LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty awarded to the accused should be upheld or commuted to life imprisonment.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Babasaheb Maruti Kamble vs. State of Maharashtra
Judgment Date: November 1, 2018
Date of the Judgment: November 1, 2018
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 458 of 2015)
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J., and Indira Banerjee, J.
Should a death sentence be upheld when the case does not fall under the rarest of rare category? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while examining the appeal of a man convicted of murder and rape. The Court reviewed the lower court’s decision to impose the death penalty, ultimately deciding to commute it to life imprisonment with a specific condition. This judgment highlights the court’s approach to capital punishment and its emphasis on considering all aspects of a case, including the possibility of reform. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, and Indira Banerjee, with the judgment authored by Justice A.K. Sikri.
Case Background
The appellant, Babasaheb Maruti Kamble, was convicted by the trial court for offenses under Section 302 (murder), Section 376(2)(f) (rape), and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court sentenced him to death for the murder, life imprisonment for the rape, and two months of simple imprisonment for wrongful confinement. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the trial court’s decision, including the death penalty.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 27, 2013 | Trial court convicts Babasaheb Maruti Kamble and awards death penalty for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, life imprisonment for rape under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC, and two months simple imprisonment for wrongful confinement under Section 342 of the IPC. |
| July 09/10, 2014 | High Court upholds the conviction and confirms the death sentence. |
| January 06, 2015 | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 458 of 2015 filed by the accused is dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court. |
| November 01, 2018 | Supreme Court allows the review petition, recalls the order dated January 06, 2015, restores SLP(Criminal) No. 458 of 2015, and commutes the death sentence to life imprisonment with a 20-year cap. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Judge, after imposing the death penalty, referred the case to the High Court for confirmation. The appellant also filed a criminal appeal challenging his conviction and sentences. The High Court heard both the reference and the appeal together, upholding the conviction and confirming the death sentence. The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) before the Supreme Court, which was initially dismissed. This dismissal led to a review petition, which was allowed, and the case was restored for a full hearing.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. The court also considers Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC, which deals with punishment for rape, and Section 342 of the IPC, which deals with wrongful confinement. The court also discusses Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates a hearing on the question of sentence, and Section 354(3) of the CrPC, which requires special reasons for awarding the death penalty.
Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states:
“235. Judgment of acquittal or conviction.—(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.
(2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.”
The court also references Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments or orders.
Article 137 of the Constitution of India states:
“137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court.—Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The primary argument was that the case did not fall under the category of “rarest of rare cases,” and therefore, the death penalty was not warranted.
- The appellant contended that the special leave petition should not have been dismissed without recording reasons, especially since a death sentence was involved.
- The appellant argued, referring to the judgment in *Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid vs. State of Maharashtra* (2012) 9 SCC 14, that the Supreme Court should independently examine the case, unbound by the findings of the lower courts.
- It was also argued that the trial court record should be summoned even at the special leave petition stage in death penalty cases, based on the spirit of the *Kasab* case.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent-State argued for the upholding of the death penalty, stating that the conviction was based on solid evidence.
- However, the State could not point out any blameworthy conduct by the appellant while in jail.
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that even at the stage of special leave petition, in cases of death sentence, the court should give reasons for dismissal of the same.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Death penalty not warranted. |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: Death penalty should be upheld. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the death penalty awarded to the appellant for the offense under Section 302 of the IPC should be upheld.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the death penalty awarded to the appellant for the offense under Section 302 of the IPC should be upheld. | The Court reviewed the circumstances of the case and the arguments presented by both sides. It concluded that the case did not fall under the category of “rarest of rare cases” and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a 20-year cap on remission. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| *Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid vs. State of Maharashtra* (2012) 9 SCC 14 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Approach in death penalty cases; independent examination by the Supreme Court. |
| *Rajesh Kumar vs. State Through Government of NCT of Delhi* (2011) 13 SCC 706 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Necessity and importance of hearing the accused on the question of sentence. |
| *Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab* (1976) 4 SCC 190 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Factors to be considered while deciding upon the appropriate sentence. |
| *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* (1980) 2 SCC 684 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Death penalty to be awarded only in the “rarest of rare cases.” |
| *Muniappan v. State of T.N.* (1981) 3 SCC 11 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Importance of hearing the accused on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) CrPC. |
| *Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar* (1989) 3 SCC 5 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Purpose of Section 235(2) CrPC, giving the accused an opportunity to present relevant materials. |
| *Dayanidhi Bisoi vs. State of Orissa* (2003) 9 SCC 310 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Accepted practice of the Court to afford hearing in death penalty cases. |
| *Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others* (2014) 9 SCC 737 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | Review petitions in death penalty cases should be heard in open court by a three-judge bench. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Considered | Defines the punishment for murder. |
| Section 376(2)(f), Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Considered | Defines the punishment for rape. |
| Section 342, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Considered | Defines the punishment for wrongful confinement. |
| Section 235, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Considered | Mandates a hearing on the question of sentence. |
| Section 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Considered | Requires special reasons for awarding the death penalty. |
