Supreme Court: 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.

 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

Supreme Court: Capital Punishment An Exception; Even In Cases Of Multiple Murders, Avoid Death Sentence If There's Possibility Of Reform

Guided by the above facts, we must scrutinize not

only the nature of the offence but also the totality of

the offender’s circumstances. In the instant case,

while the offence is undoubtedly brutal, certain

mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of

criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in

prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation. There

is no material demonstrating that he would remain a

perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond

reform. Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the

Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a

potentially reformable individual. Further, this Court

has consistently recognized that the imposition of

capital punishment is an exception and not the rule.

Even where multiple murders have been committed,

if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility

of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred. {Para 21}

22. Weighing the totality of circumstances and

having regard to the legal principles discussed above,

we are of the view that while the crime is heinous and

deserves the highest degree of condemnation, it does

not meet the threshold of “the rarest of rare” so as to

irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment.

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.

Print Page

Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Murder & Sexual Assault Of 4 Year Old stating that Possibility Of Reformation Can't Be Ruled Out

 Sentence:

32. The Trial Court has imposed the sentence of death and the High Court has confirmed the same. It is time for us to draw up a balance sheet of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to decide whether the case falls in the category of rarest of rare case. We also need to examine whether the sentence of life imprisonment is foreclosed and the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out.

33. Without doubt, the crime committed by the appellant was diabolic in character. He enticed the innocent child by tempting him with ice-cream and brutally sodomized and murdered the four-year old. The appellant also mercilessly strangulated the deceased. The post-mortem report clearly indicated that death was due to asphyxia by throttling.

34. On the mitigating side, the appellant was 24 years of age when the incident happened; he had no criminal antecedents; the appellant hails from a low socio-economic household as the Mitigation Investigation Report filed by Ms. Komal of Project 39A, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 05.10.2023 indicates. The mitigation report further indicates that experts have opined that the appellant is diagnosed with moderate intensity psychotic features and intellectual disability and that the appellant had in his early childhood contacted Tuberculosis Meningitis (TBM). The appellant, according to the report, maintains family ties with his 64-year-old mother who takes care of his 10 year old daughter. The appellant's wife has deserted him.

35. By an order of 05.10.2023, we also called for the conduct and behaviour of the appellant from the Superintendent of Vadodara Central Jail as well as a report on his mental health. The report from the Superintendent of Vadoara Jail indicates, that the behaviour of the appellant in prison is completely normal and that his conduct in jail is good. The report from the Hospital for Mental Health indicates that the appellant has no psychiatric problem at present. The report does indicate a feeling of remorse in the appellant. The appellant has contended that the projective test adopted by the Hospital for Mental Health has its limitations for reliability. Be that as it may.

36. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out. The option of life imprisonment is also not foreclosed. The case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare case. We are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if we adopt the path carved out in Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767.

37. Even though the case of the appellant falls short of the rarest of rare category, considering the nature of the crime, we are strongly of the view that a sentence of life imprisonment which normally works out for 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. Having regard to the nature of the offence, a sentence of imprisonment for a prescribed period without remission would alone be proportionate to the crime and also not jeopardize the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system.

38. This Court recently in Nawas Alias Mulanavas v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine SC 315, adverting to this aspect had the following to say:—

“29. How much is too much and how much is too little? This is the difficult area we have tried to address here. As rightly observed, there can be no straitjacket formulae. Pegging the point up to which remission powers cannot be invoked is an exercise that has to be carefully undertaken and the discretion should be exercised on reasonable grounds. The spectrum is very large. The principle in Swamy Shraddananda (supra) as affirmed in V. Sriharan (supra) was evolved as the normally accepted norm of 14 years was found to be grossly disproportionate on the lower side. At the same time, since it is a matter concerning the liberty of the individual, courts should also guard against any disproportion in the imposition, on the higher side too. A delicate balance has to be struck. While undue leniency, which will affect the public confidence and the efficacy of the legal system, should not be shown, at the same time, since a good part of the convict's life with freedom is being sliced away (except in cases where the Court decides to impose imprisonment till rest of the full life), in view of his incarceration, care should be taken that the period fixed is also not harsh and excessive. While by the very nature of the task mathematical exactitude is an impossibility, that will not deter the Court from imposing a period of sentence which will constitute “a just dessert” for the convict…..”

39. Applying this principle, we hold that a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 (twenty-five) years without remission would be ‘a just dessert’.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs State of Gujarat 

Decided on December 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3769,2024 INSC 987.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Under which circumstances not conducting DNA test is not fatal to the prosecution case of Rape?

 The argument of Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned senior counsel is that no DNA test was carried out. No doubt, the DNA test was not carried out and it would have been better for the prosecution to have done the same. However, keeping the overall conspectus of the case in mind, we do not think that not conducting DNA test was fatal to the prosecution. We draw support from the judgment of this Court in Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 668, wherein it was held as under:

“53. In view of the nature of the provision under Section 53-ACrPC and the decisions referred to, we are also of the considered view that the lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim. The upshot of this discussion is that even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the court has still a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it, are enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution. In a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to consider whether, despite such a lapse, the various links in the chain of circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused alone in exclusion of all hypothesis of innocence in his favour.”{Para 26}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs State of Gujarat 

Decided on December 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3769,2024 INSC 987.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Under which circumstances Matching of Blood Group of accused with blood group of victim becomes additional link in the chain of circumstances for convicting him?

