New Paradigms of Death Sentencing in India: An Analysis of Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Keywords:
Capital punishment, murder, mitigating circumstances, rarest of rareAbstract
Human life is significant and causing or leading to cause human life to cease to exist by another human being is one of the gravest offences in the world. In other words, a person who voluntarily causes the loss of life of another person commits an offence of ‘murder’ and the punishment which reserves for such offence since time immemorial is the ‘death penalty’ which is also commonly known as ‘Capital Punishment’. The Supreme Court of India broadened the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution's protection of the right to life when it ruled that, “Right to Life may include any aspect of life which makes it dignified but not that which extinguishes it and, therefore, any act or activity inconsistent with the continued existence of life shall be Constitutionally void.” The Indian Penal Code, 1860 states in Section 302 that anybody found guilty of murder faces the death penalty or life in jail in addition to a fine.” However, the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ has been evolved by the Indian judiciary through its experience over the years, which makes capital punishment an exception and emphasizes balancing the aggravating circumstances equally with the mitigating circumstances of the offender for the commission of the offence. In other words, it focuses on ‘individualised, principled sentencing’ based both on the crime as well as the criminal. The present case of Manoj & Ors. v. the State of Madhya Pradesh is one such, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court of India tried to strike the balance between the aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances by invoking the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine and evolved some new practical guidelines to collect mitigating circumstances, keeping in view the contemporary relevance and status of the death penalty in India. This is an attempt by the author to critique this conclusion.
References
1. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946.
2. National Crime Records Bureau. (2021). Available at : https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/ crime_in_india_table_additional_table_chapter_reports/TABLE%202A.1.pdf.
3. Para 8 of “Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh”.
4. Para 12 of the Original Judgment.
5. Ibid, Para 46.
6. Id, Para 99.
7. Id, Para 36.
8. Id, Para 182.
9. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898; Para 61 of the Original Judgment.
10. Apala Vatsa. Fading impact of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine : Has the Baton passed to the ‘ public opinion’ approach? International Journal of Law, Management, and Humanities. 2022; 5(2): 711.
11. Supra 14 n., Para 126 and 180 of the Original Judgment.
12. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470.
13. Para 188 of Manoj’s Judgment.
14. Report No. 262 of Law Commission of India on ‘The Death Penalty’, Government of India, August 2015. Para 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.
15. Para 203 of the Original Judgment.
16. Ibid. Para 196.
17. 2004 Bom 1116.
18. AIR 2003 SC 3915.
19. AIR 1999 SC 1926.
20. Cri. Appeal No. 259 of 2004.
21. AIR 2004 SC 4862.
22. Suraiya Saleem. Rarest of rare cases: An appraisal. Aligarh Law Journal. 2012; 20: 230–242.
23. Faizan Mustafa, Yogesh Pratap Singh. On Capital Punishment. RMLNLUJ. 2017; 9(1).
24. Ibid. at p. 17.
25. (1996) 2 SCC 175.
26. Para 198 of the Original Judgment.
27. Para 25 of Ravji’s Judgment.
28. (2011) 13 SCC 706.
29. Para 76 of Rajesh’s Judgment.
30. Para 198 of the Original Judgment.
31. Para 213 of the Original Judgment.
32. Para 211 of the Original Judgment.
33. Para 214 of the Original Judgment.
34. Para 215 of the Original Judgment.
35. Para 216 of the Original Judgment.
36. (2014) 4 SCC 69.
37. Channu Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, Cri. Appl. No(s). 1482–1483 of 2018.
38. Supra 18 n.Error! Bookmark not defined.
39. Para 220 of the Original Judgment.
40. Para 221 of the Original Judgment.
41. Para 222 of the Original Judgment.
42. Para 261 of “Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh”.
43. Para 225 of the Original Judgment.
44. Ibid. Para 227. See. Para 25 of Channu Lal Verma, Para 80–89 of Santosh Bariyar and Para 126 of Bachan Singh.
45. Id. Para 228.
46. Divya Chandrababu. Puducherry woman poisons and kills topper classmate of daughter. Hindustan Times. (2022). [Online] Available from: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tn-woman- poisons-daughter-s-classmate-to-death-for-performing-better-at-school-exams- 101662314721952.html.
