Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Gruesome Murder Case: Md. Mannan vs. State of Bihar (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 123
Judges: N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Can a death sentence be reconsidered when the convict was not given a fair chance to present mitigating circumstances? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of *Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar*. This case highlights the importance of considering all aspects of a convict’s life before imposing the ultimate penalty. The Supreme Court, in this review petition, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for a balanced consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. The bench comprised Justices N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Indira Banerjee, with the judgment authored by Justice Banerjee.

Case Background

The case revolves around the gruesome murder of an eight-year-old girl. The petitioner, Md. Mannan, a mason, was working at the residence of the victim’s grandfather. On September 28, 2004, around 2:00 PM, he gave the victim money to buy betel from Hanuman Chowk. Later, he was seen taking her on his bicycle. The victim never returned home, and after frantic searches, it was discovered that she was last seen with the petitioner.

During the investigation, the petitioner allegedly made a confessional statement admitting to raping and murdering the victim. He also reportedly disclosed the location where the body could be found. Based on this information, the investigating officer recovered the victim’s body from a field. The post-mortem confirmed that the cause of death was asphyxia and hemorrhage due to strangulation. Medical evidence also indicated the presence of spermatozoa, but no DNA analysis was conducted.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) No.30 found the petitioner guilty under Sections 366A, 376, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and death. The case was then referred to the High Court of Judicature at Patna for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death penalty.

The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court, which initially dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence on April 20, 2011. A subsequent review petition was dismissed by circulation on August 24, 2011. However, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in *Mohd. Arif v. The Registrar of the Supreme Court* (2014) mandated that review petitions in death penalty cases be heard in open court. This led to the reopening of the petitioner’s review petition.

Legal Framework

The judgment references several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder. The judgment notes that the trial court and the High Court had imposed the death penalty under this section.
• Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section pertains to the kidnapping or abduction of a minor for the purpose of exploitation.
• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the offense of rape and prescribes its punishment.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.
• Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section outlines the procedure for judgment of acquittal or conviction. Sub-section (2) mandates that if the accused is convicted, the Judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing it. The court noted that this provision is not a mere formality but an obligation.
• Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section states that when a person is convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception, to be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases, recording special reasons.

The Supreme Court emphasized that these provisions must be interpreted in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the trial court did not provide an effective hearing on the question of sentence as mandated by Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
• The petitioner contended that the trial court was swayed by unsubstantiated claims of prior criminal history, which was not based on any cogent material. The trial court had noted that the petitioner had “managed his acquittal” in a previous case, which was incorrect.
• It was argued that the legal representation provided to the petitioner was inadequate, particularly at the sentencing stage. The counsel did not seek time to present mitigating circumstances.
• The petitioner highlighted that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra-judicial confession, with no forensic evidence like DNA analysis.
• The petitioner emphasized the mitigating factors, including his socio-economic background, lack of education, family responsibilities, and possible mental health issues.
• The petitioner relied on judgments such as *Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab* (1980) 2 SCC 684, *Rajesh Kumar vs. State (through Govt. of NCT of Delhi)* (2011) 13 SCC 706, and *Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.* (2014) 3 SCC 1 to support the claim that death penalty should be an exception and not the rule.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the crime was heinous and barbaric, justifying the death penalty.
• The State contended that the petitioner had committed a gruesome act against a minor, making it a “rarest of rare” case.
• The State emphasized the gravity of the crime and the need for maximum punishment.
• The State relied on the findings of the trial court and the High Court, which had both upheld the death sentence.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner’s argument was innovative in its emphasis on the procedural lapses and the need for a comprehensive assessment of mitigating factors, going beyond just the heinousness of the crime. The reliance on the lack of DNA evidence and the ineffective legal representation was also a novel approach.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment given the mitigating circumstances and procedural lapses in the sentencing process.
2. Whether the petitioner was given an effective hearing under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on the question of sentence.
3. Whether the trial court and appellate courts properly considered the mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation of the petitioner.
4. Whether the absence of DNA analysis and the reliance on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession were sufficient grounds for imposing death penalty.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision:

On the Rarest of Rare Doctrine:

• Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 (Supreme Court of India): This case established the “rarest of rare” doctrine, stating that the death penalty should only be imposed in exceptional cases with special reasons.
• Rajesh Kumar vs. State (through Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 706 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating circumstances.
• Machhi Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the need to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty.
• Panchhi and Others vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177 (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that the brutality of the murder is not the sole criterion for deciding whether a case falls within the “rarest of rare” category.
• Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2013) 3 SCC 294 (Supreme Court of India): This case emphasized that the death penalty should be the last resort when life imprisonment is futile, and that reformation should be considered.

On the Importance of Hearing on Sentence:

• Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190 (Supreme Court of India): This case highlighted the importance of Section 235(2) of the CrPC, stating that the accused must be heard on the question of sentence.
• Dagdu and Others vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 68 (Supreme Court of India): This case emphasized that the mandate of Section 235(2) CrPC must be obeyed in letter and spirit, and the accused must be given a real and effective opportunity to present data on sentencing.
• Ajay Pandit and Another vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 43 (Supreme Court of India): This case underscored the duty of the court to elicit relevant facts even if the accused remains silent.

