LexSWAMY SHRADDANANDA @ MURALI MANOHAR MISHRA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 93 SWAMY SHRADDANANDA @ MURALI MANOHAR MISHRA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 2006) JULY 22, 2008 [B.N. AGRAWAL, G.S. SINGHVI AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] Sentence/Sentencing: A B Death penalty/Life imprisonment - Cold blooded mur- C der of wife - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and death sentence by trial court and High court - Supreme Court up- holding conviction - Difference of opinion as regards sen- tence- Reference to Larger Bench to decide the sentence - Held: The murder was planned and cold blooded and for highly D depraved motive - But in view of certain facts of the case and in view of larger issues such as inept criminal justice system and want of uniformity in the sentencing process by the Courts etc., death penalty substituted to imprisonment for life - Since the sentence of imprisonment for fourteen years which is con- E sidered as life imprisonment, does not commensurate to the crime of the convict, direction not to release the convict tiff the rest of his. life - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201. Life sentence - Computation of - Held: Life imprison- F ment means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict - s. 57 /PC does not limit the life imprisonment for a term of twenty years - A convict undergoing life imprisonment has no right to claim remission -Remission granted to fife convicts under Prison Manuals by deemed conversion of life impris- onment into one for fixed term of twenty years is without any G sanction and against the mandate of Supreme Court deci- sions - There has to be a special category where death pen- alty is substituted by imprisonment for life or. for a term in ex- cess of fourteen years and that category is required to be put 93 H 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. ,.. A beyond application of remission - Sentence of life imprison- ment as a substitute for death penalty, to be carried out strictly as directed by the court -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 432, 433 and 433A (as inserted by amendment made in 1978) - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 45, 53, 54, 55 and 57 - B Kamataka Prisons Rules, 1974 - Kamataka Prisons Manual, 1978- Chapter XII- r. 214 (c) - Prisons Act, 1894. Appellant was cohvicted u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC by trial court and sentenced to death. High Court confirmed c his conviction as well as the sentence. Division Bench of Supreme Court confirmed the conviction, but there was difference of opinion as regards sentence. Hence the matter was referred to larger Bench. !Jisposing of the appeal, the Court . D HELD: ·1.1 The court is hesitant in. endorsing the death penalty awarded to the appellant by the trial court .ll, · and confirmed by the High Court. The absolute irrevoca- ' bility of the death penalty renders it completely incom- · patible to the slightest hesitation on the part of the court. E Therefore the death sentence given to the appellant by the trial court and confirmed by the High court is substi- tuted by imprisonment for life. The sentence of imprison- ment for a term of fourteen years, that is generally the eu- phemism for life imprisonment is equally, if not more, un- F acceptable. The punishment does not commensurate to the appellant's crime. Therefore, it is directed that the ap- pelf ant shall not be released from prison till the rest of his life. [Paras 37, 38 and 69] [1:24 D-F- 144 F-G] I G 1.2 The crime committed by the appellant was of course very grave and the motive behind the crime was highly depraved. The appellant though killed the de- ceased in a planned and cold blooded manner but at least this much can be said in his favour that he devised the ;IC" plan so that the victim could not know till the end and H even for a moment that she was betrayed by the one she SWAMY SHRADDANANDA@ MURALI MANOHAR MISHRA 95 v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ;.. trusted most. Further though the way of killing appears A quite ghastly it may be said that it did not cause any men- tal or physical pain to the victim. Thirdly, the appellant confessed his guilt at least partially before the High Court.[Paras 36 and 37] [124 8-D] 1.3 There are also some larger issues that make the B -~ . Court feel reluctant in confirming the death sentence of the appellant. The inability of the Criminal Justice Sys- tern to deal with all major crimes equally effectively and the want of uniformity in the sentencing process by the c Court lead to a marked imbalance in th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.