Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

12/28/21, 1:25 PM Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021
Hi, Avichal Mishra Logout
BOOKMARKS TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS INTERVIEWS FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL


ENVIRONMENT RTI KNOW THE LAW VIDEOS SPONSORED ROUND UPS
JOB UPDATES BOOK REVIEWS EVENTS CORNER LAWYERS & LAW FIRMS CARTOONS SC JUDGMENTS लाइव लॉ
हिंदी ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT

Home / Top Stories / Supreme Court Death...
TOP STORIES
Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

Sohini Chowdhury 28 Dec 2021 10:00 AM
SHARE THIS -
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-death-penalty-capital-punishment-life-sentence-acquittal-2021-188461 1/55
In 2020, the Supreme Court had affirmed death penalty in 8 cases (10 prisoners) and
commuted death sentence to life imprisonment in 3 cases (4 prisoners). The year did not
witness any acquittals. However, 2021 began with acquittal (1 prisoner) and ended with
one (3 prisoners), as well. The Apex Court commutations totalled at 4 cases (5
prisoners). In one of these 4 cases, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence at
the stage of review. The Supreme Court also upheld a High Court decision to convert the
death sentence to life imprisonment (8 prisoners). In 2020, out of 4 prisoners for whom
the sentence was commuted, 1 was awarded life imprisonment, eligible for remission
after 14 years, whereas 3 got fixed term imprisonment of 25 years. In 2021, the Supreme
Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for a fixed term of 30 years for
4 prisoners.
Also Read - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2021-Part 1 [Citations 1 To 250]
In 2021, the cases wherein the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence to life
imprisonment, it was observed that the Courts below had faulted in not applying the
'criminal test', and to evaluate the scope for reformation and rehabilitation. In 3 out of the
4 cases where the sentence was commuted, the Supreme Court categorically noted that
sentence was awarded on the same day the accused was convicted and real opportunity
was not provided on the question of sentence.
Also Read - 100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 3, Judgments 76
-100]
Time and again, and more recently in Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan v. State of
Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584 and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
(2019) 12 SCC 460, the Supreme Court had emphasised that, while imposing sentence,
the Courts ought to take into account the circumstances of both the crime and the
criminal. On 20th October, 2021, at a panel discussion organised to mark the release of
Project 39A's report titled "Deathworthy", the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, Justice
S. Muralidhar had also reckoned - "We need to acknowledge the person we are dealing
with at least at the stage of sentencing".
Also Read - Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code : Important Supreme Court Judgments Of
2021
I. DEATH SENTENCE TO ACQUITTAL
1. Hari Om @ Hero v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1256 of 2017
Prosecution's Case: The complainant's sister-in-law, niece and two nephews were
murdered by the accused. Moreover, valuables were looted from their residence. Upon
investigation, weapons were recovered from the accused along with some valuable
articles. The statement of the surviving five-year old nephew, who was an eyewitness,
was recorded. As per the testimony of a neighbour, on the fateful day, the accused
(including the appellant) were present near the house of the deceased. It was alleged
that a knife was recovered after being pointed out by the appellant (Hari Om).
Also Read - Bank Doesn't Hold Customer's Deposit In Trust; Banker-Depositor
Relationship That Of Creditor-Debtor: Supreme Court
Trial Court: The appellant and five other accused were tried for offences punishable
under Sections 396, 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act)
and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Additional Sessions Judge-2, Firozabad,
convicted the accused for offence under Section 396 IPC and sentenced the appellant to
death, while the other five were awarded life imprisonment.
High Court: The Allahabad High Court confirmed the death sentence imposed on the
appellant, affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to two accused, and acquitted
three.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court acquitted all the accused, including the appellant.
Reasoning:
Against the backdrop of Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2010) 12 SCC 324, which
cautioned the courts to base convictions on the evidence of child witnesses only after
subjecting them to a higher threshold of scrutiny, the inconsistencies in the testimony of
the five year old eyewitness did not inspire confidence of the Court.
• The recovery of murder weapon not supported by a memorandum was not

enough to sustain conviction.
• There was nothing other than the testimony of a neighbour to suggest the
presence of the accused in the neighbourhood on the night of the robbery and
murder. The testimony, doubted by the Court, conviction could not be based on the
same.
• The appellants' fingerprints did not match with the ones taken from the house of
the deceased.
[Death Sentence to Acquittal - One prisoner]
2. Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 434-436 of 2020
Prosecution's case: Momin Khan along with his wife, Nazra, cousin Jaikam Khan and his
son Sajid Khan, killed his father, mother, brother, sister-in-law, nephew and niece over
property dispute and allied enmity.
Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, convicted the appellants
(Momin Khan, Jaikam Khan and Sajid Khan) and Nazra under Sections 302 read with 34
of the IPC and sentenced them to death.
High Court: While confirming the death sentence for the appellants, the Allahabad High
Court acquitted Nazra.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court acquitted all three appellants. Pertinently, it
observed -
"While coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, we are at pains to observe the manner in which
the present case has been dealt with by the trial court as well as by the High Court,
particularly, when the trial court awarded death penalty to the accused and the High
Court confirmed it. The trial court and the High Court were expected to exercise a greater
degree of scrutiny, care and circumspection while directing the accused to be hanged till
death."
Reasoning:
• The testimony of the eye-witnesses were neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable;
• There are inconsistencies with respect to the time of arrest of the accused;
• Since no public witness was examined in support of memo of recovery of the

