Case Note & Summary
The review petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the brutal murders of three persons, including a child aged about three years, with the motive of robbery. The trial court sentenced him to death, and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. On 10 August 1994, the Supreme Court dismissed his criminal appeal and confirmed the death sentence, holding that the crime was cold-blooded, brutal, and diabolical, and fell within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases. The petitioner then filed a review petition, and a separate jail petition was also received, seeking review of the judgment. In the review, the petitioner's counsel primarily relied on the ground that the petitioner was 17 years old on the date of occurrence, i.e., 4 August 1987, and therefore, death sentence should not have been awarded. Reliance was placed on Hamam v. State of U.P. and Raisul v. State of U.P., where this Court had held that a murderer below 18 years of age should not be sentenced to death. The petitioner also relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Shankar alias Gauri Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu, which recognized age as a mitigating circumstance in death penalty cases. The Court examined the age of the petitioner as disclosed at various stages. In the jail petition, he stated his age as 25 years; during examination under Section 313 CrPC, he stated he was about 22 years old; before the High Court, his counsel urged that he was a young man of 20 years; and before the Supreme Court, his age was given as 20 years. The Court held that the vague and differing statements as to age were inconsequential and could not be relied upon to conclude that he was below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. The Court noted that the authenticity of the school leaving certificate had never been questioned, and it showed the date of birth as 1 May 1967, making the petitioner more than 20 years old on the date of the offence. The Court held that there is no inflexible rule that a criminal aged about 17 or 18 years should never be sentenced to death, irrespective of other aggravating circumstances. Age is one of the mitigating circumstances, but it is not an absolute bar. The Court distinguished Hamam and Raisul, holding them inapplicable. The Court also rejected the grounds regarding appreciation of evidence, noting that they had already been considered in the main judgment. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed, and the death sentence was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Death Penalty - Age as Mitigating Factor - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The review petitioner contended that being aged about 17 years at the time of commission of the offence, he ought not to be sentenced to death, relying on Hamam v. State of U.P. and Raisul v. State of U.P. - The Court held that there is no inflexible rule that a criminal aged about 17 or 18 years should never be sentenced to death irrespective of other aggravating circumstances; age is a mitigating circumstance but not an absolute bar - Held that the petitioner's age on the date of occurrence, as per his school leaving certificate, was more than 20 years, so the precedents relied upon were inapplicable (Paras 27-29). B) Criminal Procedure - Determination of Age - Conflicting Statements versus Documentary Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - The accused gave different ages at various stages: in a jail petition he stated age 25, during examination under Section 313 CrPC he stated about 22 years, and before the High Court and Supreme Court his counsel stated age 20, while the petitioner claimed 17 years on offence date - The Court held that such vague and differing statements as to age are inconsequential and cannot be used to conclude that he was below 18 years on the date of commission - Held that the school leaving certificate authenticity was never questioned and showed date of birth as 1.5.67, making him more than 20 years old on 4.8.87, so the benefit of leniency based on young age was not available (Paras 25-29). C) Criminal Law - Rarest of Rare Case - Death Sentence for Brutal Murder with Robbery Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 302 IPC for killing three persons including a child aged about three years in a brutal and diabolical manner with a view to committing robbery, and sentenced him to death, which was confirmed by the High Court and earlier by the Supreme Court on 10.8.94 - The Court reaffirmed that the crime was cold-blooded, brutal, and diabolical, and fell within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases warranting death sentence - Held that no grounds existed to reduce the sentence to life imprisonment and the review petitions were dismissed (Paras 25-29).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced to death for murder under Section 302 IPC, was entitled to reduction of sentence to life imprisonment on the ground that he was 17 years old at the time of commission of the offence and age is a mitigating circumstance; whether there is an inflexible rule that a criminal aged 17 or 18 cannot be sentenced to death.
Final Decision
The review petitions were dismissed. The Court held that there is no inflexible rule that an accused aged 17 or 18 cannot be sentenced to death; the petitioner's varying age statements were inconsequential; the school leaving certificate showed date of birth 1.5.67, making him above 20 years on the date of offence; therefore the case did not fall within the principle of Hamam and Raisul, and no grounds existed to reduce the sentence to life imprisonment. The death sentence confirmed earlier was upheld.
Law Points
- There is no inflexible rule that a criminal aged about 17 or 18 years should never be sentenced to death
- age is a mitigating circumstance but not an absolute bar
- conflicting age statements by accused are inconsequential
- school leaving certificate authenticity prevails
- case fell within rarest of rare category
- death sentence confirmed