On Mitigating Factors and Reformation:

• Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 (Supreme Court of India): This case emphasized the importance of the doctrine of rehabilitation and the need to consider mitigating circumstances.
• Haru Ghosh v. State of W.B. (2009) 15 SCC 551 (Supreme Court of India): This case commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment, considering factors like the absence of pre-mediation and the accused’s family circumstances.
• Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76 (Supreme Court of India): This case held that the mental condition of the accused, though not relevant to culpability, is a factor while considering the sentence.

On Mental Health and Supervening Circumstances:

• Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India): This case held that mental illness is a crucial supervening circumstance that should be considered when deciding whether to commute a death sentence.
• Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2014) 7 SCC 264 (Supreme Court of India): This case confirmed that mental illness is a supervening circumstance for commutation of death sentence.

On Circumstantial Evidence and Sentencing:

• Kalu Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 16 SCC 492 (Supreme Court of India): This case highlighted that the balance of circumstances can introduce uncertainty in the “culpability calculus,” which can lead to the commutation of a death sentence.
• Ramesh and Others v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 3 SCC 685 (Supreme Court of India): This case noted that the quality of evidence is a relevant factor in sentencing.
• Ram Deo Prasad v. State of Bihar (2013) 7 SCC 725 (Supreme Court of India): This case reaffirmed that the quality of evidence is relevant in considering the death sentence.
• Sushil Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 4 SCC 317 (Supreme Court of India): This case held that death penalty may not be appropriate in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Swamy Shraddananda (2) @ Murali Manohar Mishra vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the option of expanding the sentencing options when life imprisonment seems inadequate but death penalty seems excessive.
• Sebastian @ Chevithiyan vs. State of Kerala (2010) 1 SCC 58 (Supreme Court of India): This case converted the death penalty to life imprisonment due to the facts of the case.

On Length of Incarceration:

• Mulla and Another v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508 (Supreme Court of India): This case affirmed that the court can prescribe the length of incarceration, especially when death sentence is replaced by life imprisonment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, held that the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment. The Court emphasized that the sentencing process had significant procedural lapses. The trial court did not provide the petitioner with a meaningful opportunity to present mitigating circumstances, as mandated by Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court also noted that the trial court was swayed by unsubstantiated claims of prior criminal history and did not properly consider the socio-economic background, mental health issues, and other mitigating factors of the petitioner.

The court observed that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra-judicial confession, with no forensic evidence like DNA analysis. While the court did not overturn the conviction, it considered the quality of evidence as a relevant factor in sentencing. The court also took note of the petitioner’s prolonged confinement, which was solitary in effect, and the possibility of mental health issues, relying on the principles laid down in *Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.* (2014) 3 SCC 1.

The Supreme Court concluded that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category as defined in *Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab* (1980) 2 SCC 684. The court, therefore, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, specifying that the petitioner would not be entitled to premature release before serving 25 years of imprisonment without remission. The judgment was authored by Justice Indira Banerjee.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court’s final order was as follows:

• The death sentence imposed on the petitioner was commuted to life imprisonment.
• The petitioner was directed to serve a minimum of 25 years of imprisonment without remission.
• The Court emphasized the importance of a fair hearing on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
• The Court highlighted the need to consider mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation of the accused before imposing the death penalty.
• The Court reiterated that the death penalty should be an exception and not the rule, to be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

• Fair Hearing on Sentence: The court must provide a real and effective hearing on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This is not a mere formality but an obligation.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Mitigating circumstances, including socio-economic background, mental health issues, and family responsibilities, must be given due consideration before imposing the death penalty.
• “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine: The death penalty should be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases, and life imprisonment is the rule. The courts must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• Quality of Evidence: The quality of evidence, including the absence of forensic evidence like DNA analysis, is a relevant factor in sentencing.
• Reformation and Rehabilitation: The possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused should be considered before imposing the death penalty.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta in the judgment include:

• The Court emphasized the importance of a thorough investigation and the use of forensic evidence in criminal cases.
• The Court underscored the need for effective legal representation, especially at the sentencing stage.
• The Court reiterated the importance of considering the mental health of the accused and the impact of prolonged confinement on their mental state.
• The Court noted that the death penalty should be the last resort, and the courts should explore all other options, including life imprisonment, before imposing it.
• The Court stressed that the judiciary must be vigilant in ensuring that the fundamental rights of the accused are protected, especially the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Flowchart of Case Proceedings

Conclusion

The case of *Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar* is a landmark judgment that reaffirms the importance of procedural fairness and the consideration of mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases. The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment underscores the principle that the death penalty should be an exception and not the rule. This case serves as a reminder that the judiciary must be vigilant in protecting the fundamental rights of the accused and ensuring that the sentencing process is just and equitable. It also highlights the need for a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of a convict’s life before imposing the ultimate penalty.