R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 1 of 19    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

REVIEW PETITON (CRL.) NO.245 OF 2010  

IN  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2009  

M.A. Antony @ Antappan           …Petitioner  

                                                  versus  

State of Kerala           ….Respondent  

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.  

1. The broad allegations against the appellant have been stated in the  

decision of this Court in the criminal appeal out of which the present  

Review Petition arises. It would be more convenient to reproduce the  

allegations from the decision:  

“On the intervening night of 6th and 7th January, 2001,  

when inmates of Aluva Municipal Town of Ernakulam  

District in the State of Kerala were in deep sleep,  

Manjooran House located in the midst of the town  

became a scene of ghastly crime. Six members of one  

family in the Manjooran House lost their lives in a matter  

of three hours, Antony @ Antappan, the appellant herein,  

in search of greener pastures abroad for which purpose

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 2 of 19    

he needed money but was refused to be paid by the  

members of the Manjooran  family, and therefore as per  

the prosecution’s version used knife, axe, and  

electrocuted and strangulated Kochurani and Clara at  

about 10 in the night of 6.1.2001 and Augustine, his wife  

Mary, and their children – Divya and Jesmon at midnight.   

The Manjooran House full of life at 10 in the night by the  

stroke of midnight became a graveyard.  The appellant  

after causing the death of Kochurani and Clara is said to  

have waited for the arrival of other four members of the  

family who had gone to see a film show.  On their arrival  

he turned them into corpses.  He waited for their arrival  

to kill them as he knew that for the two murders  

committed earlier by him he would be suspected by them,  

as he was in the house when they left the house for the  

film show.  The prosecution alleges that all these murders  

were cold blooded, planned and executed with precision  

and the appellant ensured that there is no trace of life left  

in them before he left the scene of occurrence.  When put  

to trial for murders, appellant, however, pleaded  

innocence and claimed trial.”               

2. After trial, the Sessions Court in Ernakulam in Kerala in Sessions  

Case No.154 of 2004 found the appellant guilty of the offences and  

convicted him by judgment and order dated 31st January, 2005. It appears  

that submissions on the question whether the appellant should be awarded  

life sentence or death sentence were addressed on the same day or  

immediately thereafter since on 2nd February, 2005 the Trial Judge  

sentenced the appellant “to be hanged by the neck till he is dead”.  

3. The Trial Judge stated, while awarding the sentence of death, as  

follows:  

“231. The cruel tendency of the accused was writ large even  

in the manner of attack.  His conduct and behaviour is

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 3 of 19    

repulsive to the collective conscience of the society.  It is clear  

that he does not value the lives of others in the least.  The fact  

that the murders in this case were committed in such a  

deliberate and diabolic manner even beyond the slight  

expectation of the victims, without any provocation  

whatsoever from the side of the victims that too having  

enjoyed the hospitality and kindness of the victims, indicate  

the cold blooded and premeditated approach of the accused to  

put to death the victims which included two innocent children  

in their earlier teenages also, for a sordid purpose.  

232. It was clearly come out that his wife and child are not  

residing with the accused.  He does not know even the school  

at which his wife is working as teacher.  Even according to  

him, she has not cared to come to reside with him after the  

incident in this case.  In fact, all my searches for extenuating  

circumstances in this case are in vain.  From various judicial  

pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on  

the subject, it has come out that in the choice of sentence the  

court has to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors  

available on the facts of the case to find out whether special  

reasons do exist to categories [categorize] the case as one  

among the “rarest of rare cases”.  

233. The accused is a hardened criminal beyond any  

correction and rehabilitation.  In this case the culpability has  

assumed the preparation of extreme depravity.  The accused  

is a preferred example of blood thirsty, irreclaimable and  

hardened criminal.  This court is of the view that, to spare such  

a criminal from the gallows is to render the justicing system  

suspect and to have recourse to the lesser alternative in  

sentencing this accused will be a mockery of justice.  As this  

incident had sent tremors in the society and the collective  

conscience of the community as such was shocked, it is not to  

be humane but to be callous to allow such a criminal to return  

to the society.  When multiple murders are committed in the  

most cruel, inhuman, extreme, brutal, gruesome, diabolic,  

revolting and dastardly manner, this court cannot wriggle out  

of the infliction of the extreme penalty.  Matters being so,  

special reasons do exist in this case under Section 354(3) Cr.  