weapons, the same had to be closely scrutinised;
• There were discrepancies in the account of the prosecution witnesses with

respect to recovery of bloodstained clothes worn at the time of the offence.
Moreover, FSL reports were also inconclusive;
• The prosecution not being able to establish motive proved to be fatal, since there
were neither direct evidence nor reliable eye-witnesses;
• The observations made by the Trial Court and High Court were based on
conjectures and surmises, without any evidence to support the same;
• The High Court had shifted the burden of recovery under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act to the accused even before the prosecution had discharged its initial
burden, which is a blatant violation of the trite law.
[Death Sentence to Acquittal - Three prisoners]
II. DEATH SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT
1. Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1473-1474
of 2017
Prosecution's Case: A five year old girl child was subjected to rape by the appellant
(Irappa). She was strangulated, tied in a gunny bag and disposed of into a stream. In
order to establish its case, the prosecution relied upon three crucial circumstances -
1 The appellant took away the girl from a neighbour's house on the day of the crime;
2 Witnesses last saw the appellant carry gunny bag towards the stream; and
3 Based on the appellant's disclosure statement the body of the deceased was
recovered.
Trial Court: The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302,
376, 364, 366A and 201 of the IPC. He was sentenced to death for committing murder.
High Court: The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Karnataka High Court at
Dharwad.
Supreme Court: Considering that the circumstances had been established by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the
appellant, but commuted death sentence to life imprisonment without premature
release/remission before undergoing actual imprisonment of 30 years for the
commission of murder.
Reasoning:
It was brought to the notice of the Apex Court, that though the Trial Court had considered
that the appellant was a young man belonging to a poor family, but not in the context of
mitigating circumstances. Thereafter, the High Court had noted that there were no
mitigating circumstances. Refuting such observations, the Supreme Court enumerated
the mitigating circumstances as under:
1 No criminal antecedents;
2 No evidence to show commission of offence was pre-planned;
3 No material to show that the appellant would continue to be a threat to society and
cannot be reformed;
4 Conduct of the appellant as per jail records was 'satisfactory', which reflected his
desire to be reformed;
5 Young age (23/25 years) at the time of commission of offence;
6 Weak socio-economic background;
7 Already spent nearly 10 years and 10 months in prison.
[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - One prisoner]
2. Bhagchandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 255-256 of 2018
Prosecution's case: The complainant, the sister-in-law of the appellant (Bhagchandra)
saw him leave her house armed with an axe. She returned to the house to discover the
dead body of her son and to find one of the appellant's brothers dead with his neck
severed from his body. She also saw the appellant attacking her husband.
Trial Court: The Second Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for offences
punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 201 and 506-B of the IPC and awarded
him death sentence for commission of murder.
High Court: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur confirmed the death sentence.
Supreme Court: The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment for a period of
30 year.
Reasoning:
Considering the case was based on direct evidence, the Court found no fault with the
reasoning of the Trial Court to convict the accused. However, the Court observed that
while awarding sentence and confirming the same, the Courts below had not taken into
consideration the mitigating circumstances. Citing Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State
of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460, Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584
and Mofil Khan and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand RP (Criminal) No, 641/ 2015 in Criminal
Appeal No. 1795/2009, the Court noted that it was its bounden duty to take into
consideration the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant. From the
jail records and affidavits of relatives, the Supreme Court gathered that there was scope
for reformation.
3. Lochan Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018
Prosecution's case: The complaint's three year old daughter went missing. The next day
the appellant, who was a neighbour, offered to find the child by conducting certain rituals.
As promised he informed the complainant that her daughter was tied and kept in a sack
near a pole, on the side of a road. The police were intimated about the same and later, on
confession of the appellant the body of the deceased was recovered.
Trial Court: The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh convicted the
appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 201, 302 read with
376A of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and by the same judgment sentenced him to death.
High Court: The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur confirmed the death penalty.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Reasoning:
The Court was convinced that the circumstances were conclusively proved by the
prosecution with no scope for further doubt. However, on the issue of sentence, the
Court observed that neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had considered the
criminal test so as to evaluate the mitigating circumstances. Upholding it to be a duty to
balance the mitigating and aggravating circumstances before reaching a conclusion, the
Court considered -
1 Appellant was only 23 years old at the time of commission of offence;
2 He came from a rural background;
3 No evidence to suggest there was no possibility of reform;
4 Weak socio-economic background;
5 He was studious;
6 Conduct in prison was satisfactory;
7 No criminal antecedents;
8 There was scope for reformation.
III. DEATH SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AT THE STAGE OF REVIEW

