38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, August 05, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

SLP Against Death Sentence Should Not Be Dismissed Without Giving Reasons: SC [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      06 August, 2019 05:08 PM      0 Comments
SLP Against Death Sentence Should Not Be Dismissed Without Giving Reasons: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court in a recent case of Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v. State of Maharashtra has held that special leave petition filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.

A three-judge Bench comprising of Justices A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan and Indira Banerjee was hearing a review petition filed by the petitioner who was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner was awarded death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the trial court for which a Reference to the High Court was made for the confirmation of the death sentence. The petitioner also challenged his conviction and sentences imposed by filing a Criminal Appeal before the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction under the aforesaid provisions and also confirmed death sentence of the petitioner. Against that judgment, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 458 of 2015. The special leave petition came up for preliminary hearing on January 06, 2015, which was dismissed by passing the following order: "Delay condoned. Dismissed."

Thus, the present review petition was filed seeking review of the aforesaid order of dismissal in limine.

Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for the petitioner, submitted before the court that in a case where conviction is followed by death sentence, and the special leave petition is filed thereagainst, such petition should not be dismissed in limine and in case the Supreme Court still finds it fit to do so, some reasons need to be recorded.

The senior counsel relied on Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra to contend that, in those cases where death sentence is imposed, the court should summon the record when it is making the final order even at the stage of special leave petition.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the senior counsel, the court said that there may be cases where at the special leave petition stage itself, the Court may find that insofar as conviction is concerned there is no scope for interference at all as such a conviction for offence under Section 302 is recorded on the basis of evidence which is impeccable, trustworthy, credible and proves the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. At the same time, if death penalty is to be affirmed even while dismissing the special leave petition in limine, it should be by a reasoned order on the aspect of sentence, at least.

Further, the court also said that proper exercise of sentence discretion calls for consideration of various factors like the nature of offence, circumstancesboth extenuating or aggravating, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, his background, his education, his personal life, his social adjustment, the emotional and mental condition of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of his rehabilitation in the life of community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others.

Thus, the court allowing the review petition recalled the order dated January 6, 2015, and restored the special leave petition to its original number.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

bengaluru-court-convicts-ex-mp-prajwal-revanna-in-rape-case
Trending Judiciary
Bengaluru court convicts ex MP Prajwal Revanna in rape case

Bengaluru court convicts ex-MP Prajwal Revanna in rape case linked to explicit videos; one of four sexual abuse cases filed against him.

04 August, 2025 11:07 AM
sc-sets-aside-order-declaring-man-as-juvenile-on-basis-of-school-certificate
Trending Judiciary
SC sets aside order declaring man as juvenile on basis of school certificate [Read Judgment]

SC: School certificate from private school not valid proof of age, sets aside order declaring murder accused as juvenile.

04 August, 2025 11:24 AM

TOP STORIES

a-new-dawn-in-indias-criminal-justice-system-replacing-colonial-shackles-with-indigenous-legal-reforms
Trending Vantage Points
A New Dawn in India’s Criminal Justice System: Replacing Colonial Shackles with Indigenous Legal Reforms

This research paper examines India’s transition from IPC, CrPC, and IEA to BNS, BNSS, and BSA, emphasizing victim-centric and technology-driven justice reforms.

30 July, 2025 12:41 PM
your-conduct-does-not-inspire-confidence-sc-reserves-judgment-on-justice-yashwant-varmas-plea
Trending Judiciary
‘Your Conduct Does Not Inspire Confidence’: SC Reserves Judgment on Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea

CJI can recommend removal of a judge in cases of grave misconduct, SC says; clarifies CJI isn’t a mere post office & Parliament has final say.

30 July, 2025 04:14 PM
cricket-stadium-would-be-required-sc-slams-tn-govt-again-for-roping-2000-accused-500-witnesses
Trending Judiciary
'Cricket stadium would be required,' SC slams TN govt again for roping 2000 accused, 500 witnesses in trial against Senthil Balaji

SC slams TN govt for implicating 2,000 accused & 500 witnesses in Senthil Balaji cash-for-jobs case, says trial needs a cricket stadium to fit all.

30 July, 2025 05:20 PM
accident-on-way-to-office-and-return-to-be-covered-for-compensation-under-ec-act-sc
Trending Judiciary
Accident on way to office and return to be covered for compensation under EC Act: SC [Read Judgment]

SC: Accidents while commuting to and from work covered under Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923; ruling gives retrospective effect to benefit employees.

30 July, 2025 05:28 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email