Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
(2009) 6 SCC 498
JUDGES: S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph
Date of Decision: 13-05-2009
FACTS:-
This appeal arise out of a common judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and three connected appeals; one filed by the State and two by the accused, whereby it confirmed and accepted the reference made to it in terms of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the case of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar (appellant in Criminal Case No. 1478 of 2005), and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment in the case of the other accused. Leave has been granted by this Court in the matters.
ISSUE:-
Following two issues have come up before this Court for consideration:
- Whether the learned Sessions Judge acted illegally in granting pardon to the approver?
- Whether the case in hand can be said to be a `rarest of rare cases’?
JUDGMENT:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court for the first issue has observed that the Magistrate can grant pardon to the approver after recording his reasons for doing so and trying to search information on how to get a criminal record pardon in Canada. Condition mentioned in Section 307 refers to the condition laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 306, namely that the person in whose favour the pardon has been tendered will make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge. The power of the Ld. Sessions Judge is not subjected to any condition whatsoever mentioned anywhere in the code. Power of the Ld. Sessions Judge is independent of the provisions contained in Section 306 of the code. In the instant matter, the Ld. Sessions Judge did not pass the order only on the basis of confessional statement made by the approver. But he had applied his mind, by putting relevant questions to him, before taking any action on the application of pardon filed by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the order was held to be legal and valid.
The Court for the second issue has got an opportunity to explain further the ‘rarest of rare’ dictum as has been elaborately explained in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980 CriLJ 636]. The Court observed that the role and responsibility of sentencing court and Appellate court is to follow standard of rigor and fairness. The Court is duty bound to consider both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in order to arrive at the conclusion. True import of rarest of rare doctrine speaks of extraordinary and exceptional case. Sentencing court or appellate court has to reach to finding of rational and objective connection between capital punishment and purpose for which it being prescribed during sentencing process. It is the Court which has to determine whether case at hand fell within the category of rarest of rare case. San Diego Criminal is a criminal defense law firm located in San Diego that was kind enough to provide their time to discuss this topic with us, attempting to shed light on if the facts were correct and what events could transpire. Their expertise helped provide a better understanding by explaining how a similar situation would or has been handled elsewhere in the past.
Rarest of rare dictum breathes life in “special reasons” under Section 354(3) of the code. While explaining the ‘rarest of rare’ dictum, the Court put emphasis on procedural safeguards during sentencing process such as recording of special reasons for awarding death penalty and collection of information regarding the nature, motive and impact of crime, quality of evidence, culpability of convict, socio-economic background of the convict and probability of reformation and rehabilitation. Such instances could shed light in identifying mitigating and aggravating circumstances during sentencing. In regard to this, the Court observed that it was based on the basic principle that life imprisonment is the general rule and capital punishment is the exception to it. Therefore, before awarding death sentence to the convict, the Courts should examine whether the ‘alternative option of life imprisonment was questionably foreclosed’. Thus, in essence, rarest of rare dictum imposes a wide-ranging embargo on award of death punishment, which can only be revoked if the facts of the case successfully satisfy double qualification viz., (i) that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category and (ii) the alternative option of life imprisonment will just not suffice in the facts of the case. Rarest of rare dictum serves as a guideline in enforcing Section 354(3) and entrenches the policy that life imprisonment is the rule and death punishment is an exception. It is a settled law of interpretation that exceptions are to be construed narrowly. That being the case, the rarest of rare dictum places an extraordinary burden on the court, in case it selects death punishment as the favoured penalty, to carry out an objective assessment of facts to satisfy the exceptions ingrained in the rarest of rare dictum. The background analysis leading to the conclusion that the case belongs to rarest of rare category must conform to highest standards of judicial rigor and thoroughness as the norm under analysis is an exceptionally narrow exception.
Further, the Court held the decision of Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan [(1996) 2 SCC 175] as per incuriam because it only considered the aggravating circumstances of the crime without conforming to the Bachan Singh judgment. The Court put a great emphasis on the principal approach to sentencing as given in Bachan Singh’s judgment. It stated that public opinion should not be taken into consideration while awarding death punishment as it could not be objectively examined by the Courts and is in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
HELD:-
The Court held that the Power of the Sessions Judge is independent of the provisions contained in Section 306 and he can pardon an approver after recording sufficient reasons for it. Further, for awarding death sentence Court, while applying the rarest of rare case doctrine, is duty bound to equally consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances and then arrive at conclusion.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