Mofil Khan And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, Review Petition (Criminal) No. 641 of 2015 in
Criminal Appeal No. 1795 of 2009
Prosecution's case: There existed property disputes between the review petitioners and
their brother, one of the deceased. They attacked him, while he was offering namaz in the
mosque, with sharp weapons and he succumbed to the injuries. His two sons who were
headed towards the mosque were also killed. Thereafter, the review petitioners murdered
their deceased brother's wife and their four sons (one of whom was a person with
disability).
Trial Court: The review petitioners along with two other accused were convicted under
Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to death.
High Court: The conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the review
petitioners was affirmed by the Jharkhand High Court. The death sentence for the other
two accused were commuted to life imprisonment.
Supreme Court: Considering the brutality of the 'pre-planned attack', whereby innocent
children were killed, the Court applied the 'rarest of rare' doctrine and upheld the death
sentence.
Supreme Court (Review): The sentence of death imposed on the review petitioners were
converted to life imprisonment for 30 years.
Reasoning:
The Trial Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court (in appeal) had considered the
crime test, but not the criminal test. The death sentence was awarded primarily on the
account of the brutality of the crime, without any reference to the reformability of the
review petitioners. The Supreme Court (in review) placed reliance on Mohd. Mannan v.
State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584, wherein the Apex Court had held that before imposing
the extreme penalty of death sentence, the Court should satisfy itself that death
sentence is imperative, as otherwise the convict would be a threat to the society, and that
there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the convict, after giving the convict an
effective, meaningful, real opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence, by
producing material. In review, the Court looked into the socio-economic background;
absence of criminal antecedents, affidavits of family and community members and jail
records on the conduct of the review petitioners to opine that there was possibility of
reform and rehabilitation.
[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - Two prisoners]
IV. UPHELD ORDER OF HIGH COURT COMMUTING SENTENCE
Hari And Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018
Prosecution's case: A girl from the Jat community and a boy from the Jatav community
eloped accompanied by a friend. On their return they along with their family members
were taken to the Panchayat, wherein the girl expressed her desire to marry the boy from
the Jatav community. Infuriated, the members of the Jat community assaulted the boy
and his friend and hung them upside down and burnt their private parts. As per the
decision of the members of the Panchayat all the three - girl, boy and the friend were
hanged to death.
Trial Court: The accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 147,
302 read with 149, 323 read with 149, 324 read with Section 149 and 201 read with
Section 149 of the IPC and Section 3(3)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Out of the 35 accused, 8 were sentenced to
death under Section 302/149 of IPC.
High Court: On appeal, the Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of all the
accused, but converted the death sentence awarded to the 8 to life imprisonment.
Supreme Court: Upheld the conversion of sentence from death to life imprisonment for
the 8 accused. However, it acquitted 3 accused in view of ambiguity in their identity.
Reasoning:
The Court observed that Section 145 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2003 in the United
Kingdom and similar statute in Canada, treat racial and religiously motivated crimes as
aggravating factors for enhanced punishment. Though not codified, the said principle is
also well-recognised in the United States as held in Wisconsin v. Mitchell 508 US 476
(1993). Placing reliance on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 and
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)3 SCC 470, the Court held that honour killing
squarely falls under the aggravating circumstances under the category of 'anti-social and
abhorrent nature of crime'. However, the reasons provided by the High Court, such as,
advance age of the accused, passage of long time after the commission of the crime and
mental sufferings undergone by them, held sway over the Supreme Court.
[Upheld conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment for 8 prisoners]
S. Case Title Case Date of Bench Author Outcome
No. No. Judgment
1. Hari Om @ Crl. 05.01.2021 Justices Justice Acquitted
Hero v. State Appeal U.U. Lalit, U.U. Lalit (Three
of U.P. No. Indu prisoners - One

o U. . o. du p so e s O e
1256 Malhotra sentenced to
of and Krishna death and two
2017 Murari sentenced to
life-
imprisonment)
2. Irappa Crl. 08.11.2021 Justices L. Justice Commuted to
Siddappa Appeal Nageswara Sanjiv Life
Murgannavar Nos. Rao, Sanjiv Khanna Imprisonment
v. State of 1473 - Khanna, B.R. (One prisoner)
Karnataka 1474 Gavai
of
2017
3. Hari & Anr. v. Crl. 26.11.2021 Justices L. Justice L. Affirmed the
State of U.P. Appeal Nageswara Nageswara order of High
No. Rao, Sanjiv Rao Court which
186 of Khanna, B.R. commuted
2018 Gavai death sentence
to life
imprisonment
(Eight
prisoners)
4. Mofil Khan & R.P. 26.11.2021 Justices L. Justice L. Commuted to
Anr. v. State (Crl) Nageswara Nageswara Life
of Jharkhand No Rao B R Rao

