New Delhi: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court (SC) on 7 May overturned the death sentence of a man convicted for the rape and murder of a three-year-old, citing a “shabby and perfunctory investigation” that led to the failure of the prosecution’s case.
The court said that the accused, Ramkirat Munilal Goud, was convicted and sentenced even though there was no reliable evidence on record, leading to his incarceration for almost 12 years, of which six years were under the “Damocles sword of death penalty”.
However, the case is not an outlier. For the second year in a row, the Supreme Court has not upheld a single death sentence, according to Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report 2024, published by Project 39A, a criminal justice research and legal aid programme at National Law University (NLU), Delhi. The organisation has since been renamed The Square Circle Clinic and has shifted its base from NLU-Delhi to NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
Usually, in India, the death sentence is awarded in the “rarest of rare” cases, a doctrine established by the SC in the landmark Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) judgment. It is mostly handed for murder, rape and murder, terrorism-related offences or acts of violence causing large-scale destruction, treason or waging war against the state and the rape of minors.
ThePrint analysed 14 SC judgements delivered since 1 January 2023 in which the court set aside or commuted the death penalty awarded mainly to those accused in cases of murder, rape and assault. In 10 cases, the accused were acquitted, while four were commuted from death to life.
The reasons for acquittals ranged from possible evidence tampering to lapses in the trial and a “lackadaisical approach” by authorities. Commutations were granted based on good behaviour in prison, flawed or circumstantial evidence, no criminal history, the potential for reform, and past mental illness or substance abuse.
The Print analysis also found that the courts leaned towards the principles of fairness and justice, even in cases that involved heinous offences, and highlighted mitigating factors such as good conduct and the potential for reform.
The judges who heard these cases included Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, who were frequently involved in rulings that set aside or commuted death penalties to life imprisonment.
The judges cited various reasons in their rulings. In one case, the court pointed to the failure to examine scientific evidence as a major flaw, while in another, it said that changing the accused’s legal counsel late in the trial went against the principles of a fair trial.
Other reasons included a lack of proper evidence and contradictions or “loopholes” in the prosecution’s case or even among the witness testimonies presented by them.
The Supreme Court also flagged the “casual and negligent manner” of probe by investigating officers, circumstantial evidence, and the possibility of a false case fabricated by the police, while acquitting death-row convicts in the last two years.
Apart from this, in cases where the court commuted death sentences to life imprisonment, mostly till the end of the convict’s natural life, the mitigating or aggravating factors were key reasons.
While aggravating factors increase the severity of an act or the accused’s culpability, mitigating factors reduce the severity of the accused’s culpability.
For instance, while criminal history can be an aggravating factor, a prisoner’s good behaviour could be a mitigating factor while deciding a convict’s sentence.
“Ever since the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty in May 1980, there have been serious misgivings about how the death penalty is being used by the courts,” Anup Surendranath, professor of law and Executive Director of The Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR, Hyderabad, told ThePrint.
“However, over the last few years, the Supreme Court has been trying to course correct by recognising the harms inflicted on individuals, who find themselves in a process that is often unfair, unequal and unjust.”
Neetika Vishwanath, Director of Sentencing at The Square Circle Clinic, sees this pattern as the Supreme Court’s reluctance to confirm death sentences rather than principled sentencing in death penalty cases.
“It has been good to see the Supreme Court not confirm death sentences, considering the myriad of problems associated with its administration in a broken criminal justice system. But we must not equate such reluctance with principled sentencing in death penalty cases,” she told ThePrint.
“Principled sentencing requires that the court follow a consistent approach to the sentencing process and give adequate reasons for the imposed punishment. The fact that most commutations in death penalty cases restrict remission for prisoners is an unfortunate outcome of unprincipled sentencing.”
Surendranath said benches have robustly engaged with serious issues such as questionable investigations, low-quality evidence and misuse of forensic evidence. They have turned the spotlight on procedures adopted to determine the punishment.
“Though there is still a significant distance to travel to engage with the unfairness of death penalty administration, the approach of the Supreme Court in recent years certainly provides some hope,” he added.
Also Read: In 2024, most death sentences handed out by Indian courts were for murder, not sexual offences
Analysing the acquittals: Lapses in trial
On 4 March, a bench of Justices Nath, Karol and Mehta acquitted Karandeep Sharma, convicted of allegedly raping and murding his child in 2016. The court said the trial had taken place in a “lopsided” and “lackadaisical” manner.
The bench acquitted the convict after finding that scientific experts who carried out the DNA profiling were not examined, the procedure for collecting and forwarding DNA samples was faulty, and prosecution witnesses gave contradictory testimonies. It also cited a “distorted trial” and possible tampering of DNA samples by the police.
Exactly a month earlier, the same bench overturned the death sentence of murder convict Sovaran Singh Prajapati, citing “glaring” procedural lapses in the trial.
Singh, who was convicted in connection with killing his wife and 12-year-old daughter, did not get access to proper legal representation since his counsel changed multiple times during the trial and witnesses were examined in his absence.
Acquitting him, the Supreme Court observed that persons accused of committing the most heinous crime are also entitled to a “blemish-free” trial.
In another case on 19 October, 2023, a bench of Justices Gavai, P.S. Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra acquitted a 25-year-old man in a rape and murder case involving a three-month-old infant, saying the prosecution failed to support its case with concrete evidence.
The court also said the trial was rushed and did not provide the accused a proper opportunity to defend himself. It added that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence.
In a separate case, a top court bench of Justices Nath, Karol and Mehta quashed the trial and conviction of two men sentenced to death under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The court cited undue haste in conducting the POCSO trial, saying that providing the accused a fair opportunity to defend themselves was “absolutely imperative and non-negotiable”. The trial concluded in less than two months from the date the case was registered.
The prosecution also failed to get scientific experts to testify even though the entire case hinged on a DNA report. Therefore, the bench remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing.
Analysing the acquittals: Casual approach by probe authorities
While some death sentences were overturned because of flawed trials, others were set aside because of shoddy investigations.
For instance, the Supreme Court set aside the death sentence given to a man accused of killing six members of his family in 2012 in a property dispute case from Agra, citing “utter negligence” by the prosecution.
Justices Nath, Karol and Mehta highlighted the “utter lackadaisical approach” by the investigating agencies in probing the “gruesome murders”.
The court noted that officers failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under the Indian Evidence Act while recording witness statements, including those of children. It also said that the investigating officer had failed to identify the accused during the trial.
On similar grounds, the SC, in May 2023, reversed a 2015 Bombay High Court judgement upholding a Thane district court’s decision to hand a death sentence to Prakash Nishad, who was found guilty of raping and killing a six-year-old girl.
It found multiple lapses in the investigation, such as a lack of clarity on who collected the forensic samples, coupled with an unexplained delay in forensic examination.
In a ruling on 28 March 2023, the Supreme Court raised “serious doubt” over the investigation into a 1989 murder case, noting that the possibility of the police framing the accused in the case could not be ruled out.
The bench led by Justice Gavai and comprising Justices Nath and Karol overturned Pule Phukan’s conviction and death sentence.
Going by the evidence on record, the bench suspected that the murder was probably committed by the police themselves, who went to the spot to arrest the victim. Knowing that Phukan and the deceased were not on good terms, the police, the court said, could have framed the accused.
In another instance, a three-judge bench led by Justice Nath acquitted a man from Tripura, sentenced to death, saying that robust circumstantial evidence was needed to establish the sequence of events leading to the murder.
In its judgement delivered on 28 February 2023, the bench noted that, besides not establishing the unimpeachable chain of events, the police had failed to prove the motive behind the murder. Moreover, it faulted the prosecution for relying on the accused’s extra-judicial confession, discarding it as weak evidence.
In yet another instance in July 2023, a division bench led by Justice Nath acquitted a death sentence convict who had by then spent nearly 15 years in jail.
The case from Chhattisgarh had no eyewitnesses, and on perusing the evidence, the court concluded that in all probability the deceased was heavily drunk and fell on a sharp-edged object, after which he succumbed to his injuries.
A look at the commutations
While the court overturned the death sentence in 10 cases for faulty trials or investigations, it commuted death sentences to life in four cases, citing the lack of criminal history, the potential for reform and good conduct in prison. Also, the court did not view these cases as falling in the “rarest of rare” category.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Deen Dayal Tiwari, a man from Faizabad (now Ayodhya), for axing his wife and their four minor daughters to death. But the court modified it to life imprisonment for the rest of his life.
On 16 January, a bench of Justices Nath, Karol and Mehta acknowledged that the crime was “heinous” and deserved the “highest degree of condemnation” while noting that Tiwari was guilty of murder under Section 302, but it modified the man’s death sentence to life imprisonment.
While the offence was undoubtedly brutal, there were certain mitigating factors, like Tiwari’s lack of criminal antecedents and reported conduct in prison, which tilted the scales in favour of commutation, the court said.
“The alternate punishment for offences punishable by death, such as imprisonment for a specific term exceeding 14 years or until the natural life of the convict, remains within the judicial conscience of this Court and the High Court,” it said.
On 28 April 2023, a bench of Justices Gavai, Nath and Karol commuted the death sentence awarded to a man named Digambar by the Bombay High Court for killing his married sister along with her lover in 2017.
Observing that the case did not fall in the “rarest of the rare” category, the court relied on its 2013 ruling in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to say that it is a well-settled principle in law that life sentence is the “rule” while “death is an exception”.
The court noted that Digambar was only 25 years old when the crime was committed and did not have any criminal history. It added that his behaviour in prison had also exhibited helpfulness and leadership qualities.
Subsequently, while the court confirmed his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), it modified his death sentence to life imprisonment.
In a separate case in April, a bench of Justices Karol, Nath and Mehta commuted the death sentence of Reji Kumar, convicted of killing five people. The court cited Kumar’s behaviour during his 16-17 years in prison, the absence of criminal history, his mental health issues and his efforts to be a model prisoner as the reasons for its decision.
The death sentence was handed down by a trial court and later confirmed by the Kerala High Court.
“He is, therefore, removed from death row. However, considering the severity of the crime, the number of persons killed, that out of five, four were his own children, we are of the view that he does not deserve to be set free and direct that he shall spend the remainder of his days in jail, till his last breath,” the court said.
Possibility of reform
More recently, on 17 December 2024, the bench of Justices Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan commuted the death sentence of Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar to 25 years’ life imprisonment. Padhiyar was convicted of the assault, kidnapping and murder of a four-year-old boy.
It noted that most of the evidence was circumstantial and the possibility of reformation could not be ruled out.
“Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out. The option of life imprisonment is also not foreclosed. The case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare category,” the court noted.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: How a ‘dog mafia’ circular landed a Navi Mumbai woman in contempt & earned her a week behind bars