Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Chhattisgarh Murder Case: Chhannu Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (28 November 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 1032
Judges: Kurian Joseph, Deepak Gupta, Hemant Gupta, JJ. (Majority opinion by Kurian Joseph, with a concurring opinion by Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta, JJ)

Can a death sentence be upheld if the possibility of reformation of the convict exists? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Chhannu Lal Verma vs. The State of Chhattisgarh. This judgment examines the imposition of the death penalty and whether it aligns with the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The court ultimately commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.

Case Background

On 19th October 2011, Chhannu Lal Verma allegedly entered the house of Anandram Sahu, Firanteen Bai (Anandram’s wife), and Ratna Sahu (Anandram’s daughter-in-law). He inflicted fatal injuries on all three using a knife. Following this, he entered the house of Durga Banchhor and assaulted Meera Banchhor, causing grievous injuries. When Durga Banchhor intervened, she was pushed away by the appellant, who then fled.

The Sessions Court convicted Chhannu Lal Verma under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, Section 506(2) IPC for threatening to kill, and Section 450 IPC for house trespass. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, imposed with fines, and awarded the death penalty, categorizing the case as “rarest of the rare.” The court noted the premeditated nature of the act and the cruelty exhibited.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted Chhannu Lal Verma and sentenced him to death, viewing the case as falling under the “rarest of the rare” category due to the premeditated nature and cruelty of the crime. The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction and death sentence, relying on witness testimonies and post-mortem reports. The High Court considered aggravating circumstances, including the murder of three people, the appellant’s awareness of his actions, the previous rape charge against the appellant involving one of the deceased, and the grievous injuries caused to others. The only mitigating circumstance noted was the appellant’s prior acquittal in the rape case. The High Court concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating ones, thus justifying the death penalty.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with sentencing in cases of murder. Section 354(3) of the CrPC states that when a person is convicted of an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and in the case of a death sentence, the “special reasons” for such a sentence.

The Supreme Court also refers to the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, which established that life imprisonment is the rule, and the death penalty is an exception, to be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases. The Court also discusses the need for a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing, as outlined in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The hearing for conviction and sentencing was conducted on the same day, violating the guidelines in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.
• The appellant was not given sufficient time to present evidence in mitigation before sentencing.
• The Trial Court focused solely on the brutality of the crime, failing to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the crime and the criminal, as required by Bachan Singh and Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra.
• The High Court erred by stating that the appellant did not mitigate the circumstances for not imposing the death penalty, when the onus to elicit such information lies with the court, as held in Bachan Singh.
• The High Court overlooked the requirement in Bachan Singh that the State must prove the accused has no chance of reformation or rehabilitation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s mens rea (guilty mind) was of a high degree and intensity, justifying the death penalty.
• The appellant had a previous criminal background, indicating a failure to reform.
• The testimony of the child witness, PW-15 Sonu, was reliable.
• The injuries inflicted were severe, targeted at vital parts, and intended to cause death.
• The murder was premeditated, carried out in cold blood without provocation, and driven by previous enmity.
• The appellant did not establish that the act was committed due to emotional instability caused by the false rape implication.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that the court had not considered the mitigating factors and had not followed the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh and Santosh Bariyar.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court correctly applied the law laid down in Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Santosh Bariyar, and Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra.
2. Whether the death sentence imposed in this case fulfilled the test of “rarest of rare cases where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”.
3. Whether the High Court failed to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances regarding the criminal as warranted by Bachan Singh.
4. Whether the procedural impropriety of not having a separate hearing for sentencing at the stage of trial was correct.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

On the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine and Sentencing:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 684 – Supreme Court of India: Established that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception, to be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCC 470 – Supreme Court of India: Summarized the findings in Bachan Singh and provided guidelines for applying the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
• Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [2009] 6 SCC 498 – Supreme Court of India: Emphasized the need for a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing and discussed the scope of “special reasons” for awarding the death penalty.
• Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 5 SCC 546 – Supreme Court of India: Discussed the manner in which aggravating and mitigating circumstances are to be weighed and how the “rarest of rare” test is to be applied.

On the need to consider reformation:

• Sangeet v. State of Haryana [2013] 2 SCC 452 – Supreme Court of India: The Court notes that the application of the sentencing policy through aggravating and mitigating circumstances has not been uniform.

