CHHANNU LAL VERMA versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 28-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
CHHANNU LAL VERMA
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal  Nos. 1482-1483 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, DEEPAK GUPTA AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Administration of Criminal Justice – Capital punishment –
Commutation of – Appellant allegedly murdered three persons and
caused grievous injuries to others – Sessions Court convicted the
appellant u/ss. 302, 307, 506 (2)  and 450, IPC – High Court
confirmed the conviction and death sentence – On appeal, held:
High Court erroneously confirmed the death penalty – No evidence
as to the uncommon nature of the offence or the improbability of
reformation or rehabilitation of the appellant was adduced – Death
penalty is to be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases where life
imprisonment is wholly inadequate or futile owing to the nature of
the crime and the circumstances relating to the criminal – Whether
not granting death penalty would send a wrong message to society
are additional factors to be looked at – No such analysis was
undertaken by the High Court – High Court also failed to look at
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Conduct of the
convict in prison cannot be lost sight of – The fact that the prisoner
displayed good behaviour in prison certainly goes on to show that
he is not beyond reform – Decision to impose the highest punishment
of death sentence in the present case does not fulfil the test of “rarest
of rare case where the alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed” –  Imposition of death sentence was not the only option
and hence the same is commuted to imprisonment for life – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 307, 506 (2)  and 450 .
Administration of Criminal Justice – Capital Punishment –
Constitutional regulation of – Held: (Per Kurian Joseph, J.) Time
has come to view the need for death penalty as a punishment,
especially its purpose and practice – Per Deepak Gupta, J. (for
himself and Hemant Gupta, J.)(Partly Dissenting) Since the
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 355
355
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh case has
upheld capital punishment, there is no need to re-examine the same
at this stage.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1  The High Court has erroneously confirmed
death penalty without correctly applying the law laid down in the
cases of Bachan Singh,  Machhi Singh , Santosh Bariyar and
Shankar Kisanrao Khade. The decision to impose the highest
punishment of death sentence in this case does not fulfil the test
of “rarest of rare case where the alternative option is
unquestionably foreclosed”. No evidence as to the uncommon
nature of the offence or the improbability of reformation or
rehabilitation of the appellant was adduced. Death penalty shall
be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases where life
imprisonment shall be wholly inadequate or futile owing to the
nature of the crime and the circumstances relating to the criminal.
Whether the person is capable of reformation and rehabilitation
should also be taken into consideration while imposing death
penalty.  Whether the person would be a threat to society or
whether not granting death penalty would send a wrong message
to society are additional factors to be looked at. No such analysis
was undertaken by the High Court. The High Court has also
failed to look at the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
regarding the criminal as warranted by Bachan Singh. The fact
that the appellant had no previous criminal record apart from the
acquittal in the Section 376, IPC, which was a false implication
and the alleged motive did not weigh with the High Court as an
important mitigating circumstance with respect to the criminal.
[Para 13][368-E-H; 369-A-B]
1.2 The superintendent of the jail has given a certificate
that his conduct in jail has been good. Thus, there is a clear
indication that despite having lost all hope, yet no frustration has
set on the appellant. On the contrary, there was a conscious effort
on his part to lead a good life for the remaining period. A convict
is sent to jail with the hope and expectation that he would make
amends and get reformed. That there is such a positive change
on a death row convict should also weigh with the Court while
taking a decision as to whether the alternative option is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
unquestionably foreclosed.  It was the duty of the State to prove
by evidence that the convict cannot be reformed or reha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.