P.C. and this case comes within the category of “rarest of rare  

case” in which the “lesser alternative is unquestionably  

foreclosed.”   

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 4 of 19    

4. The conviction and sentence came up for confirmation before the  

High Court of Kerala in Death Sentence Reference No.5 of 2005.  The  

appellant was also aggrieved by his conviction and sentence and he  

preferred Criminal Appeal No.385 of 2005 against the judgment and  

sentence of the Trial Court.   

5. By a judgment and order dated 18th September, 2006 the High Court  

confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.  

6. On the award of the death sentence, the High Court took the view  

that the crime committed by the appellant was most cruel and diabolical.   

It was observed that he had no respect, no care, no dignity, no mercy for  

human life and his living in this world is most dangerous to society. The  

High Court expressed its views on the sentence to be awarded to the  

appellant in paragraph 49 of the judgement. This reads as follows:  

“49. On the question of sentence all that has been urged  

before us by Mr. Ramakumar is that the present is not a ‘rarest  

of rare’ case where the appellant should be given capital  

punishment.  No arguments have been raised to show any  

mitigating circumstances.  We have reconsidered and yet  

reconsidered every aspect of the case. On every  

reconsideration, our view gets more and more strengthened  

that in the present case, death penalty has to be imposed.  It is  

indeed a rarest of rare case.  In this country of seers and sages,  

even a worm unconsciously trampled under the foot is  

considered to be a sin.  Guided and motivated by tradition of  

non-violence, people in this country do not even think of  

physically harming anyone.  Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of  

the Nation and many other stalwarts brought freedom to this  

Nation from the British Empire by fighting a bloodless war of

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 5 of 19    

independence.  The appellant has trampled these lofty ideals  

and traditions of this country under his foot.  He extinguished  

all members of a family in a most cruel and gruesome manner.   

He became instrumental in causing black and unmitigated  

tragedy and caused shudders to the society.  In causing death  

of six members of a family, he acted in a most cruel and  

diabolical manner.  He used every possible instrument in the  

house to cause their death.  As the confession goes if knives  

would not be enough to kill the inmates, he would use  

furniture in the house to strike them, and if that be not enough  

he would axe them, and even if that be not enough he would  

electrocute them and if still not enough he would strangulate  

them.  In cruelty and brutality, he exceeded all limits.  It is  

unimaginable, unthinkable and difficult to believe that after  

causing six murders by splashing blood all around the house,  

he would sit in the same house for almost five hours as if he  

was not siting amongst six dead people, but amongst trophies  

won by him in a prestigious event.  He has no respect, no care,  

no dignity, no mercy for human life.  His living in this world  

is most dangerous to the society.  We need not refer to various  

judicial precedents as every case has its own facts, but would  

hasten to make reference to only one case which appears  

nearest on facts of the present case.  In Dayanidhi Bisoi v.  

State of Orissa, 2003 Crl.L.J. 3697 (SC), a case which was  

based upon circumstantial evidence, accused was related to  

the deceased.  He was enjoying hospitality and kindness of  

deceased in the evening.  He killed entire family of deceased  

which included a three years child in the night.  Murders were  

committed when the victims were sleeping and there was no  

provocation from the victims.  The motive was only to gain  

financial benefits.  The Supreme Court found it to be case of  

cold blooded murder with premeditated approach of accused.   

It was held to be a rarest of rare case.  The accused was  

sentenced to death.”  

7. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and confirmation of the death  

sentence, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2009 in this  

Court which was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 22nd April,  

2009.  This Court did not at all advert to or discuss the quantum of sentence

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 6 of 19    

awarded to the appellant.  This was decided on its facts and dismissed.  

8. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant  

preferred Review Petition (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 but that was dismissed by  

an order dated 13th April, 2010.    

9. In view of the decision of this Court in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v.   

The Registrar Supreme Court of India & others1 the said review petition  

was re-opened for consideration and that is how it is before us.  

Submissions  

10. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a variety of grounds for  

commuting the death sentence awarded to the appellant into one of life  

sentence.  It was contended that the case was one of circumstantial  

evidence and therefore the sentence of death should not be awarded.   It  

was also contended that this Court as well the High Court and the Trial  

Court failed to consider the probability of reformation of the appellant.  It  

was also contended that the prior history and criminal antecedents of the  

appellant were not relevant in awarding the sentence. It was submitted that  

the Trial Judge had erroneously described the appellant as a hardened  

criminal. In fact, we find that learned counsel for the appellant is correct in  

this submission since there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the  

appellant had previously committed any crime whatsoever. Indeed, there  

                                                           1 (2014) 9 SCC 737

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 7 of 19    

is nothing on record to even suggest that the appellant was a hardened  

criminal.  

11. We do not propose to deal with the submissions advanced by learned  

counsel since similar submissions were raised before us in Rajendra  

Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra in which we have delivered  

judgment today.  The cases cited by learned counsel for the appellant in  

this petition as well as in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik were the same and  

we would only be duplicating our efforts and repeating what we have  

already said.   

12. Apart from the above submissions, it was contended by learned  

counsel for the appellant that the socio-economic circumstances relating to  

the appellant are relevant for an objective consideration of the award of  

sentence and these have not been considered by any court including this  

Court.    

13. It was submitted that the “collective conscience of the society” and  

reference to it for the purposes of imposition of a sentence is totally  

misplaced. It is not possible to determine public opinion through evidence  

recorded in a trial for an offence of murder and it is even more difficult, if  

not impossible, to determine something as amorphous as the collective  

conscience of the society.  

14. Finally, it was submitted that the appellant has been in custody for a

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 8 of 19    

considerable period of time and that by itself is a good ground for  

commutation of his sentence from death to life imprisonment.  In this  

context, it was stated that the appellant was arrested on 18th February, 2001.   

He remained in custody until he was granted bail on 25th January, 2002.   

He was again arrested when the Trial Court convicted him on 31st January,  

2005 and since then he is continuously in custody having spent about 14  

years in custody and about three years on bail.     

Consideration of socio-economic factors  

15. There is no doubt that the socio-economic factors relating to a  

convict should be taken into consideration for the purposes of deciding  

whether to award life sentence or death sentence. One of the reasons for  

this is the perception (perhaps misplaced) that it is only convicts belonging  

to the poor and disadvantaged sections of society that are awarded capital  

sentence while others are not. Although Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab2  

does not allude to socio-economic factors for being taken into  

consideration as one of the mitigating factors in favour of a convict, the  

development of the law in the country, particularly through the Supreme  

Court, has introduced this as one of the factors to be taken into  

consideration. In fact, in Bachan Singh this Court recognised that a range  

of factors exist and could be taken into consideration and accepted this  

                                                           2 (1980) 2 SCC 684

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 9 of 19    

position. In paragraph 209 of the Report it is rather felicitously stated as  

follows:  

“209. There are numerous other circumstances justifying the  

passing of the lighter sentence; as there are countervailing  

circumstances of aggravation. “We cannot obviously feed into a  

judicial computer all such situations since they are astrological  

imponderables in an imperfect and undulating society.”  

Nonetheless, it cannot be over-emphasised that the scope and  

concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must  

receive a liberal and expansive construction by the courts in  

accord with the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3).  

Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers  

has never been too good for them.3 Facts and Figures, albeit  

incomplete, furnished by the Union of India, show that in the past,  

courts have inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme infrequency  

— a fact which attests to the caution and compassion which they  

have always brought to bear on the exercise of their sentencing  

discretion in so grave a matter. It is, therefore, imperative to voice  

the concern that courts, aided by the broad illustrative guide-lines  

indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function with evermore  

scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad  

of legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3) viz. that for persons  

convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death  

sentence an exception. A real and abiding concern for the dignity  

of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's  

instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare  

cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”  

(Emphasis supplied by us).  

 16. Following the view laid down by the Constitution Bench of this  

Court, we endorse and accept that socio-economic factors must be taken  

into consideration while awarding a sentence particularly the ground  

realities relating to access to justice and remedies to justice that are not  

easily available to the poor and the needy.  

                                                           3 We may add that hanging of murderers has never been too good for them either!

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 10 of 19    

17. The consideration of socio-economic factors is tied up with another  

important issue (which need not necessarily or always be taken into  

consideration for sentencing purposes, but could be relevant in a given  

case) and that is whether the convict has had adequate legal representation.  

