Supreme Court modifies life sentence to 30 years in brutal rape and murder case: Kashi Nath Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (20 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 407

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a life sentence, imposed without the possibility of remission, be modified by the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the brutal rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl. The court considered whether the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, without any chance of remission, should be altered. The bench comprised of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around a horrific incident that occurred on November 3, 2007, in village Rangamati, Raja Basti, near Kali Temple, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad. A 14-year-old girl was found dead in a field after being sexually assaulted and brutally murdered. The informant, Bikash Kumar Mandal (PW-5), the brother of the deceased, reported that his sister had gone to bathe in the village pond with neighbors. When she did not return, a search was initiated, leading to the discovery of her body. The girl’s body was found with multiple injuries, including a fractured skull, and her clothes were found scattered nearby. The post-mortem report confirmed sexual assault and that the cause of death was injuries to her head and brain from a hard, blunt object, along with a forceful sexual assault before death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and imposed the death penalty. The case was then referred to the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi for confirmation of the death sentence. Simultaneously, the appellant also filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, directing that the appellant remain in jail for his entire biological life without any benefit of remission. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s judgment, specifically challenging the denial of remission.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 376: This section defines and prescribes the punishment for the offense of rape.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court did not provide adequate reasoning for denying the possibility of reformation.
• The appellant contended that since he has no prior criminal record, there are chances of his reformation.
• The appellant requested that the Supreme Court modify the sentence to allow for remission, or alternatively, reduce the sentence to a fixed term instead of life imprisonment for his entire biological life.
• The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiva Kumar alias Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online SC 345.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the case involved a brutal rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl.
• The respondent submitted that the appellant not only committed rape but also attempted to deface the victim’s face to prevent identification.
• The respondent contended that given the appellant’s mindset, he does not deserve any leniency in sentencing.
• The respondent argued that the High Court had already shown leniency by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the life sentence awarded to the appellant, without any benefit of remission, should be modified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court considered the decision in Shiva Kumar alias Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online SC 345, cited by the appellant, but did not apply it directly to grant remission. Instead, the Court used it as a reference point while considering the possibility of reformation and the overall sentencing.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, balancing the severity of the crime with the possibility of reformation and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime, involving the rape and murder of a minor, and the brutality with which it was committed. However, the court also considered the appellant’s age at the time of the offense (26 years) and the absence of a prior criminal record, which suggested a potential for reformation. The court also emphasized the need to balance the rights of the victim and their family with the need to ensure that the criminal justice system acts as a deterrent. The court was also mindful of the public confidence in the justice system, and that undue leniency should not shake the public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the arguments for and against the modification of the sentence. It acknowledged the brutality of the crime, stating, “The fact remains that there was rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl.” However, it also noted the appellant’s age at the time of the offense and the absence of a prior criminal record. The Court observed, “Though notice was issued only to consider whether the appellant could be extended the benefit of remission, however, considering the severity of the offence committed by the appellant, we do not find any merit in that submission.” Ultimately, the Court decided to modify the sentence to a fixed term of 30 years without remission, stating, “Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the sentence of life imprisonment for the whole of the biological life of the appellant, without any benefit of remission deserves to be modified to the fixed term sentence for a period of 30 years without any benefit of remission so that prime period of his life is spent in jail.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court modified a life sentence without remission to a fixed term of 30 years, balancing the severity of the crime with the possibility of reformation.
• The decision highlights the importance of considering the age of the offender and the absence of prior criminal history in sentencing.
• The Court emphasized the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system while also considering the rights of the victim and their family.
• This case indicates that while the courts take a stern view of heinous crimes, they also consider the possibility of reformation while sentencing.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall be released from jail only after undergoing the full sentence of 30 years, excluding the period of imprisonment already undergone.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can modify a life sentence without remission to a fixed term sentence, balancing the severity of the crime with the possibility of reformation and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system. This decision clarifies that while life sentences without remission are not always absolute, the courts will take into account the gravity of the offense, the possibility of reformation, and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system. This case does not overrule any previous position of law but provides a nuanced approach to sentencing in cases involving heinous crimes.

Conclusion

In the case of Kashi Nath Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s decision of life imprisonment without remission to a fixed term of 30 years without remission. This decision reflects the court’s attempt to balance the severity of the crime with the possibility of reformation and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system, while also considering the rights of the victim and their family.