Summary
The Supreme Court upheld, on circumstantial evidence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC of a father who drowned his two young children, but commuted his death sentence to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life without remission. The trial court had failed to consider his lack of criminal antecedents and his good conduct and relations with the family, and intimidation of witnesses during the trial could not be treated as a prior criminal antecedent.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent findings convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his two children, on circumstantial evidence, called for interference.
- Whether the death sentence was warranted, given mitigating circumstances the trial court did not consider, including absence of criminal antecedents and good conduct.
- Whether conduct during trial, such as intimidating witnesses, can be treated as criminal antecedents to deny mitigation, and whether a case resting on circumstantial evidence bars the death penalty.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The concurrent findings of guilt for the murders of the two children, based on circumstantial evidence tested against the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles, were found to suffer from no error and the conviction was maintained. (¶¶ 6, 18)
- Section 235(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Noting conflicting co-equal Bench decisions on whether sentencing requires a separate hearing on a later date or may be held the same day if the assistance is meaningful, the Court found the time requirement met here and reiterated the reference to a larger Bench made in the death-sentence mitigation guidelines case. (¶ 7)
- Section 366(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The death sentence imposed by the Sessions Court had been submitted to and confirmed by the High Court under this provision; the Supreme Court's appeals arose from that confirmation. (¶¶ 2, 5)
Held
- Both courts below had found the incriminating circumstances proved against the appellant, and on hearing the parties and examining the record the Court found no error in the findings of guilt; the conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of the two children was maintained. (¶¶ 6, 18)
- Because co-equal Benches differ on whether a hearing on sentence under Section 235(2) CrPC must be held on a separate date or may be held the same day if the quality of assistance is assured, the Court reiterated the reference of that question to a larger Bench, though in this case adequate time had been given. (¶ 7)
- An antecedent is something preceding the offence; attempts to intimidate witnesses during the trial, which led to separate cases, could not be used to deny the appellant the mitigating benefit of having no criminal antecedents. Antecedents may be pre-trial or during and after trial, and the appellant had no pre-trial antecedents. (¶ 10)
- The appellant's good behaviour, attested by prosecution witnesses, and his having obtained a job for his sister-in-law showed decent conduct that should have been considered in mitigation; but a bare plea of wishing to serve the elderly, without foundation in the evidence, was rightly rejected as a possible afterthought. (¶ 11)
- Following Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, death penalty is not barred in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, provided the evidence is unimpeachable and the case is exceptional or the option of a lesser sentence is foreclosed; the trial court's failure to address this ground in the sentencing order therefore did not by itself vitiate the sentence. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Given the irrevocability of death, and having surveyed precedents commuting death sentences to imprisonment for the remainder of life, the Court commuted the sentence because the appellant had no criminal antecedents, had good relations with the deceased, and not all mitigating circumstances had been considered; this was not to condone the barbarity of the crime. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murders of the two children maintained; death sentence commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life without remission.