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-death-penalty-capital-punishment-life-sentence-acquittal-2021-188461
Imprisonment 14/55
of Jharkhand No. Rao, B.R. Rao Imprisonment
641 of Gavai,B.V. at the stage of
2015 Nagarathna review (Two
in Crl prisoners)
Appeal
No.
1795
of
2009
5. Bhagchandra Crl. 09.12.2021 Justices L. Justice Commuted to
v. State of Appeal Nageswara B.R. Gavai Life
M.P. Nos. Rao, B.R. Imprisonment
255- Gavai,B.V. (One prisoner)
256 of Nagarathna
2018
6. Lochan Crl. 14.12.2021 Justices L. Justice Commuted to
Shrivas v. Appeal Nageswara B.R. Gavai Life
State of Nos. Rao, B.R. Imprisonment
Chhattisgarh 499- Gavai,B.V. (One prisoner)
500 of Nagarathna
2018
7. Jaikam Khan Crl. 15.12.2021 Justices L. Justice Acquitted (3
v. State of Appeal Nageswara B.R. Gavai prisoners)
U.P. Nos. Rao, B.R.
434- Gavai,B.V.
436 of Nagarathna
2020
V. EXECUTIONS STAYED BY THE SUPREME COURT
1. Sandip Madhav Kurhe v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. 8687 of 2021
[Execution Stayed on: 28.09.2021]
[Bench: Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna]
Prosecution's Case: When the accused persons came to know that one of the deceased,
a member of the Dalit community was involved in a love-affair with the daughter of one
of the accused, who belonged to the Maratha caste, they hatched a conspiracy to kill
him. On the pretext of cleaning a septic tank, the accused called all the three deceased to
an isolated place and killed them. Later, mutilated body parts of the deceased were
recovered from the septic tank and a nearby water-less well.
Trial Court: All six accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B,
Section 201 read with Section 120B of the IPC and were sentenced to death.
High Court: The Bombay High Court was convinced that the prosecution has proved the
fact of death of the deceased, and that the circumstances of their death was within the
knowledge of five out of six accused persons. Therefore, the conviction and death
sentence of five accused were upheld, while one whose involvement could not be
satisfactorily established by the prosecution, was acquitted. The Court noted that there
was no remorse felt by the accused and considering the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances it opined that the matter could not be taken out of the ambit of 'rarest of
rare' cases.
Supreme Court: While admitting the appeals, the Supreme Court stayed the execution of
the death sentence imposed on the appellants by its order dated 28.09.2021.
2. Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP (Crl) Nos. 9692-9693 of 2021
[Execution Stayed on: 15.12.2021]
[Bench: Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi]
Prosecution's Case: As the prosecutrix, a five year old girl child, went missing from her
school, her grandmother lodged a report at the police station. The next day the
prosecutrix was found in an injured condition and was rushed to the hospital. The events
as narrated by the prosecutrix disclosed that the appellant took her to an isolated spot
and with the aid of the other accused, raped her.
Trial Court: Convicted the two accused under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(m), 376 (DB),
307 IPC and Section 5(g)(r) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced them
to death.
High Court: From the submissions and the evidence on record, the Madhya Pradesh High
Court was convinced that the prosecution had conclusively proved its case on the lines
as held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
Therefore, it upheld the conviction. Evaluation on the basis of the crime test, criminal test
and the rarest of rare test conducted by the High Court reflected that there were no
substantial mitigating circumstances in the present case. Moreover, the lack of remorse
in the accused persons, the Court felt indicated towards their hardened criminal mindset.
The Court observed that though the accused persons did not succeed in killing her, they
had done all they could to ebb out the life of the prosecutrix and left her thinking she was
already dead. In light of the circumstances as elucidated above, the High Court
confirmed the death sentence of both the accused persons.
Supreme Court: In an appeal, the Supreme Court stayed the execution of the accused-
appellant (Irfan) and, inter alia, directed the Director, Mental Care Hospital, District Indore,
M.P. to constitute a team to conduct his psychiatric evaluation. It further directed the
State to place reports of the Probation officer and the report of the Jail Administration,
with respect to the nature of work performed by the appellant in jail, before the Court by
1st March, 2022 and instructed the Supreme Court registry to list the matter on 22nd
March, 2022 for final disposal.
IV. DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF MERCY PETITION - GROUND FOR COMMUTATION
Jasbir Singh @ Jassa Etc. v. State of Punjab And Ors., SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9650-9651 of
2019
[Date of Order: 09.12.2021]
[Bench: Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi]
Prosecution's Case: The deceased was kidnapped from outside his school. The police
received an anonymous tip of the kidnapping. In the meanwhile, the father of the
deceased received a ransom call. As the police got involved, eventually the kidnappers
decided to kill the deceased.
Trial Court: The appellants (Jasbir and Vikram) and another accused were convicted by
the Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur for having committed offences punishable
under Sections 302, 364A, 201 read with Section 120B of the IPC and were sentenced to
death.
High Court: The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the conviction and the award
of death sentence.
Supreme Court (Appeal): The decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme
Court for the appellants in Vikram Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2010) 3 SCC 56. The
sentence of another co-accused was commuted to life imprisonment.
Supreme Court (Review): The review was dismissed.
Supreme Court (2nd Review): The review filed in view of the later judgment of the
Supreme Court in Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of Indian And Ors. (2014) 9
SCC 737, wherein the Court held that reviews from the judgments where death penalty
was upheld by the Apex Court would be heard in open court before a three-judge bench,
was also dismissed.
Single Judge, High Court: The appellants filed Writ Petitions before the Single Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground of undue and unexplained delay on the
part of the concerned authorities in disposing of their Mercy Petitions, which is a
supervening circumstance for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. The
same were dismissed.
Division Bench, High Court: The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appeal on
the issue of maintainability. It noted that no appeal lies against the order passed by the
Single Judge in exercising criminal jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court in Ram
Kishan Fauzi v. State of Haryana And Ors. (2017) 5 SCC 533.
Supreme Court: The order of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench were assailed
before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court remitted the matter back to the Division
Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration. In view of the delay, the High Court was
requested to expedite the hearing and dispose of the matter, preferably within 3 months
from the receipt of the order.
Reasoning:
Referring to its decision in Shatrughan Chauhan And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors.
(2014) 3 SCC 1, the Court observed the unexplained delay in disposing of Mercy Petition
was one of the supervening circumstances for commutation of sentence of death into
life imprisonment. Pertinently, the Court noted that the writ challenging the delay would
be dealt with separately from the original proceedings and the case would not be
reopened on merits. Therefore, it held that in such a case, intra-Court appeal would be
maintainable.
"The nature of such proceedings by way of a writ petition would be independent, original
and founded on circumstances which occurred after the guilt stood determined by the
criminal courts; and, therefore, such proceedings will certainly be one where remedy by
way of an intra-Court appeal, if the concerned Rules of Letters Patent so permit, would be
maintainable."
Supreme Court on larger concern:
The Court noted that it takes a considerable length of time to complete the first round of
proceedings determining the guilt of the accused, which is followed by the confirmation
proceedings before the Division Bench of the High Court and then the appeal before a
three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, if the second round of proceedings
initiated based on the supervening circumstances are listed before the Single Judge it
would further delay the process. Therefore, the Court opined that the second round of
litigation based on the supervening circumstances can be initiated before the Division
Bench itself if the High Court Rules so permit.
"We may, therefore, observe that if the concerned Rules or Procedure or the provisions of
the Letters Patent Appeal permit so, the High Courts may do well to list the original writ
petitions in the second round of litigation before the Division Bench itself for
consideration."
VII. NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 40 DEATH CASES
On 1st September, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a notification enumerating 40 'Death
Cases' to be listed for hearing from 7th September onwards, 2021. The status of the said
matters at the year end are as under -
S. Case Tite Taken up on (after Latest Status
No. notification)
1. Bibi Sidhika v. State of 23.09.2021 As per last order dated
M.P. 25.11.2021, to be
21.10.2021
listed on 11.01.2022
Crl.A. No. 612/2019
23.11.2021 (at 2 pm) for
24.11.2021 consideration of the
issue of sentencing.
25.11.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
08.09.2021
16.11.2021
17.11.2021
2. Manoj And Ors. v. State 08.09.2021 Judgement reserved
of M.P. on 02.12.2021
14.09.2021
Crl.A. No. 248-

