Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a review petition filed by Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan, who had been convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl and sentenced to death. The petitioner, a mason, was engaged at the victim's grandfather's residence. On 28 September 2004, he gave money to the victim to bring betel, then picked her up on his bicycle and was last seen with her. The victim's body was recovered from a field based on the petitioner's alleged disclosure. The trial court convicted him under Sections 366A, 376, 302, and 201 IPC and sentenced him to death, which was confirmed by the Patna High Court and initially by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2009. The review petition was dismissed by circulation. However, following the Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, which mandated that review petitions in death sentence cases be heard in open court by a three-judge bench, the court reopened the review. The court limited its consideration to the question of sentence, as there were concurrent findings on guilt. The court examined the principles from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception, to be imposed only in the 'rarest of rare' cases after considering mitigating circumstances. The court also referred to Rajesh Kumar v. State, which emphasized that even in gruesome cases, death sentence cannot be imposed if there are mitigating factors. The court found that the trial court and High Court did not adequately consider the petitioner's background and the possibility of reformation. Additionally, the court noted that Section 235(2) CrPC requires a separate hearing on sentence, which was not properly complied with. Consequently, the court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, directing that the petitioner serve a minimum of 30 years before consideration for remission.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Commutation - Rarest of Rare Cases - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 235(2) - The petitioner was convicted for rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court, in review, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, holding that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. The court found that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category as there were mitigating circumstances, including the petitioner's background as a mason and the possibility of reformation. The court emphasized that Section 235(2) CrPC requires a separate hearing on sentence, which was not adequately complied with. (Paras 15-20) B) Criminal Procedure - Review Petition - Open Court Hearing - Constitution of India, Article 137; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 362 - Following the Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the court held that review petitions in death sentence cases must be heard in open court by a three-judge bench. The earlier dismissal by circulation was set aside, and the review was heard afresh. (Paras 13-14) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Mitigating Circumstances - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 235(2) - The court reiterated that before imposing death sentence, courts must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Mitigating factors include extreme mental or emotional disturbance, possibility of reformation, and that the accused is not a continuing threat to society. The court found that the trial court and High Court failed to adequately consider these factors. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death sentence imposed on the petitioner should be commuted to life imprisonment in light of the principles laid down in Bachan Singh and subsequent decisions, and whether the review petition should be heard in open court as per Mohd. Arif.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, set aside the earlier dismissal by circulation, and heard the review in open court. The court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, directing that the petitioner shall serve a minimum of 30 years before consideration for remission. The conviction under other sections was upheld.
Law Points
- Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception
- rarest of rare cases
- mitigating circumstances must be considered
- Section 235(2) CrPC requires hearing on sentence
- review petitions in death sentence cases must be heard in open court by three-judge bench
