LexSANGEET & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 85
SANGEET & ANR.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 490-491 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 20, 2012
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
A
B
Death sentence - Award of - By courts below -
On
Conviction under provisions of /PC - On appeal held: In the C
facts of the case and in view of the uncertainty as to whether
the punishment should be life imprisonment or death
sentence, death sentence is reduced to sentence of life
imprisonment - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 148.
D
Death sentence -
Grant of - Approach of court -
Approach of aggravating and mitigating circumstances while
granting death sentence needs a fresh look - Such approach
was not endorsed in *Bachan Singh's case, but still it is
adopted by courts - Aggravating circumstances relate to the
E
crime while mitigating circumstances relate to the criminal and
a balance sheet cannot be drawn up for comparing the two
as both are distinct and unrelated - Even though *Bachan
Singh's case intended 'principled sentencing', the sentencing
has become Judge centric' - Nature of crime continues to play
F
a more important role than the 'crime and criminal' - *Bachan
Singh case has not encouraged standardization and
categorization of crimes and even otherwise it is not possible
to categorize and standardize all crimes - Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 - s. 354(3).
Remission of Sentence to a life convict - Consideration
for grant of remission is statutory right- Courts cannot restrain
the appropriate Government from granting remission or
restrain a convict to apply for remission - To prevent arbitrary
G
85
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 13 S.C.R.
A exercise of power to grant remission, legislature has built-in
procedural and substantive checks in Cr. P. C. -
Life
imprisonment means imprisonment for the life span of the
convict with procedural and substantive checks laid down in
Cr. P. C. for his early release - Before exercising powers of
8 remission u/s. 432 Cr.P. C., appropriate Government must
obtain the opinion of the presiding Judge of the convicting or
confirming court - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.
432 and 433A - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 45.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - s. 432 - Application
C of - Discussed.
Six accused, including the appellants-accused were
convicted ulss. 302, 307, 148. 449 rlw s. 149 IPC and five
of the accused were convicted uls. 25 (1-8) of Arms Act,
o 1959. Appellants-accused were sentenced to death and
others were sentenced to life imprisonment. High Court
confirmed the judgment of trial court. In the present
appeal, notice was limited to the question of sentence.
E
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, there is considerable
uncertainty on the punishment to be awarded in capital
offences - whether it should be life imprisonment or death
sentence. Due to this uncertainty, awarding a sentence
F of life imprisonment, in cases such as the present one is
not unquestionably foreclosed. More so when, in this
case, there is no evidence {contrary to the conclusion of
the High Court) that the body of one of the deceased was
burnt by appellant-accused 'S' from below the waist with
G a view to destroy evidence of her having been subjected
to sexual harassment and rape. There is also no evidence
{again contrary to the conclusion of the High Court) that
appellant-accused 'N' was a professional killer. Therefore,
the appeals are allowed to the extent that the death
H penalty awarded to the appellants is converted into a
SANGEET & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA
87
sentence of life imprisonment. The appellants should be A
awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful
implementation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. [Paras 1, 81
and 82] [96-A-B; 128-C-E]
2.1 This Court has not endorsed the approach of 8
aggravating and mitigating circumstances in *Bachan
Singh case. However, this approach has been adopted
in several decisions. This needs a fresh look. In any
event, there is little or no uniformity in the application of
this approach. The conclusion of the Constitution Bench C
in *Bachan Singh case was that the sentence of death
ought to be given only in the rarest of rare cases and it
should be given only when the option of awarding the
sentence of life imprisonment is "unquestionably
foreclosed". *Bachan Singh case, therefore, made two
very significant departures from **Jagmohan Singh caseExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.