15.09.2021
250/2015
16.09.2021
21.09.2021
22.09.2021
23.09.2021
28.09.2021
29.09.2021
16.11.2021
02.12.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
01.12.2021
3. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. 07.09.2021 Judgment reserved on
State (NCT of Delhi) 06.10.2021

22.09.2021
Crl.M.P.Nos 11759- 30.09.2021
11760/2016 in R.P.(Crl.)
05.10.2021
Nos. 286-287/2012 in
Crl.A.Nos. 98-99/2009 06.10.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
14.09.2021
15.09.2021
16.09.2021
21.09.2021
28.09.2021
29.09.2021
4. Narayan Chetanram 07.09.2021 As per last order dated
Chaudhary And Anr. v. 28.09.2021, hearing

20.09.2021
State of Maharashtra was deferred till
28.09.2021 09.11.2021 as
Crl.M.P.Nos. 5242-
requested by the
5243/2016 in R.P.
Counsel for the
(Crl)Nos. 1139-
appellant.
1140/2000 in
Crl.A.Nos. 25-26/2000 The matter was not
listed after 28.09.2021.
5. Manoj Pratap Singh v. 14.09.2021 Judgment reserved on
State of Rajasthan 05.10.2021

21.09.2021
SLP (Crl) No. 7899-

30.09.2021
7900/2015
05.10.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
07.09.2021
08.09.2021
29.09.2021
6. Madan v. State of Uttar Not listed after
Pradesh notification was
issued.
Crl.A.No. 1381-82/2017
As per last order dated
04.03.2020 the matter
was to be listed on
17.03.2020.
The matter was not
7. Sundar @ Sundararjan 17.11.2021 As per last order dated
v. State of Tamil Nadu 17.11.2021, the matter
R.P. (Crl) No. 159- Listed, but not was to be listed on
160/2013 in Crl.A.No. taken up on: 02.12.2021.
300-301/2011
02.12.2021 It was listed on
02.12.2021, but was

