LexM. A. ANTONY @ ANTAPPAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R. M. A. ANTONY @ ANTAPPAN v. STATE OF KERALA (Review Petition (Crl.) No. 245 of 2010) in Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2009 DECEMBER 12, 2018 [MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Practice and Procedure – Death sentence – Commutation of, into life sentence– Mitigating factors to be considered – Socio- Economic factors – Appellant murdered six members of one family – Sessions Court convicted the appellant – Trial Judge sentenced the appellant “to be hanged by the neck till he is dead” – High Court confirmed the death sentence – Appellant filed appeal before Supreme Court – Dismissed– Appellant filed Review Petition– Dismissed– Review petition re-opened– Held: Socio-economic circumstances relating to the appellant are relevant for objective consideration of the award of sentence – Socio-economic factors must be taken into consideration while awarding sentence, particularly the ground realities relating to access to justice that are not easily available to the poor and needy – In the present case, convict was working as driver on casual basis and was desirous of obtaining employment in the Gulf and was making all attempts in this direction– He managed to arrange a visa but had to pay the agent Rs.62,000/- – Due to severe financial constraints he could only arrange Rs.25,000/- – He had gone to the house of the deceased family for getting money– But, unfortunately he was unable to obtain any funds from them and this led to his decision to kill all of them – Socio-economic condition of the appellant was a significant factor that ought to have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court and the High Court while considering the punishment to be given to the appellant – While the socio-economic condition of a convict is not a factor for disproving his guilt, it is a factor that must be taken into consideration for the purposes of awarding an appropriate sentence to a convict – Trial Court was in error while awarding death sentence to the appellant on the basis that he was [2018] 13 S.C.R. 296 296 A B C D E F G H 297 a hardened criminal– There is no such evidence on record– Death sentence awarded to the appellant converted into sentence of imprisonment for life. Disposing of the review petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The socio-economic factors relating to a convict should be taken into consideration for the purposes of deciding whether to award life sentence or death sentence. Socio-economic factors must be taken into consideration while awarding a sentence particularly the ground realities relating to access to justice and remedies to justice that are not easily available to the poor and the needy. [Paras 15, 16][305-B; 306-C] 1.2 The consideration of socio-economic factors is tied up with another important issue (which need not necessarily or always be taken into consideration for sentencing purposes, but could be relevant in a given case) and that is whether the convict has had adequate legal representation. Quality legal aid to the disadvantaged and weaker sections of society is an area that requires great and urgent attention. [Paras 17, 18] [306-C-D, F-G] 1.3 On the facts of the present case, the convict was working as a driver on a casual basis. He was desirous of obtaining employment in the Gulf and was making all attempts in this direction. He managed to arrange a visa but had to pay the agent Rs.62,000/-. Due to severe financial constraints he could only arrange Rs.25,000/- for making the initial payment. He continued making attempts to raise the amount. His economic condition was so severe that for the purposes of going to Gulf he had to proceed from Ernakulam to Mumbai by train and while he could manage to purchase the ticket, he was unable to pay for reservation charges. Under these circumstances, he had gone to the house of the deceased family for getting money or by stealing it or by grabbing it by any other means. But unfortunately for him and the deceased family, he was unable to obtain any funds from them and this led to his decision to kill all of them. [Para 26][310-C-E] Public opinion or collective conscience of the society 1.4 It would be wise if impressions gathered on what is perceived to be public opinion or collective conscience of the M. A. ANTONY @ ANTAPPAN v. STATE OF KERALA A B C D E F G H 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R. society are eschewed while sentencing a convict found guilty of a grave or brutal cri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.