Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan commuted the death penalty of an appellant to 20 years imprisonment.                 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. 

What was the Background of Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case? 

• The appellant in this case was convicted by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur for offences punishable under Section 450, 376 (2) (i), 376D, 376A and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 5 (g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)., 
• The appellant was awarded death penalty under Section 376A and 302 and life imprisonment under Section 376D and rigorous imprisonment of 10 years under Section 450 of IPC. 
• The present appeal was filed against the above order and judgment. 
• The counsel for the Appellant has set up the following points in favour of appellant: 
  • The case rests on dying declarations and as the time progressed there were improvements in dying declaration and hence the conviction cannot be based on the dying declarations. 
  • Further, it was the case of the appellant that the present case does not fall within the ambit of rarest of rare case to warrant death penalty. 
  • In the event the Court refuses to interfere with the finding of conviction the Court must consider factors like socio-economic background of appellant, the age of the appellant at the time of commission of offence and also his conduct and behavior that would entitle him for commutation of sentence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court first of all observed that the dying declaration was reliable and trustworthy and hence the Court held that there was no error in finding of conviction by the Courts. 
• The only question that the Court had to consider now was whether the present case fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ to confirm death penalty or the sentence could be commuted. 
• The Court while allowing the commutation considered the following factors: 
  • The psychological assessment of the Appellant and the report of the Senior Probation Welfare Officer does not point anything against the behavior of the Appellant. 
  • His conduct in the prison is found to be satisfactory. 
  • The Appellant lost his mother at the age of 8 years and his elder brother at the age of 10 years and was brought up by his father as a single parent. 
  • Although the age of the appellant at the time of commission of crime solely cannot be taken into consideration, the age of the appellant at the time of commission of crime along with other factors can certainly be taken into consideration. The Appellant was 22 years at the time of commission of offence. 
  • Further, the appellant comes from a socio-economic backward stratum of society. 
  • The Appellant and his family members do not have any criminal background.  
  • It cannot be said that the Appellant is a hardened criminal who cannot be reformed.    
• Thus, considering the factors above the Court held that it cannot be said that the confirmation of death penalty would be justified. 
• However, at the same time we also find that the ordinary sentence of life i.e. 14 years imprisonment with remission would not meet the ends of justice. 
• Thus, the present case is the one that would fall in the middle path. 
• Therefore, the Court held that the death penalty should be commuted to fixed imprisonment without remission for a period of 20 years. 
• Finally, the Court maintained the conviction and commuted death penalty to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.

What are the Provisions Related to Commutation of Sentence? 

• Section 5 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provides for commutation of sentence. 
  • This provision provides that the “Appropriate Government” may without the consent of the offender commute the punishment under this Sanhita to any other punishment in accordance with Section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
  • The term “appropriate Government” would mean:

• Section 474 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides for power to commute sentence. 
  • The Appropriate Government may without the consent of the person sentenced, commute:

• Section 475 of BNSS provides for restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases. 
  • This provision provides that: 
    • Where a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law; or 
    • Where death sentence has been commuted under Section 474 into one of life imprisonment. 
    • In both the above cases the person shall not be released from prison unless he has served at least 14 years of imprisonment.   
• Section 476 of BNSS provides that the powers conferred by Section 473 and Section 474 upon the State Government may in cases of sentences of death also be exercised by the Central Government. 
• Section 477 of BNSS provides that there are certain cases in which the State Government should act in concurrence with the Central Government.

What are the Landmark Cases on Commutation?

• Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerela (2024): 
  • The fundamental underpinning in the cases of commutation is the principle of proportionality. 
  • The aggravating and mitigating circumstances which the Court considers while deciding commutation of penalty from death to life imprisonment, have a large bearing in deciding the number of years of compulsory imprisonment without remission, too. 
  • Some of the factors that the Courts bear in mind are: 
    • The number of deceased who are victims of that crime and their age and gender. 
    • The nature of injuries including sexual assault if any. 
    • The motive for which the offence was committed. 
    • Whether the offence was committed when the convict was on bail in another case. 
    • The premeditated nature of the offence. 
    • The relationship between the offender and the victim. 
    • The abuse of trust if any. 
    • The criminal antecedents; and whether the convict, if released, would be a menace to the society. 
• Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008): 
  • This case resolved the dilemma of a judge while commuting the sentence of death. 
  • Often it happens that a case that falls short of the rarest of the rare category may also be one where a mere sentence of 14 years (the normal benchmark for life imprisonment) may be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. 
  • The Court may find that while death penalty may not be warranted keeping in mind the overall circumstances, a proportionate penalty would be to fix the period between 14 years and for the imprisonment till rest of the life without remission 

When can Death Penalty be Granted? 

• Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offence. It is the highest penalty awardable to an accused. 
• While awarding death penalty the test to be employed is that of rarest of rare case. 
• The expression rarest of rare cases was coined by the Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) and since then, life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty the exception as in India it is awarded only in the gravest of cases. 
• Commutation means substitution of one form of punishment with a lighter form of punishment. 
• Article 72 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) empowers the President to grant pardon to any person who has been awarded death sentence.