Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices B R Gavai, K V Vishwanathan and Sandeep Mehta decided the case of remission of an accused convicted for murder.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala.

What was the Background of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala Case?

• The prosecution alleged that the accused had previously engaged in an illicit relationship with Latha, leading to pregnancy and subsequent termination.
• After Latha distanced herself, tensions arose, culminating in the tragic events of 3rd November 2005.
• On the aforementioned night, the accused allegedly trespassed into the victims' house armed with knives and an iron rod, resulting in the deaths of the victims and injuries to a person named Karthiayani Amma.
• The next morning, domestic help discovered the gruesome scene, prompting neighbors to alert the police.
• The police arrived at the scene, finding evidence of forced entry and discovering the deceased victims.
• Following investigation and trial, the accused's version of events was deemed implausible, leading to his conviction primarily based on circumstantial evidence.
• Upon confirmation before the High Court, the conviction was upheld but the sentence was modified.
  • The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment with a direction that the accused shall not be released for 30 years, including the period already served.
• The accused approached the Supreme Court after being aggrieved by the judgment issued by the High Court.
  • The accused pleaded that the sentence of 30 years without remission is excessive and prayed that the sentence may be appropriately tailored to meet the ends of justice.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court did not interfere with the sentence imposed on the accused
• The court agreed with the High Court's application of the principle established in the case of Swamy Shraddananda.
• However, the court decided to modify the sentence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) imposed by the High Court.
  • Instead of 30 years imprisonment without remission, the court reduced it to 25 years imprisonment without remission, including the period already undergone by the appellant.

What were the Landmark Judgments cited in the Case?

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980):
  • The Supreme Court established the principle of sentencing in cases where the death penalty is not warranted by classifying crimes into the "rarest of the rare" category.
  • It held that the death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases and laid down guidelines for the application of the death penalty, considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983):
  • This case further elaborated on the principles laid down in Bachan Singh regarding the imposition of the death penalty, emphasizing the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2008):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that to avoid a sentence of death, it is possible for the courts to devise a graver form of sentence of imprisonment for life beyond fourteen years.
  • The purpose of such a sentence is to ensure that the society is insulated from the criminal for such a period as the court may specify, including, if warranted by the facts, the entire rest of his life.
• Haru Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2009):
  • The court, while commuting the death penalty, imposed a sentence of 35 years of actual jail sentence without remission, considering factors such as the lack of premeditation and the accused being the sole bread earner for his family.
• Mulla & Another v. State of U.P., (2010):
  • The court reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment for full life, subject to any remission by the Government for good reasons, considering the socioeconomic background of the appellants.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others, (2016):
  • The court affirmed the principle established in Swamy Shraddananda and emphasized the necessity of considering a sentence between fourteen years of imprisonment and the death penalty in cases that fall short of the "rarest of the rare" category but where a mere sentence of fourteen years may be grossly disproportionate.