47. See Supra 13 n.
48. Economic Times. 2022 Mumbai: Cops crack headless body case; man held for killing wife . The Economic Times. Economic Times; 2022 Online Available from: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/mumbai-news/mumbai-cops-crack-headless-body- case-man-held-for-killing-wife/articleshow/94238050.cms.
49. (2000), 7 SCC 626.
50. State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 3164.
51. Chapter IX. Prison Labour and, Manufactures, Report of the Indian Jails Committee, Vol. 1, Para 191, p. 118.
52. HT Correspondent. How rigorous is rigorous imprisonment? Hindustan Times. (2011). Online Available from: https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/how -rigorous-is-rigorous- imprisonment/story-iI9IUQGLwcZsoGckuIb3IL.html.
53. AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, ‘Bhagavad-gītā As It Is’, Purport to text 21, Chapter 2, The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, India, 1972.
54. Anand U. Constitution bench to rule on the death penalty: Suprem e Court . Hindustan Times. (2022). Online Available from: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/constitution-bench- to-rule-on-death-penalty-101663610427671.html. END NOTES i. In simple terms, ‘death penalty’ refers to a phenomenon wherein the state, following the due procedure established by law, takes away t he life of a person, who is convicted of committing grave offences as per the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A death sentence may be awarded to an offender accused of waging war against the Government of India [Sec. 121]; abetting a mutiny actually committed [Sec. 132]; giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death [Sec. 194]; murder [Sec. 302]; abetment of suicide of a minor, insane, or intoxicated person, if suicide is committed [Sec. 305]; attempt to murder by a life convict if hurt is caused [Sec. 307]; Kidnapping for ransom [Sec. 364-A] and dacoity with murder [Sec. 396] inter alia ii. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore iii. Para 215 of the Original Judgment. The remedy of Life Imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed by the Supreme Court in Mukesh & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2017, commonly known as the ‘Nirbhaya’s Case’ wherein the bench led by Justice Dipak Misra, Just ice R. Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan cited Machhi Singh and observed that, “It has been consistently held that the courts have a duty towards society and that the punishment should be corresponding to the crime and should act as a soothing balm to t he suffering of the victim and their family.” The Court also reiterated what it previously held in Mohfil Khan and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, 2014 , that “The courts while considering the issue of sentencing , are bound to acknowledge the rights of the victims, and their families, apart from the rights of society and the accused. The agony suffered by the family of the victims cannot be ignored in any case [and] it would be the paramount duty of the Court to provide justice to the incidental victims of the crime—the family members of the deceased persons ”. The factors like young age, post -crime good conduct, and absence of criminal antecedents of the accused were not considered and they were sentenced to death penalty in 2014, considering the case to fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’, given the reason of their brutal, diabolic, inhumane, and heinous manner of commissioning of gang-rape using iron -rods in the moving bus. After a long hustle and bustle, they were finally hanged till death on 20th of March 2020. iv. Lehna v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 733 of 2001. The Court in this case defined the following circumstances as ‘rarest of rare’: • “When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. • When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanne ss; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold-blooded murder or gains of a person vis- á-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the motherland. • When murder of a member of a scheduled caste of a minority community, etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of ‘bride burning’ or ‘dowry deaths’ or when murder is committed in order to remarr y for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. • When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance, when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number or persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person , and the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community” v. However, the Supreme Court did neither consider the age of the accused, (wherein all the accused were aged between 25 and 30 years) nor any other mitigating circumstances in Mukesh & Ors. v. State of NCT Delhi and directly awarded death penalty. vi. Siblings, protection of parents, any history of violence or neglect. vii. Surviving family members, whether married, having children, etc. viii. Including conditions of poverty or deprivation, if any. ix. Details of the offence and whether convicted, and sentence served, if any. x. Whether none, temporary, permanent, etc. xi. Mostly in cases of murder. xii. Provided that the offender is not a psycho and is mentally stable. xiii. For example, the case of Ram Niranjan alias ‘Raja Kolander’, who murdered 14 persons (in such a heinous and brutal way, which perhaps a common human being could not even think about), was consequently due to different reasons, which he thought were legitimate circumstances, which compelled him to do so. See ‘The Indian Predator’ for more information. xiv. Provided the judgment in the present case is not overturned or modif ied by a larger bench in the future.