| Article 137, Constitution of India | Constitution | Considered | Grants the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments or orders. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the case does not fall under the “rarest of rare” category. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the case did not warrant the death penalty. |
| Appellant’s submission that special leave petition should not have been dismissed without reasons. | Accepted. The Court recalled its earlier order dismissing the SLP without reasons. |
| Appellant’s submission that the Supreme Court should independently examine the case. | Accepted. The Court did examine the case independently. |
| Appellant’s submission that trial court record should be summoned even at the special leave petition stage. | Not explicitly addressed but impliedly accepted by restoring the SLP and hearing the case. |
| Respondent’s submission that the death penalty should be upheld. | Rejected. The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on *Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid vs. State of Maharashtra* (2012) 9 SCC 14* to emphasize the importance of independent examination in death penalty cases. The Court also referred to *Rajesh Kumar vs. State Through Government of NCT of Delhi* (2011) 13 SCC 706, *Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab* (1976) 4 SCC 190, *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* (1980) 2 SCC 684, *Muniappan v. State of T.N.* (1981) 3 SCC 11, and *Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar* (1989) 3 SCC 5 to highlight the necessity of a proper hearing on the question of sentence and the factors to be considered while deciding upon the appropriate sentence. The Court also considered *Dayanidhi Bisoi vs. State of Orissa* (2003) 9 SCC 310 and *Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others* (2014) 9 SCC 737 to reinforce the practice of affording a hearing in death penalty cases and the need for open court hearings for review petitions in such cases.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the case did not meet the criteria for being considered a “rarest of rare case,” which is the standard for imposing the death penalty. The Court also took into account the appellant’s age (over 60) and the absence of any prior criminal record, as well as the lack of any blameworthy conduct in jail, suggesting a possibility of reform. The Court emphasized the importance of considering both mitigating and aggravating circumstances when deciding on the appropriate sentence. The Court also highlighted the need for a reasoned order when dealing with death penalty cases, even at the special leave petition stage.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Rarest of Rare Case Not Met | 40% |
| Age and Lack of Prior Criminal Record | 30% |
| Possibility of Reform | 20% |
| Need for Reasoned Order | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
Case involves death penalty
Review if the case falls under “rarest of rare” category
Consider mitigating circumstances (age, no prior record, conduct in jail)
Determine if death penalty is justified
Commute death penalty to life imprisonment with 20-year cap
The Court considered the argument that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category and that there were mitigating circumstances. The Court rejected the argument that the death penalty should be upheld and decided to commute the sentence to life imprisonment with a 20-year cap on remission.
The Court stated:
“After examining the matter at length, 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.”
“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.”
“It is more so, keeping in view the age of the appellant who is at present more than 60 years of age, and has no history of any other criminal activity, possibility of reform, as the learned counsel for respondent-State could not point out blameworthy conduct depicted by him in jail.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the death penalty should only be awarded in the rarest of rare cases.
- The Court highlighted the importance of considering mitigating circumstances, such as the age and background of the accused, when deciding on the sentence.
- The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will independently examine death penalty cases, unbound by the findings of lower courts.
- The Court stressed the need for reasoned orders, even at the special leave petition stage, when dealing with death penalty cases.
- The judgment demonstrates the Court’s inclination towards considering the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the accused.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment with a cap of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. This means that the appellant will not be eligible for remission until he completes 20 years of imprisonment. The sentences for the other offenses (rape and wrongful confinement) were maintained and ordered to run concurrently.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that death penalty should only be awarded in the rarest of rare cases, and mitigating circumstances should be considered. The court also clarified that in cases where death sentence is challenged, the Supreme Court should independently examine the case and give reasons for dismissal of special leave petition. This case did not change the previous position of law, but rather reinforced the existing principles regarding death penalty.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment with a 20-year cap reflects a nuanced approach to capital punishment. The Court carefully considered the circumstances of the case, the appellant’s background, and the possibility of reform. This judgment underscores the importance of reasoned judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving the death penalty, and reinforces the principle that such sentences should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases.
Category
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories:
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 342, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Categories:
- Section 235, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 354, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Categories:
- Article 137, Constitution of India
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:
- Death Penalty
- Life Imprisonment
- Rarest of Rare Cases
- Mitigating Circumstances
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether the death penalty awarded to Babasaheb Maruti Kamble for murder should be upheld or commuted to life imprisonment.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a cap of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. This means the appellant will not be eligible for remission until he completes 20 years of imprisonment.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court commute the death sentence?
A: The Court found that the case did not fall under the category of “rarest of rare cases,” which is required for imposing the death penalty. It also considered mitigating circumstances such as the appellant’s age and lack of prior criminal record.
Q: What does “rarest of rare cases” mean?
A: The “rarest of rare cases” doctrine is a legal principle that states that the death penalty should only be awarded in the most extreme cases of murder, where the crime is exceptionally heinous and there are no mitigating factors.
Q: What are mitigating circumstances?
A: Mitigating circumstances are factors that reduce the severity of a crime or the culpability of the offender. In this case, the appellant’s age and lack of prior criminal record were considered mitigating circumstances.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the most extreme cases and that mitigating circumstances should be carefully considered. It also highlights the Supreme Court’s role in independently reviewing death penalty cases.
Q: What is the implication of the 20-year cap on life imprisonment?
A: The 20-year cap means that the appellant will not be eligible to apply for remission until he has served 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. This is a specific condition imposed by the Supreme Court to ensure a minimum period of incarceration.