07.12.2021
not taken up.
08.12.2021
14.12.2021
15.12.2021
16.12.2021
8. Rahul v. State of Delhi 21.10.2021 As per last order dated
Ministry of Home 08.12.2021, arguments

25.11.2021
Affairs And Anr. on the issue of
30.11.2021 conviction concluded.
SLP(Crl) No.
01.12.2021 VIMHANS informed
2264/2015
the Court that due to
02.12.2021
under-stuffing
08.12.2021 psychiatric evaluation
of the appellant would

Listed, but not
not be possible. In
taken up on:
view of the same, the
30.09.2021 Institute of Human
05.10.2021 Behaviour And Allied
Sciences, New Delhi

16.11.2021
17.11.2021 was directed to do the
needful.
23.11.2021
24.11.2021
07.12.2021
9. Prakash Nishad @ 22.09.2021 As per last order dated
Kewat Zinak Nisahd v. 22.09.2021, on the
State of Maharashtra request of the Counsel
SLP (Crl) No. 11009- for appellant, the
11010/2015 matter was to be listed
after two weeks.
The matter was not
10. State of Maharashtra v. - Not listed after the
Feroz Abdul Rashid notification was
Khan And Anr. issued.
Diary No. 36628/2017 As per last order dated
02.02.2021, the matter
was to be listed on
13.07.2021 for final
disposal.
The matter was not

11. Ashrat @Arshad Shafiq Listed but not Not taken up after the
Ahmad Ansari v. State taken up notification was
of Maharashtra issued.
07.09.2021
Crl.A.No.776/2012
08.09.2021
23.01.2020, the
14.09.2021 registry was directed
15.09.2021 to list after 15 days.
16.09.2021 The matter was last
listed on 16.12.2021,
21.09.2021
but was not taken up.
22.09.2021
23.09.2021
28.09.2021
29.09.2021
30.09.2021
05.10.2021
06.10.2021
07.10.2021
21.10.2021
26.10.2021
27.10.2021
28.10.2021
09.11.2021
10.11.2021
11.11.2021
16.11.2021
17.11.2021
24.11.2021
25.11.2021
30.11.2021
01.12.2021
02.12.2021
07.12.2021
08.12.2021
14.12.2021
15.12.2021
16.12.2021
12. Rajesh And Anr. v. State Not listed after the
of M.P. notification was
issued.
SLP(Crl)No. 9578-
79/2017 As per last order dated
14.12.2020, interim
bail was granted to the
applicant to take part
in the last rites
ceremonies of a family
member on
20.12.2020.
The matter was not
13. Chotkau v. State of U.P. 07.09.2021 As per last order dated
21.10.2021, arguing
Crl.A. No. 361-62/2018 15.09.2021
Counsel on behalf of
23.09.2021 the appellant was
29.09.2021 undergoing COVID-19
treatment. The matter

21.10.2021
was to be listed on
Listed, but not 16.11.2021.
taken up on:
The matter was not
22.09.2021 listed after 21.10.2021.
30.09.2021
05.10.2021
06.10.2021
07.10.2021
14. Sonam @ Sonu v. State Not listed after the
of Haryana Crl.A.No. notification was
1283-84/2018 issued.
As per last order
(Registrar) dated
26.08.2019 the
appellant was granted
time to file Additional
documents.
The matter was not
15. Mehtab v. State of 15.09.2021 As per last order dated
Uttarakhand 15.09.2021, original
records were to be
Crl.A.No. 1342-43/2018
provided to the
Amicus. If not
available the same
ought to have been
summoned. The
matter was to be listed
after two weeks.
The matter was not
16. Abdul Nassar v. State 30.11.2021 As per the last order
of Kerala And Anr. dated 30.11.2021, the

Listed, but not
court granted time to
Crl.A.No. 1122- taken up on:
the Counsel for the
1123/2018
24.11.2021 appellant to get the
25.11.2021 translations of the
material exhibits from
the High Court.
The matter is to be
listed in the week
commencing
17.01.2022.
17. Pappu v. State of U.P. 14.09.2021 Judgment Reserved on
28.09.2021.
Crl.A.No 1097-98/2018 21.09.2021
23.09.2021
28.09.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
08.09.2021
18. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Not listed after the
U.P. notification was
issued.
SLP(Crl.)No. 5007-
08/2018 As per last order
(Registrar) dated
15.07.2019 the
Counsel for the
respondent was
granted time to file
vakalatnama and
counter affidavit.
The matter was not
19. Bhagwani v. State of 29.09.2021 Judgment reserved on
M.P. 30.11.2021.
24.11.2021
SLP(Crl.) No. 4821-

