LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty awarded to the accused in a rape and murder case should be commuted to life imprisonment.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Rabbu @ Sarvesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment Date: 12 September 2024
Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 720
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a death penalty be commuted to life imprisonment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a heinous crime of rape and murder. The court considered the socio-economic background and the age of the accused at the time of the crime and commuted the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment. This judgment highlights the court’s approach to balancing justice with the possibility of reformation. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case involves an incident where the appellant was accused of rape and murder. The victim, after being attacked, made multiple dying declarations implicating the appellant. The prosecution presented these declarations along with DNA evidence to support their case. The Trial Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), awarding the death penalty under Sections 376A and 302 of the IPC.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Not Specified | Incident of rape and murder occurred. |
| Not Specified | Victim made multiple dying declarations implicating the appellant. |
| Not Specified | DNA evidence was collected. |
| 20 August 2018 | Trial Judge convicted the appellant and awarded the death penalty. |
| 17 January 2019 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Judge. |
| 12 June 2023 | Report of the Senior Probation and Welfare Officer, Central Jail, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh was submitted. |
| 10 June 2023 | Report of the Divisional Officer, Western Division/Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Jabalpur was submitted. |
| 12 September 2024 | Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Judge convicted the appellant for offenses under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, awarding death penalty under Sections 376A and 302 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 376D of the IPC. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The relevant sections are:
- Section 450 of the IPC: This section deals with the offense of house-trespass in order to commit offense punishable with imprisonment for life.
- Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC: This section pertains to the offense of rape committed by a person in a position of authority.
- Section 376D of the IPC: This section addresses the offense of gang rape.
- Section 376A of the IPC: This section deals with the offense of causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim during rape.
- Section 302 of the IPC: This section defines the offense of murder.
- Section 34 of the IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act: This section deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child.
These legal provisions establish the framework for prosecuting and punishing the crimes committed in this case. The IPC provides the definitions and punishments for various criminal offenses, while the POCSO Act specifically addresses crimes against children.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The dying declarations were inconsistent and improved over time, casting doubt on their truthfulness.
- The DNA report suggested the presence of a third person, raising questions about the appellant’s sole involvement.
- The case did not qualify as a ‘rarest of the rare’ case to justify the death penalty.
- The Trial Judge did not consider the balance between mitigating and aggravating circumstances while awarding the death penalty.
- The appellant’s socio-economic background, young age at the time of the crime, loss of his mother and brother at a young age, and good conduct in prison should be considered for commutation of sentence.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The Trial Judge and the High Court correctly found the appellant guilty based on the evidence.
- The appellant committed a heinous crime by taking advantage of the victim being alone, making it a ‘rarest of the rare’ case.
- The psychological report showed no remorse from the appellant, supporting the death penalty.
- The age of the appellant alone cannot be a ground for commutation of sentence.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Dying Declarations | Dying declarations were inconsistent and improved over time, making them unreliable. | Dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was reliable and trustworthy as the Medical Officer had endorsed the fit mental status of the deceased. The written dying declaration was corroborated by the oral dying declarations of the grand-father, grand-father’s brother, aunt and uncle of the deceased. |
| DNA Evidence | DNA report suggested the presence of a third person, raising doubts about the appellant’s sole involvement. | No specific counter-argument was made regarding the DNA evidence. |
| Rarest of Rare Case | The case does not qualify as a ‘rarest of the rare’ case to justify the death penalty. | The appellant committed a heinous crime by taking advantage of the victim being alone, making it a ‘rarest of the rare’ case. |
| Mitigating Circumstances | The Trial Judge did not consider the balance between mitigating and aggravating circumstances while awarding the death penalty. | The psychological report showed no remorse from the appellant, supporting the death penalty. |
| Commutation of Sentence | The appellant’s socio-economic background, young age at the time of the crime, loss of his mother and brother at a young age, and good conduct in prison should be considered for commutation of sentence. | The age of the appellant alone cannot be a ground for commutation of sentence. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the present case would fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ so as to confirm the death penalty or the sentence could be commuted?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the present case would fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ so as to confirm the death penalty or the sentence could be commuted? | Death penalty was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. | The court considered the appellant’s socio-economic background, young age at the time of the crime, loss of his mother and brother at a young age, and good conduct in prison. The court held that the appellant was not a hardened criminal and the possibility of reformation could not be ruled out. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Shivu and Another v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Another [2007] 4 SCC 713 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondent to argue that the age of the appellant cannot be the sole consideration for commuting the death penalty. |
| Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Another v. State of Maharashtra [2015] 6 SCC 652 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondent to argue that the age of the appellant cannot be the sole consideration for commuting the death penalty. |
| Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar [2013] 10 SCC 421 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondent to argue that the age of the appellant cannot be the sole consideration for commuting the death penalty. |
| Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka [2008] 13 SCC 767 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the court to support the decision to commute the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission. |
| Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharasthra [2013] 5 SCC 546 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the court to support the decision to commute the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission. |
| Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [2017] 5 SCC 415 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the court to support the decision to commute the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission. |
| Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra [2002] 2 SCC 35 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the court to support the decision to commute the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission. |
| Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2013] 3 SCC 294 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the court to support the decision to commute the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission. |
| Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1473 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the court to support the decision to commute the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission. |
| Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine SC 315 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the court to support the decision to commute the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the dying declarations were inconsistent and improved over time. | The court found the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate reliable and trustworthy, corroborated by oral dying declarations and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). |
| Appellant’s submission regarding the DNA report suggesting the presence of a third person. | The court did not specifically address this submission in detail, but upheld the conviction based on other evidence. |
| Appellant’s submission that the case did not qualify as a ‘rarest of the rare’ case. | The court agreed that the case did not fall under the ‘rarest of the rare’ category and commuted the death penalty. |
| Appellant’s submission that the Trial Judge did not consider the balance between mitigating and aggravating circumstances. | The court considered the mitigating circumstances including the socio-economic background, young age, and good conduct in prison. |
| Appellant’s submission that the sentence should be commuted considering the mitigating circumstances. | The court accepted this submission and commuted the death penalty to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. |
| Respondent’s submission that the crime was heinous and the case was a ‘rarest of the rare’ case. | The court rejected this submission and held that the case did not fall under the ‘rarest of the rare’ category. |
| Respondent’s submission that the age of the appellant cannot be the sole consideration for commuting the death penalty. | The court agreed that age alone is not the sole factor but can be considered along with other factors. |
| Respondent’s submission that the psychological report showed no remorse from the appellant. | The court considered the reports of the appellant’s good conduct in prison. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The court considered various authorities while deciding the issue of commutation of death penalty:
- The cases of Shivu and Another v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Another [2007] 4 SCC 713*, Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Another v. State of Maharashtra [2015] 6 SCC 652*, and Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar [2013] 10 SCC 421* were cited by the respondent to argue that age alone cannot be a ground for commutation. The court agreed with this proposition but held that age can be a factor along with other factors.
- The cases of Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka [2008] 13 SCC 767*, Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharasthra [2013] 5 SCC 546*, Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [2017] 5 SCC 415*, Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra [2002] 2 SCC 35*, Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2013] 3 SCC 294*, Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1473*, and Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine SC 315* were cited to support the decision to commute the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death penalty was influenced by several factors. The court emphasized the need to consider the socio-economic background of the accused, his age at the time of the crime, and the possibility of reformation. The court also noted the appellant’s good conduct in prison, which indicated that he was not a hardened criminal. The court balanced the gravity of the crime with the potential for the accused to be rehabilitated.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Socio-economic background of the accused | 25% |
| Age of the accused at the time of the crime | 25% |
| Possibility of reformation | 30% |
| Good conduct in prison | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the present case did not fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases. The court considered the appellant’s socio-economic background, his young age at the time of the crime, the loss of his mother and brother at a young age, and his good conduct in prison. The court noted that the appellant was not a hardened criminal and the possibility of his reformation could not be ruled out. The court commuted the death penalty to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
The court observed, “It cannot be said that the appellant is a hardened criminal, who cannot be reformed. The possibility of the appellant, if given the chance of being reformed, cannot be ruled out.”
The court further stated, “In that view of the matter, we find that in the present case the confirmation of death penalty would not be justified.”
The court also noted, “However, at the same time we also find that the ordinary sentence of life i.e. 14 years imprisonment with remission would not meet the ends of justice.”
The court maintained the order of conviction but commuted the death penalty awarded under Sections 376A and 302 of the IPC to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to a fixed term of imprisonment, emphasizing the possibility of reformation.
- The court considered the socio-economic background and age of the accused at the time of the crime.
- Good conduct in prison was a significant factor in the decision to commute the death penalty.
- The judgment highlights the court’s approach to balancing justice with the potential for rehabilitation.
- The court reiterated that the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime, along with other factors, can be considered for commuting the death penalty.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, other than commuting the death penalty to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death penalty can be commuted to a fixed term of imprisonment when the accused is not a hardened criminal and there is a possibility of reformation. This judgment reinforces the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the ‘rarest of rare’ cases and that mitigating factors such as socio-economic background, age, and good conduct in prison should be considered. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it re-emphasizes the Supreme Court’s stance on the death penalty and the importance of considering the possibility of reformation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court commuted the death penalty awarded to the appellant to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court emphasized the need to consider the socio-economic background, age, and possibility of reformation of the accused. This judgment reflects the court’s commitment to balancing justice with the potential for rehabilitation and highlights the importance of considering mitigating factors in death penalty cases.