LexAMRUTLAL SOMESHWAR JOSHI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AMRUTLAL SOMESHWAR JOSHI
A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SEPTEMBER 1, 1994
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.]
B
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302.
Murder-Death Penalty-Award of-Age as mitigating factor-Held
there is no inflexible rule that accused aged 17 or 18 should never be awarded C
death sentence-Age of accused on date of occu"ence-Accused giving vague
and differing statements as .to his age at various stages of case-Age as per
school leaving certificate relied on by Trial Courl-{]pheld.
The petitioner, who killed three pe£"sons including a child aged about D
three years in a brutal and diabolical manner with a view to committing
robbery, was convicted by the Trial Court under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to death. The conviction and sentence was
confirmed by the High Court. By its judgment dated 10.8.94, this Court
also dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the judgments of the
courts below awarding death sentence to him holding that his case fell E
within the category of 'rarest of the rare case'. The petitioner filed a review
petition in this court and relying upon the judgments of this court in
Hamam v. State of U.P., (1976) 1 S.C.C. 163 and Raisul v. State of U.P.,
[1976) 4 S.C.C. 301 it was contended on· his behalf that the age of the
accused is one of the mitigating circumstances in awarding the death F
sentence; since on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.8.87 he was only 17 years
old, death sentence should not have been awarded to him. However, the
age given by the accused and his advocate at various stages of the case
differed. in a separate review petition sent from jail, the accused gave his
age as 25 years; during his examination under section 313 Cr, P.C. on
.
26.8.92 the accused gave his age to be about 22 years. On being examined G
on the point of sentence after the conclustion of the trial the accused gave
a vague statement of his age and placing reliance on a true copy of the
school leaving certificate, the authenticity of which was not questioned, of
the accused in which his date of birth was mentioned as 1.S.67, the tri~l
judge held that the accused was not of 17 years of age. Before the High H
23
24
·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
Court, on question of sentence, the counsel for accused urged that the
accused was a young man of 20 years. In appeal to this Court on 27.1.94,
his age was given as 20 years.
Dismissing the petitions, this Court
B
HELD : 1. There are no grounds to reduce the sentence to imprison-
ment for life on the grounds urged by the petitioner. [29-F]
2. There is no inflexible rule that a criminal aged about 17 or 18 years
should never be sentenced to death irrespective of other circumstances,
C however, aggravating they may be. [27-H]
3. The age given by the accused or by his advocates at various stages
differently is of no consequence and cannot be given any weight. Conse-
quently the statment of the accused regarding his age cannot be the criteria
to conclude that he was below 18 years of age on the date of commission
D. of the offence. The authenticity of the petitioner's school leaving certificate
bas never been in doubt. The date of birth given in the said certificate is
1.5.67 and the petitioner was aged more than 20 years on the date of
commission of the offence. Therefore, bis case does not come within the
principle laid down in Hamam's case which bas been followed inRaisul's
case. [29-B-F]
E
F
G
Hamam v. State of U.P., [1976) 1 S.C.C. 163 and Raisul v. State of
U.P., [1976) 4 S.C.C. 301, held inapplicable.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab etc. etc., [1980) 2 S.C.C. 20; Shankar
@ Gaud Shankar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, JT (1994) 3 S.C. 54;
Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1980) 3 S.C.C. 470 andAllauddin
Mian and Ors. v. State of Bihar, A.1.R. (1989) S.C. 1456, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No.
999of1994.
In
Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25/26.10.93 of the Bombay
H High Court in Crl. A. No. 655/92 & Confirmation Case No. 3 of 1992. -
AS. JOSHI. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [K.J. REDDY, J.]
25
R.K. Jain, K. V. Viswanathan and K.V. Venkataraman for the Ap-
A
pellant.
S.M. Jadhav and AS. Bhasme for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. Amrutal Someshwar Joshi, the
petitioner in this review petition is the appellant in CrimExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.