Nishka Srinivas Veluvali –
Published On: December 14, 2021 at 18:00 IST
The Supreme Court recently confirmed Death Penalty to the man Accused for the Triple Murder Case and converted it to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna, Justice L Nageshwar Rao, Justice B.R Gavai were hearing the Appeal filed by the Accused opposing the death sentence awarded to him by Madhya Pradesh High Court by supporting the same sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the Offences under Section 302, Section 201 and Section 506B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench while awarding the death sentence and increasing the punishment to rigorous imprisonment for 30 years and asserted that since the Criminal came from a rural and economically weaker background and he had committed the offence for the first time he could not be considered as a hardened Criminal.
Further the Bench noted the good conduct of the Appellant during incarceration saw a possibility of the Accused being reformed and hence changed his sentence from death to life.
“In deciding whether a Case falls within the category of the rarest of the rare, the brutality and/or gruesome and/or heinous nature of the crime is not the sole criterion. Court has to take into consideration the state of his mind, his socio-economic background etc. Awarding death sentence is an exception and life imprisonment is the rule.”
The Appellant’s Counsel argued that there were certain inconsistencies in the testimonies and also the fact that the Accused is a first time offender so he should be sentenced bit leniently.
To which the Court responded that, “The Statements given by the Witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of Evidence in the Court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify a finding by Court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The Prosecution Evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is shortcoming from which no Criminal Case is free.”
Thus, the Appeals were partially permitted and the Appellant was sentenced rigorous imprisonment of 30 years.