LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty should be upheld or commuted to life imprisonment, considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convicts.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Mofil Khan & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand
Judgment Date: 26 November 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2021
Citation: Not Available (Non-Reportable Judgment)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J., B. V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a death sentence be converted to life imprisonment if there is a possibility of reformation of the accused? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Mofil Khan & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand. This judgment reviews a prior decision confirming the death penalty for the petitioners, who were convicted of murdering their brother’s family. The Court re-evaluated the case, focusing on the possibility of the convicts’ reformation and rehabilitation. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute between the petitioners and their brother, Haneef Khan. On June 6, 2007, at 8:30 PM, the petitioners, along with others, attacked Haneef Khan while he was offering namaz in the village mosque. They used sharp weapons, resulting in his death on the spot. Subsequently, the attackers also killed Gufran Khan and Imran Khan, who were Haneef Khan’s sons, outside their house. The violence escalated as they entered Haneef Khan’s house, murdering his wife, Kasuman Bibi, and their four young sons, including one physically disabled child.
Jainub Khatoon, the mother of the petitioners and Haneef Khan, along with others present, were threatened by the petitioners. Gaffar Khan, who arrived the next morning, was informed about the incident by his wife, PW-2, and discovered the dead bodies. The village chowkidar had already alerted the police. Shambhu Nath Singh, PW-13, recorded Gaffar Khan’s statement, and the bodies were sent for post-mortem.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 6, 2007, 8:30 PM | Haneef Khan is murdered in the mosque. Gufran Khan and Imran Khan are murdered outside their house. Kasuman Bibi and her four children are murdered inside their house. |
| June 7, 2007, 6:00 AM | Gaffar Khan arrives at the village and is informed of the murders. |
| August 1, 2008 | Trial court convicts the Petitioners and others. |
| August 5, 2008 | Trial court imposes death sentence on the Petitioners. |
| July 2, 2009 | High Court of Jharkhand upholds the conviction and death sentence of the Petitioners, except for the separate sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 449 read with Section 34, IPC, which was set aside. The High Court converted the death sentence of Saddam Khan and Wakil Khan to life imprisonment. |
| October 9, 2014 | Supreme Court dismisses the Criminal Appeal filed by the Petitioners. |
| November 26, 2021 | Supreme Court converts the death sentence to life imprisonment for 30 years. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted the petitioners, Mofil Khan and another, along with Saddam Khan and Wakil Khan, under Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They were sentenced to death for the murder charges and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for house trespass. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioners but set aside the separate sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 449 read with Section 34, IPC. The High Court, however, converted the death sentence of Saddam Khan and Wakil Khan to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the appeal against the conviction and sentence on October 9, 2014. This review petition was filed after the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, which mandated that review petitions in death penalty cases be heard orally by a three-judge bench.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court’s power to review its judgments is derived from Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which states that the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, specifies that in criminal proceedings, a review is only permissible on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. This rule is materially the same as Order XL, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) are:
- Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
- Section 449, IPC: House-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death.
- Section 34, IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 380, IPC: Theft in dwelling house, etc.
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The amicus curiae in the Criminal Appeal had restricted his submissions only to the sentence, which was a grave error.
- The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Appeal suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, as it relied upon a charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, of which the Petitioners had been acquitted by the trial court.
-
There were glaring errors in the prosecution case:
- The clothing of the Petitioners was not seized.
- No splatter marks were found on the walls of the mosque or the house.
- Except for the recovery of a tangi, no other weapons were seized.
- PW-2 did not witness the murder of five persons in the house.
- The Petitioners have no criminal antecedents and did not have proper legal assistance during the proceedings.
- There is a possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the Petitioners.
- The Petitioners had sought to record a confessional statement expressing remorse, which was not permitted by the Investigating Officer.
- The conduct of the Petitioners during their incarceration has been satisfactory.
- Affidavits from family and community members show that they have strong emotional ties with the Petitioners, indicating the possibility of rehabilitation.
State’s Arguments:
- The conviction of the Petitioners should not be interfered with.
- There is no error apparent on the face of the record.
- Apart from PW-1, there are other independent eye-witnesses whose testimony was consistent.
- PW-3 and PW-6 are natural eye-witnesses who were performing namaz in the mosque when Haneef Khan was attacked.
- PW-5, the Imam of the mosque, also testified against the Petitioners.
- The medical evidence of PW-8 is consistent with the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses.
- The evidence of PW-2, PW-7, and PW-12 is consistent regarding the death of Gufran Khan and Imran Khan outside the house.
- PW-7 spoke about the forcible entry into the house of Haneef Khan by the Petitioners and other assailants.
- PW-2 saw the Petitioners entering the house to kill Kasuman Bibi and her children.
- The chain of events leads to the conclusion that the murders inside the house were committed by the Petitioners.
- The nature of the murders was gruesome and pre-meditated, warranting a death sentence.