Several accused persons belonging to the weaker sections of society cannot  

afford defence counsel and they are obliged to turn to the National Legal  

Services Authority, the State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal  

Services Committee for legal representation. While these authorities  

provide the best legal assistance possible at their command, it sometimes  

falls short of expectations resulting in the conviction of an accused and,  

depending upon the facts of the case and the sentencing process followed,  

a sentence of death follows.  

18. That the poor are more often than not at the receiving end in access  

to justice and access to the remedies available is evident from a fairly recent  

report prepared by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee4 which  

acknowledges, through Project Sahyog, enormous delays in attending to  

cases of the poor and the needy. Quality legal aid to the disadvantaged and  

weaker sections of society is an area that requires great and urgent attention  

and we hope that a vigorous beginning is made in this direction in the new  

year.  

                                                           4 Website of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee – www.sclsc.nic.in

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 11 of 19    

19. Reverting to the issue of socio-economic factors, we are not sure  

when this was introduced as a mitigating factor for consideration in  

deciding whether life imprisonment or death sentence should be awarded.  

Be that as it may, the earliest decision to which our attention was drawn is  

State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony5 in which this Court cautioned against being  

overwhelmed by the gravity or brutality of the offence. As held in Bachan  

Singh, it is not only the crime that is of importance in the sentencing  

process but it is also the criminal. With this in view, this Court considered  

the plight of the have-not and commuted the death sentence into one of  

imprisonment for life. This is what this Court said in paragraph 23 of the  

Report:  

“23. The last question is what sentence should be imposed upon  

the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge has imposed  

maximum penalty that could be imposed under the law, namely,  

sentence of death. The murder of near and dear ones including two  

innocent kids is gruesome. We must however be careful lest the  

shocking nature of crime may induce an instinctive reaction to  

the dispassionate analysis of the evidence both as to offence  

and the sentence. One circumstance that stands out in favour of  

the respondent for not awarding capital punishment is that the  

respondent did not commit murder of his near and dear ones  

actuated by any lust, sense of vengeance or for gain. The plight of  

an economic have-not sometimes becomes so tragic that the  

only escape route is crime. The respondent committed murder  

because in his utter helplessness he could not find few chips to  

help his ailing wife and he saw the escape route by putting an  

end to their lives. This one circumstance is of such an  

overwhelming character that even though the crime is detestable  

we would refrain from imposing capital punishment. The  

                                                           5 (1985) 1 SCC 505

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 12 of 19    

respondent should accordingly be sentenced to suffer  

imprisonment for life.” (Emphasis supplied by us).    

20. In Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal v. State of Gujarat6 this Court  

considered the socio-economic condition of the appellant therein, namely  

that he was a migrant labourer and was living in impecunious  

circumstances and therefore it could not be said that he would be a menace  

to society in future. The sentence of death was converted into one of  

imprisonment for life. This is what this Court said in paragraph 13 of the  

Report:  

“…..The appellant was aged 36 years at the time of the occurrence  

and there is no evidence that the appellant had been involved in  

any other criminal case previously and the appellant was a migrant  

labourer from U.P. and was living in impecunious circumstances  

and it cannot be said that he would be a menace to society in future  

and no materials are placed before us to draw such a conclusion.  

We do not think that the death penalty was warranted in this  

case…...”    

21. Similarly, in Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab7 the poverty of the  

convict was taken into consideration as a factor for sentencing. This Court  

in paragraph 46 of the Report held as follows:  

“Extreme poverty had driven the appellant to commit the  

gruesome murder of three of his very near and dear family  

members – his wife, minor son and daughter. There is nothing on  

record to show that appellant is a habitual offender. He appears to  

be a peace-loving, law abiding citizen but as he was poverty-  

stricken, he thought in his wisdom to completely eliminate his  

family so that all problems would come to an end. Precisely, this  

appears to be the reason for him to consume some poisonous  

substances, after committing the offence of murder.” (Emphasis  

supplied by us).  

                                                           6 (2005) 3 SCC 127  7 (2009) 10 SCC 434

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 13 of 19    

22. In Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh8 this Court specifically noted in  

paragraph 80 of the Report that one of the factors that appears to have been  

left out in judicial decision-making on the issue of sentencing, is the socio-

economic factor which is a mitigating factor although it may not dilute the  

guilt of the convict. This is what this Court held:  

“80. Another factor which unfortunately has been left out in  

much judicial decision-making in sentencing is the socio-

economic factors leading to crime. We at no stage suggest that  

economic depravity justify moral depravity, but we certainly  

recognise that in the real world, such factors may lead a person  

to crime. The 48th Report of the Law Commission also reflected  

this concern. Therefore, we believe, socio-economic factors  

might not dilute guilt, but they may amount to mitigating  

circumstances. Socio-economic factors lead us to another related  

mitigating factor i.e. the ability of the guilty to reform. It may not  

be misplaced to note that a criminal who commits crimes due to  

his economic backwardness is most likely to reform. This Court  

on many previous occasions has held that this ability to reform  

amounts to a mitigating factor in cases of death penalty.”  

(Emphasis supplied by us).  

23. In Kamleshwar Paswan v. Union Territory of Chandigarh9 this  

Court noted the fact that the convict was a rickshaw puller and a migrant  

with psychological and economic pressures. The socio-economic condition  

of the convict was therefore taken into consideration for the purposes of  

sentencing him. It was held in paragraph 8 of the Report as follows:  

                                                           8 (2010) 3 SCC 508  9 (2011) 11 SCC 564

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 14 of 19    

“8. We cannot also ignore the fact that the appellant was a  

rickshaw-puller and a migrant in Chandigarh with the  

attendant psychological and economic pressures that so often  

overtake and overwhelm such persons. Village Kishangarh is a  

part of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and at a stone's throw  

from its elite sectors that house the Governors of Punjab and  

Haryana, the Golf Club, and some of the city's most important and  

opulent citizens. It goes without saying that most such  

neighbourhoods are often the most unfriendly and indifferent to  

each others' needs. Little wonder his frustrations apparently came  

to the fore leading to the horrendous incident.” (Emphasis supplied  

by us).  

24. Finally, in Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra10 it  

was noted that the convicts were living in acute poverty. However, their  

conduct in jail was heartening inasmuch as they had educated themselves  

and has shown that if given a second chance, they could live a meaningful  

and constructive life. This Court noted as follows:  

“38. At the same time, all the four accused were young in age at  

the time of commission of the offence i.e. 23-29 years. They  

belong to the economically, socially and educationally deprived  

section of the population. They were living in acute poverty. It  

is possible that, being young, they had a yearning for quick money  

and it is these circumstances that had led to the commission of the  

crimes in question. Materials have been laid before this Court to  

show that while in custody all the accused had enrolled  

themselves in Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open  

University and had either completed the BA examination or  

are on the verge of acquiring the degree…….. There is no  

material or information to show any condemnable or reprehensible  

conduct on the part of any of the appellants during their period of  

custody. All the circumstances point to the possibility of the  

appellant-accused being reformed and living a meaningful and  

constructive life if they are to be given a second chance…….”  

(Emphasis supplied by us).  

                                                           10 (2014) 4 SCC 292

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 15 of 19    

25. There is, therefore, enough case law to suggest that socio-economic  

factors concerning a convict must be taken into consideration while taking  

a decision on whether to award a sentence of death or to award a sentence  

of imprisonment for life.   

26. On the facts of the present case, we find from the decision of the  

Trial Court that the convict was working as a driver on a casual basis.  He  

was desirous of obtaining employment in the Gulf and was making all  

attempts in this direction.  He managed to arrange a visa but had to pay the  

agent Rs.62,000/-. Due to severe financial constraints he could only  

arrange Rs.25,000/- for making the initial payment.  He continued making  

attempts to raise the amount.  His economic condition was so severe that  

for the purposes of going to Gulf he had to proceed from Ernakulam to  

Mumbai by train and while he could manage to purchase the ticket, he was  

unable to pay for reservation charges.  Under these circumstances, he had  

gone to the house of the deceased family for getting money or by stealing  

it or by grabbing it by any other means.  It is under this financial and  

economic stress that his presence in the house of the deceased family was  

explained.  But unfortunately for him and the deceased family, he was  

unable to obtain any funds from them and this led to his decision to kill all  

of them.

