Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

In 2020, the Supreme Court had affirmed death penalty in 8 cases (10 prisoners) and commuted death sentence to life imprisonment in 3 cases (4 prisoners). The year did not witness any acquittals. However, 2021 began with acquittal (1 prisoner) and ended with one (3 prisoners), as well. The Apex Court commutations totalled at 4 cases (5 prisoners). In one of these 4 cases, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence at the stage of review. The Supreme Court also upheld a High Court decision to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment (8 prisoners). In 2020, out of 4 prisoners for whom the sentence was commuted, 1 was awarded life imprisonment, eligible for remission after 14 years, whereas 3 got fixed term imprisonment of 25 years. In 2021, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for a fixed term of 30 years for 4 prisoners.In 2021, the cases wherein the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, it was observed that the Courts below had faulted in not applying the 'criminal test', and to evaluate the scope for reformation and rehabilitation. In 3 out of the 4 cases where the sentence was commuted, the Supreme Court categorically noted that sentence was awarded on the same day the accused was convicted and real opportunity was not provided on the question of sentence. Time and again, and more recently in Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584 and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460, the Supreme Court had emphasised that, while imposing sentence, the Courts ought to take into account the circumstances of both the crime and the criminal. On 20th October, 2021, at a panel discussion organised to mark the release of Project 39A's report titled "Deathworthy", the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, Justice S. Muralidhar had also reckoned - "We need to acknowledge the person we are dealing with at least at the stage of sentencing". I. DEATH SENTENCE TO ACQUITTAL 1. Hari Om @ Hero v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1256 of 2017 Prosecution's Case: The complainant's sister-in-law, niece and two nephews were murdered by the accused. Moreover, valuables were looted from their residence. Upon investigation, weapons were recovered from the accused along with some valuable articles. The statement of the surviving five-year old nephew, who was an eyewitness, was recorded. As per the testimony of a neighbour, on the fateful day, the accused (including the appellant) were present near the house of the deceased. It was alleged that a knife was recovered after being pointed out by the appellant (Hari Om). Trial Court: The appellant and five other accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 396, 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Additional Sessions Judge-2, Firozabad, convicted the accused for offence under Section 396 IPC and sentenced the appellant to death, while the other five were awarded life imprisonment. High Court: The Allahabad High Court confirmed the death sentence imposed on the appellant, affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to two accused, and acquitted three. Supreme Court: The Supreme Court acquitted all the accused, including the appellant. Reasoning:Against the backdrop of Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2010) 12 SCC 324, which cautioned the courts to base convictions on the evidence of child witnesses only after subjecting them to a higher threshold of scrutiny, the inconsistencies in the testimony of the five year old eyewitness did not inspire confidence of the Court.The recovery of murder weapon not supported by a memorandum was not enough to sustain conviction.There was nothing other than the testimony of a neighbour to suggest the presence of the accused in the neighbourhood on the night of the robbery and murder. The testimony, doubted by the Court, conviction could not be based on the same. The appellants' fingerprints did not match with the ones taken from the house of the deceased. [Death Sentence to Acquittal - One prisoner] 2. Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 434-436 of 2020 Prosecution's case: Momin Khan along with his wife, Nazra, cousin Jaikam Khan and his son Sajid Khan, killed his father, mother, brother, sister-in-law, nephew and niece over property dispute and allied enmity. Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, convicted the appellants (Momin Khan, Jaikam Khan and Sajid Khan) and Nazra under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to death. High Court: While confirming the death sentence for the appellants, the Allahabad High Court acquitted Nazra. Supreme Court: The Supreme Court acquitted all...

Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags