, reasonable, and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the court i.e., the vast hiatus between 14 years’ imprisonment and death. It has been held that the court would be entitled to substitute a death sentence with life imprisonment or by a term in excess of fourteen years and further to direct that the convict must not be released from prison for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified in the order.”
“From the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that the role attributed to all the accused persons has been similar. The trial court imposed a capital sentence on appellants Madan and Sudesh Pal. However, insofar as accused Ishwar is concerned, though the evidence against him is on similar lines, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The high court, on the basis of the same evidence, though confirmed the death penalty insofar as Madan is concerned, partly allowed the appeal of Sudesh Pal and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. A perusal of the judgment would reveal that the only distinction drawn between the cases of Sudesh Pal and Madan is the additional factor that Madan was already awarded life imprisonment in another case. However, the court, in the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, has held that past conduct does not necessarily have to be taken into consideration while imposing the death penalty. If the high court’s judgment is maintained, it would lead to an anomalous situation.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Past Conduct Not Always A Factor When Imposing Death Penalty