25.11.2021
4822/2018
30.11.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
28.09.2021
16.11.2021
23.11.2021
20. Veerendra v. State of 06.10.2021 Judgment reserved on
M.P. 21.10.2021.
07.10.2021
Crl.A.No. 5-6/2018
21.10.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
29.09.2021
30.09.2021
05.10.2021
21. Munna Pandey v. State Not listed after the
of Bihar Crl.A.No. 1271- notification was
1272/2018 issued.
As per last order
(Registrar) dated
22.01.2020 the
Registry was directed
to process for listing
before the Court.
The matter was not
22. Dilip Sharma v. State of - Not listed after the
M.P. notification was
issued.
Crl.A.No. 765-66/2016
21.08.2019, deposition
of witnesses were to
be translated and
after four months.
The matter was not
23. State of M.P. v. Not listed after the
Phoolchand Rathore notification was
issued.
SLP(Crl) No. 8047-
18.06.2020, spare
copies were to be filed.
The matter was not
24. State of Bihar v. Not listed after the

Chandra Bhushan And notification was
Ors. issued.
SLP(Crl) No. 5110- As per last order dated
5120/2013 15.01.2019, registry
was directed to list the
matter before a three-
judge bench.
The matter was last
listed on 05.09.2019
and 12.09.2019, but
not taken up after
15.01.2019.
25. Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. - Not listed after the
State of M.P. notification was
issued.
Crl.A.No. 449-450/2019
As per last order
(Registrar) dated
13.02.2020, registry
was directed to
summon complete
proper records from
courts below.
The matter was not
26. Naveen @ Ajay v. State - Not listed after the
of M.P. notification was
issued.
Crl.A.No. 489-490/2019
As per last order
(Registrar) dated
13.12.2019, the Court
was awaiting original
record from the Trial
Court. The matter was
to be listed on
20.03.2020.
The matter was not
listed after 13.12.2019
27. Karan @ Fatiya v. State Not listed after the
of Madhya Pradesh notification was
issued.
Crl.A. No. 572-
13.12.2019 (Registrar)
the registry was
awaiting records from
the Trial Court. The
on 20.03.2020.
The matter was not
28. Mahendra Singh Gond - Not listed after the
v. State of M.P. notification was
issued.
Crl.A.No. 281/2019
As per last order
(Registrar) dated
31.01.2020, the
registry was awaiting
records from the High
Court and Trial Court.
The matter was to be
listed on 07.04.2020.
The matter was not
29. Shahjad Ali @ Ali Ur - Not listed after the
Rehman v. State of notification was
Uttarakhand issued.
Crl.A.No. 491-492/2019 As per last order
(Registrar) dated
was directed to issue
fresh reminders for
records. The matter
was to be listed on
08.04.2020.
The matter was not
30. Rajendran v. State of - Not listed after the
Kerala Crl.A.No. 261- notification was
262/2019 issued.
As per last order
(Registrar) dated
02.12.2019, the
registry was directed
to process for listing
before the Court.
The matter was not
31. Padam @Parmod And - Not listed after the
Ors. v. State of Haryana notification was
issued.
Crl.A.No. 969-975/2019
As per last order
(Registrar) dated
was directed to
process for listing
before the Court.
The matter was not
32. Chandrabhan Sudam - Not listed after the
Sanap v. State of notification was
Maharashtra Crl.A.No. issued.
879/2019
As per last order
(Registrar) dated
14.02.2020, the
registry was awaiting
records from the High
Court and Trial Court.
The matter was to be
listed on 22.04.2020.
The matter was not
33. Bhagwati v. State of 29.09.2021 Judgment reserved on
M.P. 30.11.2021.
SLP(Crl) No. 4821- 24.11.2021
22/2018
25.11.2021
30.11.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
28.09.2021
16.11.2021
23.11.2021
34. Jasbir Singh @ Jassa v. 24.11.2021 Disposed of on
State of Punjab And 09.12.2021.

02.12.2021
Ors.
08.12.2021
SLP (Crl) No. 9650-
9651/2019 09.12.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
30.11.2021
01.12.2021
07.12.2021
35. Anokhilal v. State of Not listed after the
M.P. notification was
Crl.A.No. 62-63/2014 issued.
[Applicability of Section On 18.12.2019, the
309 Cr.P.C] Court decided the
issue of whether the
counsel appointed
through Legal Services
was provided sufficient
opportunity by the Trial
Court to study the
matter. The Court
decided the issue in
favour of the appellant
and set aside the
judgment of conviction
and sentence. For
deciding the other
issues the matter was
to be listed on
18.02.2020.
It was listed on
18.02.2020,
19.02.2020,
27.02.2020,
03.03.2020,
04.03.2020 and
05.03.2020, but was
not taken up for
hearing.
36. Irappa Siddappa 16.09.2021 Judgement
Murgannavar v. State of Pronounced on

21.09.2021
Karnataka 08.11.2021
08.11.2021
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1473
of 2017 Listed, but not
taken up on:
07.09.2021
08.09.2021
14.09.2021
15.09.2021
37. Mofil Khan & Anr. v. 15.09.2021 Judgement
State of Jharkhand Pronounced on

09.11.2021
26.11.2021
R.P. (Crl) No. 641 of
10.11.2021
2015 in Crl Appeal No.
1795 of 2009 26.11.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
07.09.2021
08.09.2021
14.09.2021
21.10.2021
26.10.2021
27.10.2021
28.10.2021
38. Jaikam Khan v. State of 01.12.2021 Judgement
Uttar Pradesh Pronounced on

