| Headnote |
Sentence / Sentencing – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 397 – Triple murder, in course of robbery – Three accused – Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants u/s. 302 IPC and imposed death penalty on them – High Court confirmed the conviction – On appeal, held: Both the trial Court and High Court failed to provide an effective sentencing hearing to the accused at the relevant stage which is a right u/s 235(2) CrPC – The crime that the appellants were held guilty of, was heinous, and its execution was vicious and cruel – The repeated stabbings of two of the deceased almost in a frenzy on the one hand and the defenceless state of the victims, on the other, highlights that the accused were willing to go ahead with their plans of robbing after eliminating the three women – At the same time, the young age of the accused at the time of the incident and lack of criminal antecedents cannot be lost sight of – Prosecution case is silent on any real motive that may have instigated or moved the three accused to have pre-planned for the commission of murder other than robbery itself – Death sentence of all three accused commuted to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years – Arms Act – s.27. Criminal Trial – Death Sentence – When to be awarded – Discussed – A two-step process has to be followed to determine whether a case deserves death sentence – Firstly, that the case belongs to the ‘rarest of rare’ category, and secondly, that the option of life imprisonment would simply not suffice – For the first step, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have to be identified and considered equally – For the second, the court has to consider whether the alternative of life imprisonment was unquestionable foreclosed as the sentencing aim of reformation was unachievable, for which the State must provide material.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Test Identification Parade – TIPs are meant to test witness veracity and their capability to identify unknown persons – TIPs should be conducted at the earliest possible time to eliminate the chance of accused being shown to witnesses before the identification parade, which might otherwise affect such witnesses’ memory – No provision of law enables an accused to claim TIP as a matter of right – Delay or failure in holding TIP ipso facto does not render the evidence inadmissible or unacceptable, however it affects the credibility and weight attached to such identification. Evidence Act, 1872 – Circumstantial Evidence – Principles applicable to appreciation of evidence – The correct approach of courts trying criminal cases involving circumstantial evidence should be that the circumstances alleged, be fully established – All the facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused – Circumstances should be conclusive and of such tendency that they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Criminal Trial – Practice and Procedures – Omission of prosecution witness to state a fact – Effect of: The omission of some of the prosecution witnesses to mention a particular fact, or corroborate something, which is deposed to by other witnesses does not ipso facto favour an accused – However, more important is whether the omission to depose about a fact is so fundamental that the prosecution version becomes shaky and incredulous. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 24 – Role of Public Prosecutor in Criminal Trial – Public prosecutor occupies a statutory office of high regard – They are not part of the investigating agency, rather an independent statutory authority who serve as officers to the court – The role of the public prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to conducting a fair trial and not for a ‘thirst to reach the case in conviction’. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.172, 173 – Maintenance of case diary mandatory – Police have the power to investigate freely and fairly, in the course of which, it is mandatory to maintain a diary where the day-to-day proceedings are to be recorded with specific mention of time of events, places visited, departure and reporting back, statements recorded, etc – Criminal Court is empowered to summon these diaries u/s 172(2) for purpose of inquiry or trial, s. 173(3) makes it clear that the accused cannot claim any right to peruse them, unless the police themselves, rely on it to refresh their memory or if the court uses it for contradicting the testimony of the police officers. Criminal Trial – Fundamental canons of criminal jurisprudence founded on Arts. 20 and 21 of the Constitution require not just the investigating agency but also courts in their own independent field, to ensure that investigation is fair and does not hamper the individual’s freedom, except in accordance with law, i.e., ensure adherence to the rule of law. Criminal Trial – Practical guidelines to collect mitigating circumstances – Trial Court must elicit information from the accused and the State both – The State must for an offence carrying capital punishment - at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused – This will help establish proximity to the accused person’s frame of mind – The State must in a time-bound manner collect additional information pertaining to the accused –Information regarding the accused’s jail conduct and behaviour, activities the accused involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sentencing – An effective sentencing hearing to the accused at the relevant stage is a right under s.235(2). |
