Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, by a Division Bench of K. Jayachandra Reddy and M.M. Punchhi, dismissed review petitions arising from Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1994. The petitioner, a convicted accused, had been found guilty by the trial court under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for killing three persons, including a child aged about three years, in a brutal and diabolical manner with a view to commit robbery. The trial court sentenced him to death, and the High Court confirmed the death sentence by judgment dated 26-10-1993. The Supreme Court heard the criminal appeal at length and dismissed it on 10-8-1994, holding that the crime was cold-blooded, brutal, and diabolical and fell within the category of the rarest of rare cases. Thereafter, the accused filed a regular review petition through counsel and also sent a separate unnumbered review petition from jail dated 22-8-1994, both seeking review of the judgment. The review petitions raised points regarding appreciation of evidence and, principally, the age of the accused at the time of the offence. The date of occurrence was 4-8-1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused was only about 17 years old on that date and, therefore, death sentence should not have been imposed. Reliance was placed on Harnam v. State of U.P. and Raisul v. State of U.P., where it was held that a murderer below 18 years of age should be considered too young for the extreme penalty. The petitioner's counsel also cited Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Shankar alias Gauri Shankar v. State of T.N. for the proposition that age is a mitigating circumstance. The State, on the other hand, produced a school leaving certificate showing the accused's date of birth as 1-5-1967, making him more than 20 years old on the date of the offence. The accused had given inconsistent ages at different stages: 22 years when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 26-8-1992, 20 years in the special leave petition filed on 27-1-1994, and 25 years in the jail petition. The trial court had accepted the school leaving certificate, the authenticity of which was never questioned. The Supreme Court examined whether there is an inflexible rule that an accused aged about 17 or 18 years should never be sentenced to death. It noted that neither Bachan Singh nor Machhi Singh nor Allauddin Mian referred to Harnam or Raisul, and there was no indication of such absolute rule. The Court held age is only one of the mitigating circumstances to be weighed against aggravating circumstances. On the evidence, the Court found no merit in the age claim. The school leaving certificate, unchallenged and showing a date of birth of 1-5-1967, established that the petitioner was more than 20 years old on the date of commission. The inconsistent statements of age by the accused and his advocates had no weight. The Court rejected the contention that the accused should be medically examined at this stage, because the certificate's authenticity was never in doubt. It also held that the points regarding appreciation of evidence had no merit since all relevant evidence had already been considered and concurrent findings of guilt were confirmed. Accordingly, the review petitions were dismissed, and the death sentence was confirmed. The judgment primarily favored the prosecution/State.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Age as Mitigating Circumstance - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - The review petition contended that the accused was below 18 years at the time of offence and hence death sentence should be commuted in light of Harnam v. State of U.P. and Raisul v. State of U.P. - The Court held that those cases do not establish an inflexible rule; age is one mitigating circumstance to be weighed with aggravating circumstances - Held that no absolute bar exists, and the claim must be examined on evidence (Paras 3-5). B) Evidence - Proof of Age - School Leaving Certificate - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 394; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - The prosecution produced a school leaving certificate showing date of birth as 1-5-1967, giving age above 20 on offence date - The accused gave inconsistent ages at different stages and never challenged authenticity of certificate - Court held certificate reliable and no medical examination needed, rejecting age below 18 claim - Held that age claim was untenable (Para 6). C) Criminal Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Reappreciation of Evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - The petitioner raised points regarding appreciation of evidence in review - Court noted all relevant evidence had already been considered in detail in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1994 and concurrent findings of guilt were confirmed - Held no merit in evidence grounds, and review not a forum for re-argument (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the convicted accused was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence and consequently entitled to reduction of death sentence to imprisonment for life; whether any grounds existed for review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment confirming death sentence, including alleged errors in appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed by the accused, holding that the age claim was not tenable because the unchallenged school leaving certificate proved he was more than 20 years old on the date of offence, and that no grounds existed to reduce the death sentence. The death sentence and concurrent findings of guilt were confirmed.
Law Points
- Age is not an inflexible bar to death sentence for offenders below 18 years
- age is one of the mitigating circumstances to be weighed with aggravating circumstances
- unchallenged school leaving certificate carries probative value for age determination
- inconsistent oral statements of age have little weight
- review petitions do not permit reappreciation of evidence already considered
