Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty in Rape and Murder Case: Raju Jagdish Paswan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Date of the Judgment: January 17, 2019
Citation: Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 88-89 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5422-5423 of 2013)
Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can a death sentence be justified when the accused is a young adult and there is no evidence of pre-planning or a propensity for future crimes? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving the rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl. The Court commuted the death penalty, emphasizing the importance of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao, and R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On June 21, 2010, Hanmant Sheshrau Shirsat reported to the Miraj Rural Police Station that his 9-year-old daughter was missing since 10:00 AM. Shirsat’s daughter, a student at Shri Samarth Ashram School, Bedag, was last seen by her class teacher, who informed Shirsat that she did not attend school that day. Shirsat began searching for his daughter. Akash (PW-4) and his sister Pooja, who lived near Marguaai Temple, informed Shirsat that they saw a person wearing black clothes taking Shirsat’s daughter towards the sugarcane field near Odya village. Shirsat, accompanied by the police, found her school record book in the sugarcane field. Sidram Sakharam Khade (PW-13), a provision store owner in Bedag, reported seeing a person in black clothes buying tobacco from his shop. The police and villagers then went to Balakrishna Poultry Farm, where Shirsat also worked. The Appellant, Raju Jagdish Paswan, initially denied any knowledge of the missing girl. However, after interrogation, he confessed that he had dragged the girl to the sugarcane field, raped her, and then pushed her into a well. The police found the girl’s body in the well with the help of diver Balu Mahadeo Patil (PW-5). The post-mortem, conducted by Dr. Sunil Patil (PW-3) and Dr. Juber Momin (PW-9), revealed that the cause of death was drowning, with evidence of sexual assault.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the Appellant under Sections 302 (murder), 376(2)(f) (rape), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The trial court, after considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, sentenced the Appellant to death for the offense under Section 302 IPC. The trial court also sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and 7 years imprisonment for the offense under Section 201 IPC. The High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming the conviction and the death sentence. The High Court noted that the Appellant showed no remorse for his actions and concluded that no leniency could be shown.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder, which is either death or life imprisonment.
• Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for rape, specifically when committed on a person under the age of 12.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses the punishment for causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.
• Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section mandates that when a conviction is for an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment, the judgment must state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and in the case of a death sentence, the special reasons for such sentence.
• Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section requires that a death sentence passed by a Sessions Court be submitted to the High Court for confirmation.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception for persons convicted of murder. The death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant’s counsel argued that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence.
• It was submitted that the circumstances proved did not warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
• The counsel emphasized the young age of the Appellant (22 years) at the time of the crime.
• It was argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the Appellant had a propensity for future crimes or that he could not be reformed.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the crime was exceptionally depraved and brutal.
• It was submitted that the manner of the commission of the crime was heinous.
• The State contended that the Appellant showed no remorse or regret for his actions.
• The State argued that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, justifying the death penalty.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The Appellant’s argument focused on the lack of evidence for pre-meditation and the possibility of reformation, which are crucial mitigating factors against the death penalty. This approach emphasized the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the death penalty imposed on the Appellant is disproportionate to the crime committed by him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1973] 1 SCC 20:* This case was referred to in the context of the challenge to Section 302 IPC, which prescribes the sentence of death for murder.
• Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. [1979] 3 SCC 646:* This case was referred to as a judgment that was contrary to the judgment in Jagmohan’s case.
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 684:* This case was followed to establish that Section 302 IPC is constitutional and that life imprisonment is the normal punishment for murder, with death sentence being an exception.
• Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCC 470:* This case was followed to determine the factors for deciding whether a case falls within the category of the rarest of rare cases.
• Solem v. Helm 463 U.S. 277 (1983):* This case was referred to for the principle of proportionality in sentencing, where a sentence of life imprisonment was found to be disproportionate to the crime.
• Coker v. Georgia 433 U.S. 584 (1977):* This case was referred to for the principle that capital punishment for rape of an adult woman is ‘grossly disproportionate’.
• Enmund v. Florida 458 U.S. 782 (1982):* This case was referred to for the principle that the death penalty for a participant in a felony resulting in murder, without any inquiry into the participant’s intention to kill, is disproportionate.
• Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980):* This case was referred to as an aspect of the death penalty jurisprudence.
• Harmelin v. Michigan 501 U.S. 957 (1991):* This case was referred to for the principle that proportionality review is applicable to cases involving death sentences.
• Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. Union of India [2015] 9 SCC 502:* This case was cited for the principle that punishment must be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offense.
• Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali v. State of Karnataka [2008] 13 SCC 767:* This case was cited to establish the court’s power to substitute a death sentence with life imprisonment for a term exceeding 14 years.
• Union of India v. Sriharan and Others [2016] 7 SCC 1:* This case was cited to uphold the view expressed in Swamy Shraddananda’s case.
• Tattu Lodhi v. State of M.P. [2016] 9 SCC 675:* This case was referred to as a similar case where a life sentence of 25 years was imposed.
• Selvam v. State [2014] 12 SCC 274:* This case was referred to as a similar case where a life sentence of 30 years was imposed.
• Rajkumar v. State of MP [2014] 5 SCC 353:* This case was referred to as a similar case where a life sentence of 30 years was imposed.
• Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana [2012] 5 SCC 766:* This case was referred to as a similar case where a life sentence of 30 years was imposed.
• Anil @ Antony v. State of Maharashtra [2014] 4 SCC 69:* This case was referred to as a similar case where a life sentence of 30 years was imposed.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the brutality of the crime, emphasized that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases. The Court found that the mitigating circumstances, particularly the Appellant’s young age and the lack of evidence of pre-planning or a propensity for future crimes, outweighed the aggravating factors.

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 importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Court was particularly swayed by the fact that the Appellant was a young man of 22 years at the time of the offense, and there was no evidence to suggest that he was a habitual offender or that he could not be reformed. The Court also noted that the crime, while brutal, did not appear to be pre-planned.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal precedents and the principle that the death penalty should be an exception rather than the rule. The court also emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and reformation of the accused.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as upholding the death penalty based on the heinous nature of the crime. However, it rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers both the crime and the criminal.

The final decision was reached by considering the mitigating circumstances and the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. The Court concluded that the alternative option of life imprisonment was not unquestionably foreclosed in this case.

The Court stated that “Punishment should be proportionate to the offence. A savage sentence is an anathema to the civilised jurisprudence of Article 21.” It further noted that “Taking a life through law’s instrumentality can be done only in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.” The Court also observed that “the brutal sexual assault by the Appellant on the hapless victim of nine years and the grotesque murder of the girl compels us to hold that the release of the Appellant on completion of 14 years of imprisonment would not be in the interest of the society.”

There was no minority opinion in this case, as all three judges concurred with the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• The death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases, where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
• Mitigating circumstances, such as the young age of the accused and the lack of evidence of pre-planning or a propensity for future crimes, must be given due consideration.
• The principle of proportionality in sentencing requires a balance between the severity of the crime and the characteristics of the offender.
• Reformation and rehabilitation of the accused are important considerations in sentencing.
• Life imprisonment does not necessarily mean 14 years of imprisonment, and the court can impose a longer term of imprisonment without remission.

This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s emphasis on a balanced approach to sentencing, considering both the gravity of the crime and the potential for reformation of the offender. It also underscores the importance of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine in death penalty cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the States to consider implementing the reformative and rehabilitation programs contained in the Model Prison Manual of 2016. Additionally, the Court stated that it is open to the States to adopt any other correctional measures.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death penalty should not be imposed when there are significant mitigating circumstances, such as the young age of the offender and the lack of evidence of pre-planning or a propensity for future crimes. The judgment reinforces the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception. It also clarifies that life imprisonment can be for a longer term than 14 years, depending on the gravity of the offense and the need to protect society.

Conclusion

In Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to 30 years of imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the potential for reformation. The judgment underscores the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases and highlights the need for a balanced approach to sentencing that considers both the crime and the criminal. The court also directed the states to implement reformative and rehabilitative programs for prisoners.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Death Penalty
• Rape
• Murder
• Sentencing
• Proportionality
• Reformation
• Rehabilitation
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 354, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 366, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Raju Jagdish Paswan case?

A: The main issue was whether the death penalty imposed on Raju Jagdish Paswan for the rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl was disproportionate to the crime.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to 30 years of imprisonment without remission, emphasizing the importance of reformation and rehabilitation.

Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider while commuting the death penalty?

A: The Court considered the mitigating circumstances, such as the young age of the accused, the lack of evidence of pre-planning, and the possibility of reformation. They also emphasized that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases.

Q: What is the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine?

A: The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine is a legal principle that states that the death penalty should only be imposed in the most exceptional cases when the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A:This judgment underscores the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the potential for reformation in sentencing, particularly in death penalty cases. It also clarifies that life imprisonment can be for a longer term than 14 years, depending on the gravity of the offense and the need to protect society.