- The diabolic and cold-blooded nature of the crime is a factor to be considered when deciding the possibility of reformation.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Petitioners) | Sub-Submissions (State) |
|---|---|---|
| Error in Previous Judgment |
|
|
| Errors in Prosecution Case |
|
|
| Possibility of Reformation |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:
- Whether the death sentence imposed on the Petitioners should be upheld, or if there is a possibility of reformation and rehabilitation that warrants commutation to life imprisonment.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the death sentence should be upheld or commuted to life imprisonment. | Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for 30 years. | The Court found that there was a possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, considering the socio-economic background, absence of criminal antecedents, family ties, and conduct during incarceration. The Court also noted that the State failed to provide evidence that there was no possibility of reformation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases
- Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [ (2014) 9 SCC 737 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case established that review petitions arising out of appeals affirming the death sentence must be heard orally by a three-Judge bench.
- P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [ (1980) 4 SCC 680 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case clarified that the grounds for review in criminal proceedings are limited to “errors apparent on the face of the record.”
- Suthendraraja v. State [ (1999) 9 SCC 323 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized that a review is not a rehearing of the appeal and that a miscarriage of justice must be shown to maintain a review petition.
- Kamlesh Verma v. Mayavati [ (2013) 8 SCC 320 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that an error that is not self-evident and requires a process of reasoning cannot be considered an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2017) 8 SCC 518 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case stated that the Court’s review jurisdiction is exercised only when a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept into the earlier decision due to judicial fallibility, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
- Sudam v. State of Maharashtra [ (2019) 9 SCC 388 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that review petitioners cannot seek re-appreciation of evidence on record.
- Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration [ (1975) 4 SCC 649 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case stated that the Supreme Court does not re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts in an appeal by special leave.
- Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1976) 4 SCC 158 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case also stated that the Supreme Court does not re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts in an appeal by special leave.
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1980) 2 SCC 684 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case established that the death sentence should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option of a lesser punishment is unquestionably foreclosed.
- Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [ (2009) 6 SCC 498 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case stated that the sentencing aim of reformation is unachievable, rendering life imprisonment completely futile, the Court will have to highlight clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.
- Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [ (2019) 12 SCC 460 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized that the probability of reformation and rehabilitation must be seriously considered before awarding the death sentence.
- Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar [ (2019) 16 SCC 584 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that before imposing the death sentence, the Court should satisfy itself that the death sentence is imperative and that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the convict.
Legal Provisions
- Article 137 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced by it.
- Article 145 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court.
- Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Specifies the grounds for review of judgments by the Supreme Court, limiting criminal reviews to errors apparent on the face of the record.
- Order XL, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Materially the same as Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death.
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines theft in dwelling house, etc.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | Court | How It Was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [ (2014) 9 SCC 737 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Mandated oral hearing by a three-judge bench for review petitions in death penalty cases. |
| P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [ (1980) 4 SCC 680 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Defined the scope of review in criminal proceedings. |
| Suthendraraja v. State [ (1999) 9 SCC 323 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Clarified that review is not a rehearing of the appeal. |
| Kamlesh Verma v. Mayavati [ (2013) 8 SCC 320 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Defined “error apparent on the face of the record.” |
| Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2017) 8 SCC 518 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Specified the conditions for exercising review jurisdiction. |
| Sudam v. State of Maharashtra [ (2019) 9 SCC 388 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Stated that review petitions cannot seek re-appreciation of evidence. |
| Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration [ (1975) 4 SCC 649 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Stated that the Supreme Court does not re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact. |
| Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1976) 4 SCC 158 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Stated that the Supreme Court does not re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact. |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1980) 2 SCC 684 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Established the “rarest of rare” doctrine for death penalty cases. |
| Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [ (2009) 6 SCC 498 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Highlighted the need for evidence against reformation for death penalty. |
| Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [ (2019) 12 SCC 460 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Emphasized the consideration of reformation probability before imposing the death penalty. |
| Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar [ (2019) 16 SCC 584 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed: Mandated that the Court should be satisfied that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the convict before imposing the death sentence. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| The amicus curiae in the Criminal Appeal had restricted his submissions only to the sentence, which was a grave error. | Acknowledged the submission but did not find it sufficient to interfere with the conviction. |