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 16 of 19    

Public opinion or collective conscience of the society  

27. With regard to the second submission made by learned counsel for  

the appellant, that is, relating to the collective conscience of the society or  

public opinion, we draw attention to an extremely educative discussion on  

the topic in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of  

Maharashtra11 in paragraphs 80 to 89 of the Report. We do not find the  

necessity of repeating the enlightening discussion. We may only note that  

in this decision, reference was made with regard to this topic in Bachan  

Singh in paragraph 126 of the Report to the following effect:  

“126. Incidentally, the rejection by the people of the approach,  

adopted by the two learned Judges in Furman12, furnishes proof of  

the fact that judicial opinion does not necessarily reflect the moral  

attitudes of the people. At the same time, it is a reminder that  

Judges should not take upon themselves the responsibility of  

becoming oracles or spokesmen of public opinion: Not being  

representatives of the people, if is often better, as a matter of  

judicial restraint, to leave the function of assessing public  

opinion to the chosen representatives of the people in the  

legislature concerned.” (Emphasis supplied by us).  

In our opinion therefore, the learned Trial Judge was in error in coming to  

the conclusion that the collective conscience of the society was disturbed  

and felt repulsed by the gravity of the crime committed by the appellant.  

In view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Bachan Singh  

and in Bariyar it would be wise if impressions gathered on what is  

perceived to be public opinion or collective conscience of the society are  

                                                           11 (2009) 6 SCC 498  12 Furman v. Georgia, 33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408 US 238 (1972)

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 17 of 19    

eschewed while sentencing a convict found guilty of a grave or brutal  

crime. On the facts of the present case, we find that there was no material  

whatsoever to come to the conclusion that the gravity of the crime caused  

revulsion in the society or that it had materially disturbed normal life in the  

society. Consequently, the view expressed by the learned Trial Judge in  

this regard must be disregarded for the purposes of imposing an appropriate  

sentence on the appellant.   

Conclusion  

28. On an overall consideration of the facts of the case from the point of  

view of the crime and the criminal, we are of opinion that even though the  

case may be one of circumstantial evidence, it is now well settled that that  

by itself is not enough to convert a sentence of death into a sentence of  

imprisonment for life. We have held so in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik  

and do not feel the necessity of repeating what has already been said.   

29. We are also of opinion that all the courts including this Court  

overlooked consideration of the probability of reform or rehabilitation and  

social reintegration of the appellant into society.  There is no meaningful  

discussion on why, if at all, the appellant could not be reformed or  

rehabilitated.  

30. The Trial Court was in error proceeding on the basis, while awarding  

a sentence of death to the appellant by observing that he was a hardened

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 18 of 19    

criminal. There is no such evidence on material or on record.   

31. The socio-economic condition of the appellant was a significant  

factor that ought to have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court  

as well the High Court while considering the punishment to be given to the  

appellant. While the socio-economic condition of a convict is not a factor  

for disproving his guilt, it is a factor that must be taken into consideration  

for the purposes of awarding an appropriate sentence to a convict.      

32. We do not think it necessary to consider on the facts of this case, the  

period of incarceration of the appellant as a factor for deciding whether or  

not he should be awarded the death sentence. This is a factor that ought to  

have been placed before the Trial Judge and while we could certainly take  

this into consideration, we hesitate to do so in view of some uncertainty in  

this regard. In Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan13 an opinion was expressed  

in paragraph 76 of the Report that since the appellant therein had been  

languishing on death row for more than six years that would be a mitigating  

circumstance in his favour.  There are a number of cases where convicts  

have been on death row for more than six years and if a standard period  

was to be adopted, perhaps each and every person on death row might have  

to be given the benefit of commutation of death sentence to one of life  

imprisonment. The long delays in courts must, of course, be taken into  

                                                           13 (2011) 3 SCC 685

R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009                                    Page 19 of 19    

account, but what is needed is a systemic and systematic reform in criminal  

justice delivery rather than ad hoc or judge-centric decisions.   

33. In view of the above discussion, the death sentence awarded to the  

appellant is converted into a sentence of imprisonment for life.    

34. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.  

                                                                    ………………………J.  

             (Madan B. Lokur)   

  ………………………J.  

             (S. Abdul Nazeer)     

          New Delhi;                                                            .……………………..J.     

          December 12, 2018                        (Deepak Gupta)