Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life imprisonment in triple murder case: Bhagchandra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) INSC 732

Date of the Judgment: 09 December 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 732
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J. (authored by B.R. Gavai, J.)
Can a death sentence be upheld when the possibility of the accused’s reformation hasn’t been thoroughly examined? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, focusing on the balance between the severity of a crime and the potential for rehabilitation of the criminal. The court commuted the death penalty of an accused convicted of murdering his two brothers and a nephew, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating factors and the possibility of reformation.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appellant, Bhagchandra, who was convicted for the murder of his two brothers, Thakur Das and Devki Prasad, and his nephew, Akhilesh. The deceased, Devki Prasad, lived in village Pur with his family, including his wife Kiran Patel (PW-1), their children, and his brother Thakur Das. On the early morning of October 11, 2015, Kiran Patel (PW-1) found Thakur Das and Akhilesh dead in their house. She then witnessed Bhagchandra assaulting her husband, Devki Prasad, in the field. An FIR was filed based on Kiran Patel’s complaint at the Maharajpur Police Station. The trial court convicted Bhagchandra under Section 302 (for murder), Section 201 (for causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 506-B (for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to death. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld this conviction and sentence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court found Bhagchandra guilty of murder, destruction of evidence, and criminal intimidation, sentencing him to death for the murder charges and additional imprisonment for the other offenses. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the trial court’s decision, confirming the death penalty. Bhagchandra then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging both the conviction and the sentence.

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201: This section addresses causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender. It states, “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 506-B: This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation. It states, “Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The case against the appellant is fabricated by Kiran Patel (PW-1) to grab property.
• The prosecution’s timeline of events is doubtful, based on post-mortem reports indicating the time of death was earlier than claimed.
• There are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3.
• The conduct of PW-1, such as latching the door while going out to answer the call of nature, is unnatural.
• PW-7’s testimony is unreliable because he did not immediately inform the police.
• The prosecution withheld Kisiyabai, a crucial witness, leading to an adverse inference against them.
• The recovery of the axe under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is irrelevant due to a lack of serological evidence and failure to establish its use in the crime.
• The trial and High Court did not correctly consider the evidence, necessitating a re-evaluation by the Supreme Court.
• The death penalty was unwarranted, as the appellant was not a hardened criminal and was not given sufficient time to present mitigating circumstances.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should be overlooked when ocular evidence is cogent and reliable.
• The absence of conclusive serological evidence does not invalidate the prosecution’s case.
• PW-7’s conduct is understandable, and his testimony is valid.
• The brutality of the murders justifies the death penalty.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
2. Whether the death penalty awarded to the appellant is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death penalty was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Reformation and Rehabilitation: The court emphasized the importance of considering the possibility of the accused’s reformation and rehabilitation. It noted that the trial court had not adequately considered this aspect.
• Socio-economic Background: The court took into account the appellant’s rural and economically poor background, as well as the fact that he had no prior criminal record.
• Lack of Hardened Criminality: The court observed that the appellant could not be considered a hardened criminal, and this was his first offense.
• Jail Conduct: The court considered the satisfactory conduct of the appellant during his incarceration, as reported by the Jail Superintendent.
• Balance of Circumstances: The court found that the trial court and High Court had only considered the crime’s brutality, not the criminal’s circumstances.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, as evidenced by the higher percentage allocated to legal considerations. However, the factual aspects, such as the appellant’s background and conduct, also played a role in the final decision.

The court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step evaluation of the circumstances, emphasizing the need to consider the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation. The court rejected the argument that the brutality of the crime alone justified the death penalty, highlighting that the criminal’s background and potential for change must also be taken into account.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Awarding death sentence is an exception, and life imprisonment is the rule.”
• “The State is under a duty to procure evidence to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.”
• “In the sentencing process, both the crime and the criminal are equally important.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the commutation of the death penalty.

Key Takeaways

The key implications of this judgment are:

• Courts must consider the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused when deciding on sentencing, especially in cases involving the death penalty.
• The socio-economic background and prior criminal record of the accused are important mitigating factors that must be taken into account.
• The brutality of the crime is not the sole criterion for awarding the death penalty. The court must also consider the criminal’s circumstances and potential for change.
• Trial courts must provide a meaningful opportunity for the accused to present mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty.
• The State has a responsibility to provide evidence that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the death sentence awarded to the appellant be converted to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death penalty should not be imposed if there is a possibility that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. This judgment reinforces the principle established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, and that the court must consider both the crime and the criminal, including their potential for rehabilitation. This case clarifies that a balanced approach is required, and the court should not solely focus on the brutality of the crime while ignoring the criminal’s circumstances.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India commuted the death penalty of Bhagchandra to life imprisonment for 30 years, emphasizing the need to consider the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. The Court held that while the crime was heinous, the trial courtand High Court had not adequately considered the appellant’s background, lack of criminal history, and potential for reform. This judgment underscores the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, where both the severity of the crime and the potential for rehabilitation of the criminal are given due consideration.