This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
possesses the authority to scrutinize not only the
conviction of an accused but also the
appropriateness of the sentence imposed. As
articulated in the principles laid down in Swamy
Shraddananda 1, the power to impose or modify a
sentence within the prescribed framework of the
Penal Code is exclusively vested in the High Court
and this Court. The alternate punishment for
offences punishable by death, such as imprisonment
for a specific term exceeding 14 years or until the
natural life of the convict, remains within the judicial
conscience of this Court and the High Court. This
ensures that the gravity of the offence, the mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, and the possibility of
reformation are thoroughly assessed before
irrevocable sentences such as capital punishment
are affirmed. Therefore, the commutation of a death
sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the
convict’s natural life, as an alternative to death, is
well within the judicial prerogative of this Court and
adheres to the constitutional mandate of ensuring
justice.
105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power
derived from the Penal Code for any modified
punishment within the punishment provided for
in the Penal Code for such specified offences can
only be exercised by the High Court and in the
event of further appeal only by the Supreme
Court and not by any other court in this
country. To put it differently, the power to
impose a modified punishment providing for any
specific term of incarceration or till the end of
the convict's life as an alternate to death
penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court
and the Supreme Court and not by any other
inferior court.
106. Viewed in that respect, we state that the
ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2)
[Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of
Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 113] that a special category of sentence;
instead of death; for a term exceeding 14 years
and put that category beyond application of
remission is well founded and we answer the
said question in the affirmative. We are,
therefore, not in agreement with the opinion
expressed by this Court in Sangeet v. State of
Haryana [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2
SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] that the
deprival of remission power of the appropriate
Government by awarding sentences of 20 or 25
years or without any remission as not
permissible is not in consonance with the law
and we specifically overrule the same.”
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2220-2221 OF 2022
DEEN DAYAL TIWARI Vs STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH
Citation: 2025 INSC 111.
Dated: JANUARY 16, 2025.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment