This article is authored by Gauri Bansal and edited by Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR and Adv. Prapti Singh.
SC/0050/1970
FACTS
The appellant in this case was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a woman and her child.
According to the admitted facts, the appellant had illicit relations with a man who was also involved in a relationship with the deceased.
On discovering this fact, the appellant murdered the woman and her daughter. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and awarded the death seritence, which was subsequently confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A criminal appeal was brought to the Supreme Court.
QUESTION OF LAW
- The question in the present case was regarding the conviction and death penalty awarded by the lower Court and whether any general social pressures concerning the case favored a lesser punishment.
HELD
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant.
The Court said that it was important to examine the social and personal factors concerning the convict while deciding the sentence in order to bolance the reformatory and the deterrent roles of any punishment.
Without being completely in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, the Court acceded that a life sentence was a more humane punishment.
Mitigating considered factors, to be whilst sentencing:
- Whether the accused is too young or too old.
• Whether the accused labored under socio-economic, psychic compulsions, which do not attract a legal exception or convert the offence into o lesser one.
• Whether any general social pressures concerning the case favoured a lesser punishment.
• Whether the co-accused was awarded a lesser sentence of life imprisonment
Whether the accused had acted suddenly under instigation and without premeditation.
In the present case, the Court considered the appellant’s gender and young age as mitigating circumstances along with the fact that she was the mother of a young boy and was expelled from her conjugal home. The Court held that, while these factors were individually inconclusive, when considered together, they warranted commutation of the death sentence. The Court commuted the appellant’s death sentence to life imprisonment.
