'Because Of Supreme Court's Forgiving Nature, Country Facing Crimes' : Justice Datta On Death Penalty Commutations

While hearing a remission matter today, Justice Dipankar Datta orally criticised the forgiving nature of the Supreme Court in commuting death sentences into life imprisonments. He stated that the Court will someday have to draw a line because the country is facing a crisis due to the increased number of crimes. 

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a challenge by the victims' family against the Punjab and Haryana's order for the premature release of two persons who were convicted in the murder of former MLA Relu Ram Punia and eight members of his family. 

While hearing the matter, Justice Datta orally commented that there was a time when murder convictions were based on the 'rarest of rare' doctrine because the offence of murder in those days was also rare. But such is not the case at present.

He recalled a case where the father had raped his eldest daughter and murdered her. He was sentenced to life imprisonment based on the testimony of the children's mother. However, his sentence was commuted and while out on bail, he committed the murder of his wife, taking revenge for giving testimony against him. Based on the testimony of the younger children, the father was granted death punishment, but the Supreme Court commuted it yet again on grounds that he didn't commit the murder of the younger children.

He said: "This Court in a particular case, and the author of the judgment is one of the authors in Shatrughan [judgment]. Death was commuted in a case, just hear the facts. Father raped his elder daughter, murdered here. Please listen. You have been there in the criminal justice system right from your early days. Father rapes the daughter and murders her and goes to jail on the basis of the testimony of the mother. After some years, the father comes out on parol, murders the mother in the presence of the younger child sister. On the basis of the younger child sister's testimony, he is given death and the death is commuted to life on the grounds that he didn't commit the murder of the younger child."

Justice Datta added: "It's because of the Supreme Court's forgiving nature, India is facing this...This is the Supreme Court. That is why, we say, our forgiving nature has to come to an end somewhere. "

Background

The present petitions challenge the premature release of Sonia and Sanjeev Kumar, who were convicted in the murder of former MLA Relu Ram Punia and eight members of his family. They were initially sentenced to death. Subsequently, in 2014, the Supreme Court commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment on the ground of delay in the disposal of their mercy petitions.

The special leave petitions have been filed by members of the victim's family against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order, whereby it asked the State to reconsider the premature release of the convicts and to grant them interim bail. 

Advocates Aaina Verma Khowal and Lal Bahadur Khowal. A(for the victim's family) submitted that the case pertains to the brutal murder of 8 members of the same family in the year 2001, including three minor children. They submitted that merely having undergone a long period of incarceration or having maintained good conduct during the recent years does not, by itself, create an automatic right to premature release. The convict's overall conduct, discipline in prison, involvement in any criminal activities, the genuineness of reformation, and the impact of such release on society and the victim's family are required to be considered cumulatively.

It was further submitted that the conduct of the convicts during their incarceration and the question of their actual reformation are also material considerations. While examining the issue of premature release, the conduct during any particular period cannot be considered in isolation from the overall prison record and circumstances of the case.

During the proceedings, the Court also considered various premature release policies and prison rules applicable in Haryana. The State placed the details of the different policies governing premature release that were in force during different periods, along with their respective provisions.

After hearing the submissions of both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the matter.