LexSHABNAM versus STATE OF U. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 943 SHABNAM V. STATE OF U. P. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015) MAY 15, 2015 [H. L. DATTU, CJI., S. A. BOBDE AND ARUN MISHRA,JJ.] A B Sentence/Sentencing- Death penalty- For the murder C of seven persons of her own family including a 10 months old child - Propriety of- Held: Life Sentence is the rule and death sentence is the exception to be awarded in 'rarest of rare cases' - Death sentence is to be awarded only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate D punishment- The aggravating circumstances in the present case vii. victims of the crime, motive for commission of murder, manner of execution, magnitude of crime and remorseless attitude of the accused, outweigh the mitigating circumstances i.e. young age of the accused and dependence E of the minor child on them - The case falls in the rarest of rare case and hence, both the appellants accused have been rightly sentenced to death by courts below - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder by app6!/ant- accused - Of seven persons of her own family including a ten months old child - Conviction and death sentence by courts below - On appeal conviction as well as sentence upheld. Dismissing the appeals, the Court F G HELD: 1. The most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award H 943 944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only to be awarded in "rarest of rare cases." Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant B circumstances of the crime, and provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. The circumstances which should or C should not be taken into account, and the circumstances which should be taken into account along with other circumstances, as well as the circumstances which may, by themselves, be sufficient, in the exercise of the 0 discretion regarding sentence cannot be exhaustively enumerated. [Para 23] (958-B-F] E F Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, (1973) 1 SCC 20: 1973 (2) SCR 541; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 sec 684: 1980 (2) sec 684; Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983 (3) SCR 413; Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257: 2012 (3) SCR 630 - relied on. 2. While determining the questions relateable to sentencing policy, the Court has to follow certain principles and those principles are the loadstar besides the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in imposition or otherwise of the death G sentence. The Court has to apply the test to determine, if it was the 'rarest of rare' case; that in the opinion of the Court, imposition of any other punishment, i.e., life imprisonment would be completely inadequate and H would not meet the ends of justice; that life imprisonment SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. 945 is the rule and death sentence is an exception; that the A option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant circumstances; and that the method (planned or otherwise) and the manner (extent of brutality and B inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime was committed and the circumstances leading to commission of such heinous crime. [Para 23) (961-C-H] 3. The Courts are required to independently C consider facts of each case and determine a sentence which is the·most appropriate and proportional to the culpability of the accused. It is not sufficient for the Court to decide the quantum of sentence only with reference to one of the classes under any one of the head of D circumstances while completely ignoring classes under the other. That is to say, what is required to be considered is notjustthe circumstances by placing them in separate compartments, but their cumulative effect. The Court ought to be sufficiently cautious and adherent of the E same so as to better administer the criminal justice system and provide an effective and meaningful reasoning by the Court as contemplated under Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. [Para 24] (962-A-D] Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir v. State of WB., (2014)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.