Possibility of reformation & rehabilitation of convict act as mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death: SC

feature-top

Read Judgment: Mofil Khan & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Bajpai 

New Delhi, November 29, 2021: The Supreme Court has held that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which has to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death. 

A Larger Bench of Justice L.Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna therefore, observed that there is a bounden duty cast on the Courts to elicit information of all the relevant factors and consider those regarding the possibility of reformation, even if the accused remains silent.   

The background of the case was that there was a property dispute between the review petitioners and their brother, Haneef Khan.The petitioners, along with others, assaulted Haneef Khan, who was offering namaz, with sharp-edged weapons. Hence, Haneef Khan died on the spot. 

The petitioners and others, thereafter, attacked Gufran Khan @ Pala and Imran Khan, who were proceeding to the mosque on hearing their father, and they also died. The petitioners and others rushed into the house of Haneef Khan and murdered Kasuman Bibi, wife of Haneef Khan and their four sons. The first prosecution witness, Gaffar Khan, saw the dead bodies of the family and was informed by his wife, second prosecution witness, about the petitioners and other persons committing the crime. In the meanwhile, the chowkidar of the village informed the police telephonically about the crime. 

The thirteenth prosecution witness, Shambhu Nath Singh, rushed to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the informant, Gaffar Khan. After conduction of post mortem, petitioners and other accused persons were charged for offences u/s 302, 449, 380 r/w/s 34 and section 120B of IPC. Out of the eleven accused persons  7 were acquitted and 4 of the accused individuals were convicted by the Trial Court. 

The petitioners as well as Saddam Khan and Wakil Khan were convicted u/s 302 and 449 r/w/s 34, IPC and sentenced to death for offence u/s 302 r/w/s 34, IPC and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for offence u/s 449 r/w/s 34, IPC. 

When the matter travelled to the High Court, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners, except the separate sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s 449 r/w/s 34, IPC, was done away with. However, the High Court converted the sentence of death in respect of Saddam Khan and Wakil Khan to life imprisonment. When the appeal filed by the petitioners against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by this Court, the present review petition came to be filed. 

After considering the arguments, the Top Court said that the State is under a duty to procure evidence to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. 

To satisfy that the sentencing aim of reformation is unachievable, rendering life imprisonment completely futile, the Court will have to highlight clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme, added the Court. 

Though a valiant effort was made by the petitioner’s counsel seeking re-appreciation of evidence to interfere with their conviction, in view of the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Larger Bench refused to do so. 

Putting an end to the lives of innocent minors and a physically infirm child, apart from other members of the family, in a pre-planned attack, was taken note of by this Court to hold that the case fell under the category of “rarest of the rare” cases, noted the Larger Bench.  

Considering all these facets, the Bench observed that it cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation of the Petitioners, foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making the imposition of death sentence imperative.

The Apex Court, thus,  converted the death sentence imposed on the petitioners to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years

Add a Comment