02.12.2021
15.12.2021
Crl. Appeal Nos. 434-
15.12.2021
436 of 2020
Listed, but not
taken up on:
30.09.2021
05.10.2021
06.10.2021
07.10.2021
25.11.2021
30.11.2021
39. Lochan Shrivas v. State 29.09.2021 Judgement
of Chhattisgarh 10.11.2021 Pronounced on
14.12.2021
Crl. Appeal Nos. 499- 11.11.2021
500 of 2018
14.12.2021
Listed, but not
taken up on:
16.09.2021
21.09.2021
28.09.2021
05.10.2021
06.10.2021
07.10.2021
21.20.2021
26.10.2021
27.10.2021
28.10.2021
09.11.2021
40. Bhagchandra v. State of 23.11.2021 Judgement
Madhya Pradesh Pronounced on

24.11.2021
09.12.2021
Crl. Appeal Nos. 255- 09.12.2021
256 of 2018
Listed, but not
taken up on:
11.11.2021
16.11.2021
[Contents of the table above are as per the information available on the official website
of Supreme Court of India https://main.sci.gov.in]
• Out of these 40 'death cases', 6 matters have been disposed of. In 4 cases the
Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, 1 case resulted
in acquittal and in another the Supreme Court remitted the issue of commutation of
sentence on the ground of supervening circumstances back to the Division Bench of
the High Court.
• Out of the 34 matters that remain to be adjudicated, judgment has been reserved
in 7.
• 18 matters have not been listed after the notification was issued on 01.09.2021.
• 1 matter was listed 33 times after 01.09.2021, but was not taken up.
TAGS SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT DIGESTS DEATH PENALTY LIFE IMPRISONMENT
MERCY PETITIONS COMMUTING DEATH SENTENCE

Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/28/21, 1:25 PM Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

Hi, Avichal Mishra Logout

BOOKMARKS TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS INTERVIEWS FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL

Supreme Court Death Penalty Digest 2021

one (3 prisoners), as well. The Apex Court commutations totalled at 4 cases (5

Also Read - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2021-Part 1 [Citations 1 To 250]

was not provided on the question of sentence.

with at least at the stage of sentencing".

I. DEATH SENTENCE TO ACQUITTAL

Also Read - Bank Doesn't Hold Customer's Deposit In Trust; Banker-Depositor

Relationship That Of Creditor-Debtor: Supreme Court

death, while the other five were awarded life imprisonment.

subjecting them to a higher threshold of scrutiny, the inconsistencies in the testimony of

• The recovery of murder weapon not supported by a memorandum was not

[Death Sentence to Acquittal - One prisoner]

property dispute and allied enmity.

of the IPC and sentenced them to death.

Court acquitted Nazra.

• Since no public witness was examined in support of memo of recovery of the

• There were discrepancies in the account of the prosecution witnesses with

[Death Sentence to Acquittal - Three prisoners]

II. DEATH SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT

1. Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1473-1474

appellant, but commuted death sentence to life imprisonment without premature

release/remission before undergoing actual imprisonment of 30 years for the

mitigating circumstances. Refuting such observations, the Supreme Court enumerated

the mitigating circumstances as under:

2 No evidence to show commission of offence was pre-planned;

5 Young age (23/25 years) at the time of commission of offence;

6 Weak socio-economic background;

7 Already spent nearly 10 years and 10 months in prison.

[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - One prisoner]

2. Bhagchandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 255-256 of 2018

Prosecution's case: The complainant, the sister-in-law of the appellant (Bhagchandra)

him death sentence for commission of murder.

consideration the mitigating circumstances. Citing Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State

[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - One prisoner]

3. Lochan Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018

confession of the appellant the body of the deceased was recovered.

2012 and by the same judgment sentenced him to death.

criminal test so as to evaluate the mitigating circumstances. Upholding it to be a duty to

1 Appellant was only 23 years old at the time of commission of offence;

2 He came from a rural background;

3 No evidence to suggest there was no possibility of reform;

4 Weak socio-economic background;

6 Conduct in prison was satisfactory;

8 There was scope for reformation.

[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - One prisoner]

III. DEATH SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AT THE STAGE OF REVIEW

Criminal Appeal No. 1795 of 2009

two accused were commuted to life imprisonment.

converted to life imprisonment for 30 years.

effective, meaningful, real opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence, by

reform and rehabilitation.

[Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment - Two prisoners]

IV. UPHELD ORDER OF HIGH COURT COMMUTING SENTENCE

death under Section 302/149 of IPC.

the 8 accused. However, it acquitted 3 accused in view of ambiguity in their identity.

[Upheld conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment for 8 prisoners]

S. Case Title Case Date of Bench Author Outcome

No. No. Judgment

1. Hari Om @ Crl. 05.01.2021 Justices Justice Acquitted

Hero v. State Appeal U.U. Lalit, U.U. Lalit (Three

of U.P. No. Indu prisoners - One