LexSHIV MOHAN SINGH versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
172
SHIV MOHAN SINGH
v.
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
March 10. 1977
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.]
Review-Exercise of the powers of Review inust be justified by lite co1npel-
ling pressure of fresh circumstances within the limits of law-Suprenze Court
Rules. 1966 Order XI-Penal Code (1860) S. 302-Sentence-Validity of death
sentence.
~
c
D
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act /I of 1974)-Section 235(2)-Right
to be heard al the stage of passing sentence-Considerations in sentencing.
The petitioner was convicted u/ s 302 I.P .C. and sentenced to death by
the trial court which was confirmed by the High Court.
The Special Leave
~pplication, to this Court was dismissed. A further petition for rehearing and
a review petition thereafter having been dismissed, a petition for directions
regarding remand of the case to the court of Sessions for reconsideration of
the sentence in !he light of s.235(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973,
was made, simultaneously with mercy petitions to the President.
The mercy
petitions to the President and the petition for direction to this Court having
been rejected .. the petitioner's father moved the instant review petition.
Dismissin~ the petition the Court,
HELD : ( 1) This court's review power has repeatedly been invoked in
vain and n~tu1ally a further exercise of the same power must be justified by
the compelling pressure of fresh circumstances within the limits
of
law.
Recognised grounds such as manifest injustice induced by obvious' curial error
or oversight or new and important matter not reasonably within the ken
or
reach of the party seeking review on the prior occasion, may warrant inter~
E · ference to further justice.
(2) Under the Indian Penal Code death penalty has been ruled to be
constitutkmal. The law having sanctioned
it and this Court having refused
special leave against conviction and sentence in this very case, it is a vanquished
cause to argue for a vague illegality vitiating capital sentence as such.
[179 D-E]
Gregg v. Georoia, U.S. Supreme Court decided on July 2, 1976 held not
F
applicable.
G
H
(3) In India under present conditions deterrence through death ptnalty
may not be a time-barred punishment in some frightful areas of barbarous.
murder.
Illuslratively the court has mentioned that the brutal features of the
criine and the hapless and helpless state of the victim steel the heart of
the
law to impose the sterner senten~. [180 A-B]
Ediga Annam1na v. State of A.P., [1974] 4 S.C.C. 443 explained.
( 4) The la\!;· is thus harsh and humane and when faced with arguments
about the so.:1ai invalidity of the death penalty the personal predilections
of
the judge n1ust bow to the raw.
The Bench with all its will to break through
is 't;ound by a jurisdictional servitude.
This fetter is that if there is no legal
ground for the alleged grievances the court cannot grant relief.
The court
enters a province of "powerless power'
1 and finds itself in a quandary between
codified law and progressive thought.
The latter beckons, but the former binds.
[180 B, 177 F-G]
(5) l:Iearing i~ obligatory at the sentencing stage under the new Criminal
Procedure Code.
The humanist principle of individualising punishment to
suit the person and his circumstances is best served by hearing the culprit even
on the nature and quantum of tho penalty to be imposed. [180 Fl
·~
'
SHIV MOHAN SINGH v. STATE {DELHI ADMN.) (Krishna Iyer, !.) 173
(6) The heinousness of the crime is a relevant factor in the choice of the
sentence.
The circumstances of the crime, especially social pressures \vhich
induce the crime 1;vhich may be epitomised as "a just sentence in an unjust
A
---
society" are another considerations. The criminal. not the crime, must figure
prominently ir. shaping the sentence where a reform of the individual, rehabili-
tation into society and other measures to prevent recurrence, are weighty fac-
tors.
Sombre sentencing is the Fifth Act in the tragedy of a murder
trial
and for the judges of the Supreme Court, assumes a grim seriousness
and
poignant gravity.
The Penal Code does not give: the judge a free hand where
B
•
n1urdcr has been n1adc out.
The choice is painfully-not quite scientifically
though-li1nitcd. to but two alternativeG. [173 P, 180 A-C]
<Jbserration : [Sentencing under the Indian scheme is not yet realistically
forward looking nor correctionally flexible, but ParliamenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.