Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Khairlanji Killings: CBI vs. Sakru Mahagu Binjewar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 May 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 543

Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, J., Surya Kant, J.

Can a heinous crime, even one involving multiple deaths, warrant life imprisonment instead of the death penalty? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this question in the case of the Khairlanji killings, where a family was brutally murdered. The court examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was correct in commuting the death sentences of some of the accused to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years. The bench, consisting of Justices Arun Mishra, Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, and Surya Kant, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the brutal murder of four members of the Bhotmange family in Khairlanji village. Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange, along with his wife Surekha, their two sons Sudhir and Roshan, and daughter Priyanka, were attacked by a mob. The incident was preceded by a dispute where one of the accused, Sakru, had a confrontation with Siddharth Gajbhiye, a family friend of the Bhotmanges. This led to the arrest of some villagers who were later released on bail.

On September 29, 2006, a mob of around 40 people surrounded the Bhotmange’s house, accusing Surekha of falsely implicating them. Bhaiyyalal managed to escape, but Surekha was caught, assaulted, and killed. Her sons, Sudhir and Roshan, and daughter, Priyanka, were also brutally attacked and killed. The accused then dumped the bodies in a canal. Bhaiyyalal, after escaping, reported the incident to the police the next morning. The police recovered the bodies and registered a case. Initially, the local police and State CID investigated the case, but due to lack of progress, the investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Court at Bhandara found the accused guilty and awarded death penalties to Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 6 to 9, while Accused Nos. 1 and 11 received life imprisonment. Accused Nos. 4, 5, and 10 were acquitted. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard appeals against this judgment. The High Court upheld the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 9, and 11, but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment with the condition that they would not be released before completing 25 years of actual imprisonment. The CBI appealed against the commutation of death sentences, while the convicts appealed against their conviction. The Supreme Court then heard the cross-appeals.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The relevant sections of the IPC are:

• Section 120B, IPC: This section deals with criminal conspiracy.
• Section 147, IPC: This section deals with rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: This section deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: This section deals with unlawful assembly.
• Section 302, IPC: This section deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 201, IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.

The relevant section of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is:

• Section 3(1)(x) of the Act: This section deals with offences of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Arguments

Arguments by the CBI:

• The CBI argued that the High Court was not justified in commuting the death sentences to life imprisonment.
• They contended that the case fell under the category of the “rarest of rare” cases, and the crime was of the gravest nature, warranting only the death penalty.

Arguments by the Accused:

• The accused argued that the statements of the eyewitnesses were inconsistent and contradictory.
• They claimed there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).
• They also argued that there was an unexplained delay in recording the statements of the witnesses.
• The accused argued that the medical evidence was at variance with the ocular testimony.
• They contended that the prosecution evidence was tainted and full of discrepancies.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment with a condition that the respondents–accused shall have to undergo actual sentence of not less than 25 years?
2. Whether the case in hand falls in the category of rarest of the rare cases and the offence(s) committed are of the gravest nature, such that no punishment less than the death sentence will suffice?
3. Whether the conviction of appellants in the cross-appeals, namely, the respondents–accused in the main case is sustainable in law?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principles laid down in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 684, emphasizing that the death penalty should be an exception.
• The Court applied the test laid down in Machhi Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCC 470, to determine that this case was not the ‘rarest of rare’.
• The Court relied on Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra [2009] 6 SCC 498, to highlight the importance of proportionality and reform in sentencing.
• The Court endorsed the concept of special category sentence as laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2) Alias Murali Manohar Mishra vs. State of Karnataka [2008] 13 SCC 767.
• The Court reaffirmed the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court to impose modified punishments as an alternative to death penalty as held in Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and others [2016] 7 SCC 1.
• The Court cited Raju Jagdish Paswan vs. The State of Maharashtra 2019 (1) SCALE 735, Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2019(3) SCALE 888 and Sachin Kumar Singhraha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2019(5)SCALE 39 to show that the principles laid down in Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and others [2016] 7 SCC 1 have been consistently followed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a careful consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Court emphasized that while the crime was heinous, it did not meet the threshold of the “rarest of rare” cases that would warrant the death penalty. The Court also took into account the fact that the High Court had already imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years, which the Supreme Court found to be adequate.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The Court emphasized that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception as laid down in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 684.
• The Court applied the test laid down in Machhi Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCC 470 to determine that the case did not fall under the ‘rarest of rare’ category.
• The Court considered the fact that the High Court had already imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years.
• The Court found that the eyewitness accounts and medical evidence were consistent and reliable.
• The Court found that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court considered the alternative interpretations, but rejected them based on the consistent and reliable evidence. The Court also emphasized the importance of reform and rehabilitation in sentencing.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentality. That ought to be done save in the rarest of rare case when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”
• “Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime”
• “the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convicts life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court.”

There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception.
• The Court reaffirmed the “rarest of rare” doctrine for imposing the death penalty.
• The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to commute death sentences to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years.
• The Court emphasized the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing.
• The Court highlighted the importance of reform and rehabilitation in sentencing.

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s position on the death penalty and its preference for life imprisonment in cases that do not meet the threshold of the “rarest of rare” category. It also clarifies the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court in imposing modified punishments as an alternative to the death penalty. This may influence future cases involving similar heinous crimes.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even in cases of heinous crimes, the death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases. The Court reaffirmed the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception. The Court also upheld the High Court’s decision to impose a minimum of 25 years of actual imprisonment as a substitute for death penalty. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh and clarifies the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court in imposing modified punishments as an alternative to the death penalty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by both the CBI and the convicts, upholding the High Court’s decision to commute the death sentences to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years. The Court found that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category and that the convictions were sustainable based on the consistent and reliable evidence. The judgment reinforces the principles of proportionality and reform in sentencing and clarifies the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court in imposing modified punishments as an alternative to the death penalty.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Murder
  • Sentencing
  • Death Penalty
  • Life Imprisonment
  • Evidence
  • Criminal Procedure
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
  • Section 3(1)(x), Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
• Supreme Court Judgments
  • Landmark Judgments
  • Criminal Appeals

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Khairlanji killings case?

A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in commuting the death sentences of some of the accused to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years, and whether the case fell under the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category and that life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years was an adequate punishment. The Court also upheld the conviction of the accused.

Q: What is the “rarest of rare” doctrine?

A: The “rarest of rare” doctrine is a principle that limits the imposition of the death penalty to only the most exceptional cases where the crime is extremely heinous and there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s position on the death penalty and its preference for life imprisonment in cases that do not meet the threshold of the “rarest of rare” category. It also clarifies the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court in imposing modified punishments as an alternative to the death penalty.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: The practical implications are that in cases of heinous crimes, the courts will carefully consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty. Life imprisonment with a minimum term of actual imprisonment is a viable alternative to the death penalty.