Death penalty not open-ended, must have a finality: SC
‘Good Conduct May Not Be Enough To Modify Sentence’
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:24.01.2020
Revealing judicial discomfort over death row convicts exploiting procedural loopholes to avoid or delay execution for years, the Supreme Court on Thursday said “it is extremely important for death penalty to attain finality”.
Indirectly referring to continuous and separate litigations by the four Nirbhaya case condemned prisoners to delay execution, a bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna said, “Many are under the impression that concurrently awarded death penalty (by trial court, high court and the SC) is open-ended and can be argued against as and when one wishes. Finality of death sentence is extremely important. Recent events have shown that. One cannot go on fighting endlessly on this.”
SC reserves order on Art 370 pleas
The Supreme Court reserved order on whether petitions challenging constitutional validity of the Centre nullifying Article 370 be referred to a larger bench. The Centre said the decision was taken in national interest. P 11
‘We must protect innocent & also punish the guilty’
The court also held that postconviction “good behaviour” in jail may not be sufficient to modify a death sentence as any mitigating circumstances are taken into account by courts at the trial stage. While the court was not against reformation, punishment reflected societal expectation and gravity of crime, the bench said.
The CJI-led bench’s observations came during open court hearing of petitions by one Shabnam and Saleem seeking review of their death sentences. Infuriated by constant objections to their relationship, which had resulted in pregnancy at the time of the crime, Shabnam mixed sedatives in tea and served it to her family members. She then held the heads of her parents and four other family members while Saleem slit their throats. A seventh victim, her brother’s 10-month-old child, was throttled to death. The duo wanted to lay claim over the entire family property.
The bench’s remarks assume significance as the Centre on Wednesday, responding to public resentment over Nirbhaya convicts delaying execution, sought a change in guidelines laid down by the SC in 2014 to protect the rights of death row prisoners. The Centre said the rights of victims and society must also be factored in. When solicitor general Tushar Mehta mentioned this during Thursday’s hearing, the SC said it would separately deal with it.
For Saleem and Shabnam, senior advocates Anand Grover and Meenakshi Arora strenuously attempted to convince the bench that the couple’s exemplary post-conviction conduct should be considered for commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment. Arora said as the couple now had a child to look after the court could exercise forgiveness as they had shown enough signs of reform during incarceration.
The bench asked, “Does the couple having a child mitigate the gravity of their crime? Does it mitigate the murder of a 10-month-old child? Does that mitigate the murder of seven innocent family members? We are not against forgiveness. But it is the law which prescribes punishment for crime. A judge awards punishment as per law, which reflects society’s expectations. We must protect innocent and also punish the guilty. Can a judge forgive a murderer brushing aside evidence if he feels an accused appears innocent?”
Responding to mitigating circumstances cited by Grover and Arora, the bench said, “A court examines mitigating circumstances at the time of sentencing. Can postconviction mitigating circumstances be a ground for commuting death sentence? What we understand is that the sentence should be proportionate to the crime. Seven members of a family were killed through meticulous planning and in cold blood. Is the death sentence proportionate to this crime? All three courts have said yes.
“If post-conviction good behaviour is accepted as mitigating circumstances, then there never will be finality to sentences and it will open the floodgates for petitions seeking commutation of all kinds of sentences.”
The bench then reserved its verdict on the review petitions.
Many are under the impression that concurrently awarded death penalty is openended and can be argued against as and when one wishes. Finality of death sentence is extremely important. Recent events have shown that. One cannot go on fighting endlessly on this
— SUPREME COURT
‘Good Conduct May Not Be Enough To Modify Sentence’
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:24.01.2020
Revealing judicial discomfort over death row convicts exploiting procedural loopholes to avoid or delay execution for years, the Supreme Court on Thursday said “it is extremely important for death penalty to attain finality”.
Indirectly referring to continuous and separate litigations by the four Nirbhaya case condemned prisoners to delay execution, a bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna said, “Many are under the impression that concurrently awarded death penalty (by trial court, high court and the SC) is open-ended and can be argued against as and when one wishes. Finality of death sentence is extremely important. Recent events have shown that. One cannot go on fighting endlessly on this.”
SC reserves order on Art 370 pleas
The Supreme Court reserved order on whether petitions challenging constitutional validity of the Centre nullifying Article 370 be referred to a larger bench. The Centre said the decision was taken in national interest. P 11
‘We must protect innocent & also punish the guilty’
The court also held that postconviction “good behaviour” in jail may not be sufficient to modify a death sentence as any mitigating circumstances are taken into account by courts at the trial stage. While the court was not against reformation, punishment reflected societal expectation and gravity of crime, the bench said.
The CJI-led bench’s observations came during open court hearing of petitions by one Shabnam and Saleem seeking review of their death sentences. Infuriated by constant objections to their relationship, which had resulted in pregnancy at the time of the crime, Shabnam mixed sedatives in tea and served it to her family members. She then held the heads of her parents and four other family members while Saleem slit their throats. A seventh victim, her brother’s 10-month-old child, was throttled to death. The duo wanted to lay claim over the entire family property.
The bench’s remarks assume significance as the Centre on Wednesday, responding to public resentment over Nirbhaya convicts delaying execution, sought a change in guidelines laid down by the SC in 2014 to protect the rights of death row prisoners. The Centre said the rights of victims and society must also be factored in. When solicitor general Tushar Mehta mentioned this during Thursday’s hearing, the SC said it would separately deal with it.
For Saleem and Shabnam, senior advocates Anand Grover and Meenakshi Arora strenuously attempted to convince the bench that the couple’s exemplary post-conviction conduct should be considered for commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment. Arora said as the couple now had a child to look after the court could exercise forgiveness as they had shown enough signs of reform during incarceration.
The bench asked, “Does the couple having a child mitigate the gravity of their crime? Does it mitigate the murder of a 10-month-old child? Does that mitigate the murder of seven innocent family members? We are not against forgiveness. But it is the law which prescribes punishment for crime. A judge awards punishment as per law, which reflects society’s expectations. We must protect innocent and also punish the guilty. Can a judge forgive a murderer brushing aside evidence if he feels an accused appears innocent?”
Responding to mitigating circumstances cited by Grover and Arora, the bench said, “A court examines mitigating circumstances at the time of sentencing. Can postconviction mitigating circumstances be a ground for commuting death sentence? What we understand is that the sentence should be proportionate to the crime. Seven members of a family were killed through meticulous planning and in cold blood. Is the death sentence proportionate to this crime? All three courts have said yes.
“If post-conviction good behaviour is accepted as mitigating circumstances, then there never will be finality to sentences and it will open the floodgates for petitions seeking commutation of all kinds of sentences.”
The bench then reserved its verdict on the review petitions.
Many are under the impression that concurrently awarded death penalty is openended and can be argued against as and when one wishes. Finality of death sentence is extremely important. Recent events have shown that. One cannot go on fighting endlessly on this
— SUPREME COURT
No comments:
Post a Comment