Case Note & Summary
The case involved six accused charged with the murder of two infant girls during an attack aimed at their father, Baharan Mian. On July 25, 1985, the accused, armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly with the intent to kill Baharan Mian. During the attack, the accused failed to reach their target and instead inflicted fatal injuries on the two girls, Sahana Khatoon and Chand Tara. The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 of murder under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced them to death, while the other accused were convicted under Section 302/149, IPC. The High Court upheld the death sentence for accused Nos. 1 and 2 but altered the convictions of the remaining accused. The Supreme Court was approached to review the convictions and sentences. The appellants contended that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, that the killings were outside the common object of the assembly, and that the death penalty was not warranted due to procedural violations. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution evidence was credible and that the actions of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not in furtherance of the common object of the assembly. The court emphasized the importance of following the sentencing procedure outlined in Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was not adhered to in this case. Consequently, the court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment for accused Nos. 1 and 2, while setting aside the convictions of accused Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 326/149, IPC, and confirming their sentences for lesser charges. The court highlighted that the death penalty should only be imposed in exceptional cases and that the trial court had failed to provide adequate reasons for such a severe sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - The common object of the unlawful assembly was to kill Baharan Mian, not the two infant girls. The actions of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in killing the girls were not in furtherance of the common object, thus absolving other accused of liability under Section 149, IPC. (Paras 511A-B) B) Criminal Procedure - Death Penalty - Sentencing Procedure - The trial court failed to follow the mandatory requirements of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the opportunity for the accused to present mitigating circumstances before sentencing. This procedural lapse necessitated a reduction of the death penalty to life imprisonment. (Paras 514C, 516C-E) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Special Reasons Clause - The court emphasized the necessity for judges to provide special reasons when imposing the death penalty, highlighting that such sentences should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. The absence of compelling reasons in this case led to the modification of the sentence. (Paras 512D-E, 516C-E)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused were guilty of murder under Section 302, IPC, and whether the death penalty was warranted.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, converting the death sentence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 to life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC, and setting aside the conviction of accused Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 326/149, IPC. The court confirmed their convictions under lesser charges.
Law Points
- Unlawful assembly
- Vicarious liability
- Death penalty
- Sentencing procedure
- Common object
- Special reasons clause
