| CITATION | AIR 1979 SC 964 135 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 22nd February, 1979 |
| COURT | Supreme Court India |
| APPELLANT | Bishnu Deo Shaw |
| RESPONDENT | State of West Bengal |
| BENCH | REDDY,O. CHINNAPPA (J) |
INTRODUCTION
The nature of the death sentence seems to make it necessary that life imprisonment be chosen over the death penalty wherever possible. “The death sentence is different from all other criminal punishments, not in severity but in kind. It stands out for being completely irrevocable. It is distinctive in that it rejects rehabilitation of the offender as the fundamental goal of criminal justice.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant was guilty of killing his son and gave him the death penalty. The Sessions Judge cited the “cruel and brutal” nature of the murder as justification, adding that the evidence demonstrated the accused’s “grim determination” to kill the victim.
The Sessions Judge didn’t mention the accused’s motivation for carrying out the crime.
ISSUE RAISED
When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the Special reasons for such sentence?
JUDGEMENT
The court concurs with his logic and judgment. In fact, the Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, etc. ratio (1), when applied to the current case as it must, leads to the conclusion that the death penalty is inapplicable given the facts of the case. If my memory serves me correctly, the remark’s attorney did remark that given the standards established in Rajendra Prasad’s case, the State did not intend to submit any written arguments against the commutation to life in prison. In agreement with my learned brother, I order that the appeal, limited to the sentence, be granted and that the alternative of life in prison be applied.
CONCLUSION
I don’t believe either the Sessions Judge or the High Court handled the situation correctly. The Sessions Judge erred by inflicting the death penalty without even mentioning the motivation behind the appellant’s murder. The High Court’s judgment that the appellant deserved no sympathy because he displayed no mercy reeks strongly of retaliation and punishment.
REFERENCE
This Article is written by Prazzal Mohanty student of SOA National Institute of Law, BBSR; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