 Circumstance No. 5 : Matching of Blood Group

25. Blood group on the clothes of the deceased tallied with the blood group of the accused as per Exh.50, the Serological Analysis Report. PW-9 the father of the deceased identified the clothes worn by the deceased on the fateful day. PW-17 the Investigating Officer Gajendra Kumar has clearly deposed that the apparel of the deceased was recovered near the situs of the crime. PW-7 Dr. Kamlesh Kumar who medically examined the appellant deposed that samples of pubic hair, blood, saliva, semen and nails were obtained of the accused and he further deposed that the samples were sealed and the Muddamal was sent for further investigation through police constable to FSL, Surat. Coming back to PW-17, he deposed about receiving the sealed samples and keeping it in safe custody. Thereafter, he deposed that a forwarding note was prepared for analysis of the aforementioned Muddamal and the sealed samples to FSL, Surat and that a constable was deputed to submit the same to FSL, Surat. The receipt obtained was duly filed. The Biological and Serological Reports received from FSL, Surat were marked as Exh.49 and Exh.50 respectively. The Serological analysis clearly showed that the small trouser (leggings), the anal swab (semen) and the perianal swab (semen) had blood of group O. The accused had also blood group O. We are satisfied with the chain of custody as emerging from the evidence. The defence has a case that sample mark H mentioned in Exh.47 which is the forwarding letter to the forensic science laboratory has neither been analyzed in the biological analysis Exh.49 or in the serological analysis Exh.50 and hence tampering cannot be ruled out. The State has countered the submission by contending that sample mark ‘H’ in Exh.47 is a Khaki cover and is not an item recovered from the accused and as such the State counsel contends that in all likelihood sample mark H was a cover in which all other samples were put. The matching of the blood group has occurred in sample F1 which is the anal swab (semen) and F2 perianal swab (semen). The blood group of the aforesaid semen was found to be O. It should be noted that the sample of semen of appellant along with blood and saliva in sample no. G1 to G4 also had blood group O. The judgment in Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 133 cited by the appellant also does not advance the case of the defence. It is clear from the facts of the case, that the blood sample therein was decomposed and its original grouping could not be determined. In any event, coupled with other circumstances indicated hereinabove, we are inclined to consider the matching of blood group as an additional link in the chain as far as the facts of this case is concerned.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs State of Gujarat 

Decided on December 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3769,2024 INSC 987.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Under which circumstances the conduct of accused becomes additional link in the chain of circumstances for convicting him?

Circumstance No. 4 : Conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act:

24. Irrespective of the admissibility of the discovery, panchnama (Exh.18) and the recovery panchnama Exh. 21 and irrespective of the admissibility of the recovery of the clothes of the deceased on the statement of the accused, we find that the conduct of the appellant in leading the investigation team and the panchas and pointing out where the apparel of the deceased was hidden would be admissible. In this case PW-17, the Investigating Officer has clearly deposed that the accused showed willingness to show the place where he had thrown the clothes. PW-17, his team and the panchas reached by walking to the place as indicated by the accused. This Court in A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714 relying on Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 3 SCC 90 held as under:

“9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 3 SCC 90 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 656 : AIR 1979 SC 400]. Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellants (Exts. P-15 and P-16) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8. The evidence of the investigating officer and PWs 1, 2, 7 and PW 4 the spot mahazar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was buried, is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 8 as the conduct of the accused. Presence of A-1 and A-2 at a place where ransom demand was to be fulfilled and their action of fleeing on spotting the police party is a relevant circumstance and are admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.”

We take this as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs State of Gujarat 

Decided on December 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3769,2024 INSC 987.

Print Page

Whether Court can direct convict to perform community service, meditative drill while releasing him on bail during pendency of appeal?

We may gainfully refer to paragraph 19 of the decision of this

Court in Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P . (1978) 1 SCC 579

“19. A few other weighty factors deserve reference.

All deprivation of liberty is validated by

social defense and individual correction along an

anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central

to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice

must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be

minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man,

even through community service, meditative drill,

study classes or other resources should be innovated,

and playing foul with public peace by tampering

with evidence, intimidating witnesses or

committing offences while on judicially sanctioned

“free enterprise”, should be provided against. No

seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on

the Court or community. Thus, conditions may be

hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to

protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic

orientation invoked by the judicial discretion

correlated to the values of our Constitution.”

It could, thus, be seen that this Court has held that punitive

harshness should be minimized and restorative devises to redeem the man, even through community service, meditative drill, etc. should be innovated. We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate in the circumstances to direct the release of the appellants on bail. While doing so, we also find appropriate that the appellants be directed to engage in any spiritual programme or to do some social/community services.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s).196/2018

PRAHLADBHAI JAGABHAI PATEL Vs  THE STATE OF GUJARAT 

Date : 28-01-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 341

Print Page

Supreme court: Court to call report to determine whether accused can be reformed after conviction of accused for offence U/S 302 of IPC

Supreme Court: Dealing with a case relating to paedophilia, the division bench of Hon’ble KS Radhakrishnan and Vikramjit Singh, JJ held that many-a-times, while determining the sentence, the Courts take it for granted, looking into the facts of a particular case, that the accused would be a menace to the society and there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation. It was held that it is the duty of the Court to ascertain those factors and the State is obliged to furnish materials for and against the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. The Court directed the criminal courts, while dealing with offences like Section 302 IPC, after conviction, to call for a report to determine, whether the accused could be reformed or rehabilitated, which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
In the present case which dealt with the gruesome murder of a minor boy aged 10 years after subjecting him to carnal intercourse and then strangulating him to death, the Court was of the view that incarceration of a further period of thirty years, without remission, in addition to the sentence already undergone by the appellant, will be an adequate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case, rather than death sentence. [Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos.1419-1420 of 2012, decided on February 20, 2014]

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra,

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

Print Page