Law Commission Reports:

• 35th Report of Law Commission (1967): Justified the retention of the death penalty.
• 262nd Report of Law Commission (2015): Recommended the abolition of the death penalty for all crimes other than terrorism-related offenses and waging war.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 684*: The Court reiterated the principles laid down in this case, that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception, to be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases. The court found that the sentencing was not done as per the ratio in this case.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCC 470*: The Court used the guidelines provided in this case to evaluate the facts of the present case. The Court found that the questions laid down in paragraph 39 of this case were not answered in the present case.
• Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [2009] 6 SCC 498*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the need for a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing. The Court found that the Trial Court had not followed the ratio of this case.
• Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 5 SCC 546*: The Court referred to this case to highlight the tests to be applied while awarding death sentence, which include the “crime test”, “criminal test”, and the “R-R test”. The Court found that the High Court had not applied these tests.
• Sangeet v. State of Haryana [2013] 2 SCC 452*: The Court referred to this case to show the lack of evenness in the sentencing process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the possibility of reformation and the procedural lapses in the lower courts. The Court emphasized the constitutional ethos on the value and dignity of life, highlighting the need for a “liberal and expansive” interpretation of mitigating factors. The Court also noted that the State had not provided evidence to show that the convict could not be reformed. The good conduct of the appellant in jail was also considered a significant factor. Additionally, the Court expressed concern over the inconsistent application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine and the impact of public discourse on the trial process. The Court also took note of the Law Commission’s report recommending the abolition of the death penalty.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, legal precedents, and constitutional principles. The Court found that the High Court had not correctly applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine as laid down in Bachan Singh and subsequent cases. The Court emphasized that the death penalty should only be imposed when the alternative option of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.”

The Court highlighted that the High Court had failed to consider the mitigating circumstances related to the criminal, particularly the possibility of reformation. The Court noted that the State had not provided evidence to show that the convict could not be reformed or rehabilitated. The good conduct of the appellant in jail was also considered a significant factor, indicating that he was not beyond reform.

The Court also pointed out the procedural lapses in the lower courts, particularly the failure to conduct a separate hearing for sentencing. The Court reiterated that a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing is necessary to ensure that the accused has sufficient time to present evidence in mitigation.

The Court also took note of the Law Commission’s report recommending the abolition of the death penalty for all crimes other than terrorism-related offenses and waging war. The Court expressed concern over the inconsistent application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine and the impact of public discourse on the trial process.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Kurian Joseph, stated:

• “The decision to impose the highest punishment of death sentence in this case does not fulfil the test of “rarest of rare case where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”.”
• “The fact that the appellant had no previous criminal record apart from the acquittal in the Section 376, IPC, which was a false implication and the alleged motive did not weigh with the High Court as an important mitigating circumstance with respect to the criminal.”
• “The conduct of the convict in prison cannot be lost sight of. The fact that the prisoner has displayed good behaviour in prison certainly goes on to show that he is not beyond reform.”

The concurring opinion by Justices Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta, while agreeing with the commutation of the death sentence, disagreed with the observations in para 23 regarding the need to re-examine the death penalty. They stated that since the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh had upheld capital punishment, there was no need to re-examine it at this stage.

Key Takeaways

• The “rarest of rare” doctrine must be strictly applied when considering the death penalty.
• Courts must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the crime and the criminal.
• The possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused is a crucial factor in sentencing.
• The State has the burden to prove that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated.
• A separate hearing for sentencing is necessary to allow the accused to present evidence in mitigation.
• The conduct of the convict in prison is a relevant factor.
• Public discourse on crimes should not influence the trial and sentencing process.

Directions

The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. The judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Bachan Singh and subsequent cases, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating circumstances, particularly the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. It also highlights the procedural requirements for sentencing, including the need for a bifurcated hearing.

Conclusion

In the case of Chhannu Lal Verma vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. The Court found that the lower courts had not correctly applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine and had failed to consider all relevant mitigating circumstances. This judgment reinforces the constitutional ethos on the value and dignity of life and highlights the need for a fair and just sentencing process.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Sentencing
• Death Penalty
• Rarest of Rare Doctrine
• Reformation of Convicts
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 354, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What is the “rarest of rare” doctrine?

A: The “rarest of rare” doctrine is a legal principle that states the death penalty should only be imposed in the most exceptional cases, where the alternative of life imprisonment is not sufficient.

Q: What factors do courts consider when deciding on a death penalty?

A: Courts must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the crime and the criminal. Mitigating factors include the possibility of reformation, the age of the accused, and any mental or emotional disturbance.

Q: What is a bifurcated hearing?

A: A bifurcated hearing is a two-stage process where the court first determines guilt and then separately considers the appropriate sentence. This allows the accused to present evidence in mitigation before sentencing.

Q: What does this judgment mean for those facing death penalty?

A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, and it reinforces the need for a fair and just sentencing process. It provides a ray of hope for those facing death penalty.

Q: What is the role of the State in death penalty cases?

A: The State has the burden to prove that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. The State must also ensure that the accused is given a fair opportunity to present evidence in mitigation.