Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Madhya Pradesh Case: Jitendra @ Jeetu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: November 1, 2018
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 111 of 2015)
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the case does not fall under the category of rarest of rare cases? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal. The court examined the case of Jitendra @ Jeetu, who was initially sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision that was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court ultimately commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, setting a 20-year cap on remission. This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s approach to capital punishment and its emphasis on the possibility of reform.

Case Background

The case began with the registration of First Information Report No. 513 of 2012 under Sections 363, 376(2)(g), 201, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, Jitendra @ Jeetu, along with two co-accused, were implicated in the crime and subsequently arrested on June 26, 2012. Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and charges were framed against them. The accused pleaded not guilty, leading to a trial where the prosecution presented evidence.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, convicted the accused on April 26, 2013, under Sections 363, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(g), 201, and 302 of the IPC. They were sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for offences under Sections 363 and 201, life imprisonment for offences under Sections 376(2)(f) and (g), and the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC.

Since a death sentence was awarded, the case was referred to the High Court. The convicted individuals also appealed their conviction. The High Court heard the appeal and the criminal reference together and, on August 21, 2014, affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The review petitioner, along with co-accused, challenged the High Court’s judgment by filing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 111 of 2015, which was dismissed in limine on January 6, 2015. A review petition was filed against this order by the petitioner only. The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, citing that cases involving death penalty require deeper scrutiny and reasons. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was restored to its original number.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• ✓ Section 363, IPC: Deals with the offense of kidnapping.
• ✓ Section 376(2)(g), IPC: Addresses the offense of rape by a person in a position of authority or a public servant.
• ✓ Section 201, IPC: Relates to causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender.
• ✓ Section 302, IPC: Prescribes the punishment for murder.

These sections of the IPC are part of the substantive criminal law of India, defining various offenses and prescribing punishments. The application of these sections is crucial in determining the culpability of the accused and the appropriate sentence.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the review petitioner’s counsel focused on two primary points:

• ✓ The Special Leave Petition (SLP) should not have been dismissed without providing any reasons, especially in a case involving a death penalty.
• ✓ The review petitioner’s family had applied for withdrawal of legal aid, as they wanted to engage their own advocate. However, the advocate assigned by the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee (SCLSC) appeared when the SLP was dismissed.

The State’s counsel did not seriously contest the issue of conviction but focused on the death penalty.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the main issue before the court was:

1. Whether the death penalty awarded to the appellant should be upheld, or commuted to life imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• ✓ Review Petition No. 388 of 2015: The Supreme Court had allowed a review in a similar case where a special leave petition was dismissed in limine without reasons in a death penalty case.

Judgment

The Court considered the following authorities:

• ✓ Review Petition No. 388 of 2015: The Court used the reasoning from this case, where a similar SLP dismissal was reviewed, to justify allowing the present review petition.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was primarily influenced by the fact that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare cases” category. The court also considered the absence of a prior criminal history of the appellant and the lack of evidence of blameworthy conduct in jail, indicating a possibility of reform. The court emphasized the importance of a deeper scrutiny in death penalty cases, which was lacking in the initial dismissal of the special leave petition.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was as follows:

1. The court initially noted that the conviction was rightly recorded and did not require interference.
2. The court then focused on the issue of the death penalty.
3. The court examined the case and concluded that it did not fall under the category of “rarest of rare cases.”
4. The court considered the lack of prior criminal history and the possibility of reform.
5. The court decided to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, with a 20-year cap on remission.

The Court stated:

“…we are of the opinion that the instant case would not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases and it would be in the interest of justice if the death sentence is commuted into life imprisonment.”

“More so, the appellant has no history of any other criminal activity, possibility of reform, as the learned senior counsel for respondent-State could not point out blameworthy conduct depicted by him in jail.”

“At the same time, we are also of the opinion that life sentence should be with a cap of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI) which would mean that the appellant shall not be entitled to make any representation for remission till he completes 20 years of RI.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Death penalty is not automatically upheld; cases must meet the “rarest of rare” criteria.
• ✓ The possibility of reform is a significant factor in deciding between death and life imprisonment.
• ✓ The Supreme Court emphasizes the need for thorough scrutiny in death penalty cases.
• ✓ Life sentences can be given with a cap on remission, ensuring a minimum period of imprisonment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the life sentence would be with a cap of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI), meaning the appellant would not be entitled to apply for remission until completing 20 years of RI.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death penalty should only be awarded in the “rarest of rare cases,” and the possibility of reform is a critical factor to be considered. This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s stance on capital punishment, emphasizing the need for a case-by-case analysis and the importance of considering mitigating factors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Jitendra @ Jeetu to life imprisonment, emphasizing that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare cases” category. The court also considered the appellant’s lack of prior criminal history and the possibility of reform. This judgment underscores the court’s commitment to a nuanced approach to capital punishment, ensuring that such sentences are reserved for the most extreme cases.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment, Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, Section 376, Indian Penal Code

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Jitendra @ Jeetu case?
A: The main issue was whether the death penalty awarded to Jitendra @ Jeetu should be upheld or commuted to life imprisonment.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, with a 20-year cap on remission.

Q: What does “rarest of rare cases” mean?
A: “Rarest of rare cases” refers to the principle that the death penalty should only be awarded in the most extreme cases of heinous crimes.

Q: What is the significance of the 20-year cap on remission?
A: The 20-year cap on remission means that the appellant cannot apply for early release until he has served a minimum of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider in commuting the death sentence?
A: The Supreme Court considered that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare cases” category, the appellant’s lack of prior criminal history, and the possibility of reform.