| The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Appeal suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, as it relied upon a charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, of which the Petitioners had been acquitted by the trial court. | Acknowledged the error but stated that it was not an “error apparent on the face of the record” as it did not form the basis of the decision to affirm the death sentence. |
| There were glaring errors in the prosecution case (e.g., clothing not seized, no splatter marks, limited weapon seizure, PW-2 did not witness all murders). | Rejected the submission, stating that the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in a review petition. |
| The Petitioners have no criminal antecedents and did not have proper legal assistance during the proceedings. | Considered as a mitigating circumstance for commuting the death sentence. |
| There is a possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the Petitioners. | Accepted as a key factor for commuting the death sentence. |
| The Petitioners had sought to record a confessional statement expressing remorse, which was not permitted by the Investigating Officer. | Considered as a mitigating circumstance for commuting the death sentence. |
| The conduct of the Petitioners during their incarceration has been satisfactory. | Considered as a mitigating circumstance for commuting the death sentence. |
| Affidavits from family and community members show that they have strong emotional ties with the Petitioners, indicating the possibility of rehabilitation. | Considered as a mitigating circumstance for commuting the death sentence. |
| The conviction of the Petitioners should not be interfered with. | Accepted, the Court did not interfere with the conviction. |
| There is no error apparent on the face of the record. | Partially accepted, the Court acknowledged a minor error but did not find it to be an error apparent on the face of the record. |
| Apart from PW-1, there are other independent eye-witnesses whose testimony was consistent. | Accepted, the Court relied on the consistency of the testimony. |
| PW-3 and PW-6 are natural eye-witnesses who were performing namaz in the mosque when Haneef Khan was attacked. | Accepted, the Court relied on the testimony of these witnesses. |
| PW-5, the Imam of the mosque, also testified against the Petitioners. | Accepted, the Court relied on the testimony of this witness. |
| The medical evidence of PW-8 is consistent with the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses. | Accepted, the Court relied on the consistency of the medical evidence. |
| The evidence of PW-2, PW-7, and PW-12 is consistent regarding the death of Gufran Khan and Imran Khan outside the house. | Accepted, the Court relied on the consistency of the testimony. |
| PW-7 spoke about the forcible entry into the house of Haneef Khan by the Petitioners and other assailants. | Accepted, the Court relied on the testimony of this witness. |
| PW-2 saw the Petitioners entering the house to kill Kasuman Bibi and her children. | Accepted, the Court relied on the testimony of this witness. |
| The chain of events leads to the conclusion that the murders inside the house were committed by the Petitioners. | Accepted, the Court relied on the chain of events to establish guilt. |
| The nature of the murders was gruesome and pre-meditated, warranting a death sentence. | Acknowledged, but the Court found a possibility of reformation, leading to the commutation of the death sentence. |
| The diabolic and cold-blooded nature of the crime is a factor to be considered when deciding the possibility of reformation. | Acknowledged, but the Court found a possibility of reformation, leading to the commutation of the death sentence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
| Authority | How It Was Used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [(2014) 9 SCC 737] | Cited to justify the review hearing by a three-judge bench. |
| P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India [(1980) 4 SCC 680] | Cited to define the limited scope of review in criminal proceedings. |
| Suthendraraja v. State [(1999) 9 SCC 323] | Cited to emphasize that review is not a rehearing of the appeal. |
| Kamlesh Verma v. Mayavati [(2013) 8 SCC 320] | Cited to explain what constitutes an “error apparent on the face of the record.” |
| Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab [(2017) 8 SCC 518] | Cited to reiterate the conditions for exercising review jurisdiction. |
| Sudam v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 388] | Cited to state that review petitions cannot seek re-appreciation of evidence. |
| Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration [(1975) 4 SCC 649] | Cited to state that the Supreme Court does not re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact. |
| Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 158] | Cited to state that the Supreme Court does not re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact. |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684] | Cited to reiterate the “rarest of rare” doctrine for death penalty cases. |
| Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 6 SCC 498] | Cited to emphasize the need for evidence against reformation for the death penalty. |
| Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 12 SCC 460] | Cited to emphasize the consideration of reformation probability before imposing the death penalty. |
| Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar [(2019) 16 SCC 584] | Cited to highlight the need for the Court to be satisfied that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation before imposing the death sentence. |
The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and authorities, concluded that while there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference with the conviction, there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment for 30 years. The Court emphasized the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the petitioners, given their socio-economic background, lack of criminal antecedents, family ties, and satisfactory conduct during their incarceration. The Court noted that the State had failed to provide evidence that there was no possibility of reformation.
Decision
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of the petitioners to life imprisonment for 30 years. The Court found that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation was a significant factor in this decision. The Court also considered the fact that the State had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that there was no possibility of reformation.
Flowchart
Family Murders (2007)
Haneef Khan and his family are murdered.
Trial Court Conviction (2008)
Petitioners convicted and sentenced to death.
High Court Upholds Death Sentence (2009)
High Court upholds conviction and death sentence.
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal (2014)
Supreme Court dismisses the Criminal Appeal.
Review Petition Filed (2021)
Review petition filed due to Mohd. Arif judgment.
Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence (2021)
Death sentence commuted to 30 years life imprisonment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mofil Khan & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand highlights the importance of considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of convicts, especially in cases involving the death penalty. Despite the gruesome nature of the crime, the Court found that the mitigating circumstances, including the petitioners’ lack of criminal antecedents, their conduct during incarceration, and the possibility of their rehabilitation, warranted a commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment for 30 years. This judgment underscores the Court’s commitment to the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases where the possibility of reformation is unquestionably foreclosed.