MOHD. CHAMAN V. STATE, (2001) 2 SCC 28

Introduction

Mohd. Chaman v. State was a case where felons raped a one-and-a-half-year-old toddler, who died due to the sad occurrence. This Court determined that the offence was serious and horrible, and that the perpetrator had a filthy and depraved mentality with no control over his sexual cravings. Nonetheless, this Court found it impossible to conclude that the defendant was so dangerous that sparing his life would threaten the community. The sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by this Court because the case required a “humanist approach” in determining punishment. 

FACTS

Mohd. Chaman was thirty years old at the time of the occurrence, and the victim girl, Kumari Ritu (dead), was one and a half years old. Bindu Shah , the deceased’s father, lived at House No. 5416/6, Gali No. 4, Shakti Gali, Amar Mohalla, Raghupura, Gandhi Nagar with his wife Smt Lalita and their two daughters Soni and Ritu. Bindu Shah had a tailoring shop near his home. The appellant was living at the same residence, in a room next to Bindu Shah’s. Smt Lalita left her two kids in the custody of a neighbor and headed out for marketing on 10-4-1995, at 7.30 p.m., while Bindu Shah was in his factory. Smit Lalita returned home but did not locate Ritu. She conducted a search in the surrounding area and directed her oldest daughter to contact her brother Vidya Nand Sagar . Vidya Nand Sagar, followed by Shankar , arrived at Smt Lalita’s residence and searched for Ritu, but she was not found. Smt Lalita, on the other hand, saw the appellant’s chamber partially open and peered inside to see Ritu sprawled on the floor and the appellant present. When the appellant saw Smt Lalita, she scooped up Ritu from the ground in her comatose state and passed her over to Smt Lalita. Ritu’s mother discovered him without underwear (kaccha) and dressed in a frock at the time. She noticed multiple bleeding teeth-bite wounds on Ritu’s cheek and other regions of his body. When she inquired about Ritu’s condition, the appellant threatened her to go quietly or else she would suffer the same fate and the police would have no recourse against him. Smt Lalita then dashed to her husband’s factory. Ritu’s parents brought her to a doctor, who recommended them to take her to the hospital right away. Ritu’s parents brought her to a doctor, who recommended them to take her to the hospital right away. The doctor then proclaimed Ritu “brought dead” and took her to Surya Hospital. Meanwhile, other individuals who had gathered at the scene kept the appellant under strict surveillance till Sub-Inspector Magan Singh of Gandhi Nagar Police Station arrived and took charge of the situation. Soon after obtaining information regarding the event, SHO N.S. Khan  arrived at the location. People on the scene informed the police officers that the person in question had raped and murdered Ritu. The inquiry was taken over by SHO N.S. Khan. He discovered teeth-bite marks on the deceased’s breast, neck, belly, and thighs. He also saw that the deceased’s private regions were enlarged. He recorded the statement of Smt Lalita, the deceased’s mother, and that statement was recognised as the case’s FIR. Dr. K. Goel conducted the post-mortem report for Ext. PW 3/A discovered the following external and interior lesions on Ritu’s corpse.

ISSUE

1. Was the trial court and the High Court correct in inflicting the death penalty against the appellant based on the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence on record?
2. Whether the case qualifies as a “rarest of rare” case for application of the death sentence?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The learned Trial judge  on enthusiasm for the proof for the situation in the illumination of settled standards for passing judgment on a case in view of conditional proof, held that the arraignment has prevailed with regards to laying out the responsibility of the blamed and likewise sentenced him under Sections 302 and 376 IPC. With respect to sentence the court considered the important parts of the case like the litigant being a neighbor of the group of the departed, that during the transitory shortfall of the mother of the youngster (expired) from the house he had assumed control over her (perished) to his room where he committed the savage demonstration of assault on the honest kid matured one-and-half years and during the time spent committing assault caused wounds for her liver which brought about death of the kid. The learned preliminary Appointed authority while filtering the applicable materials on record alluded to the standards set somewhere around this Court on account of Bachan Singh v. Province of Punjab, Machhi Singh v. Province of Punjab, Kamta Tiwari v. Province of M.P.3, Laxman Naik v. Province of Orissa and reached the determination that it is a fit case wherein the outrageous punishment of death ought to be granted.

The High Court on evaluating the proof on record held that the preliminary court appropriately sentenced the accused for assault and murder for Kumari Ritu. On the place of sentence the High Court noticed:

“For the situation before us a child young lady matured around one-and-half years, similar to a developing bud of a blossom had been a prey to the desire of a thirty year elderly person and had been killed in a most disgusting way stirring serious and outrageous irateness of the local area. It is a demonstration of outrageous corruption and excites a feeling of repugnance in the psyche of the everyday person. Such a individual is a threat to the general public. Current realities of the case convince us to hold that this is a most extraordinary of the interesting situations where the sentence of death is prominently desirable…” The High Court affirmed capital punishment against the litigant.

ANALYSIS

The disturbing conditions this Court saw that “pre-arranged, determined, unfeeling homicide has forever been viewed as one of an irritated kind”. A few different aggravations were counted in para 202 of the judgment.

In the wake of listing the conditions, this Court added: 

“203. Expressed extensively, there can be no issue with the acknowledgment of these markers yet as we have shown as of now, we would rather not chain legal caution by endeavoring to make a comprehensive count for sure.”

 Comparatively a portion of the relieving conditions recommended by the direction showing up for the situation were identified in para 206 of the judgment: 

“Alleviating possibilities. In the activity of its tact in the above cases, conditions the will consider the accompanying

That the  offense was committed affected by outrageous mental or profound unsettling influence. The age of the denounced. Assuming the accused is youthful or old, he will not be condemned to death. The likelihood that the blamed wouldn’t carry out criminal represents ence as would comprise a proceeding with danger to society. The likelihood that the charge can be improved and restored.

The State will by confirmation demonstrate that the denounced doesn’t fulfill the circumstances (3) and (4) above. 

That in current realities and conditions of the case the charges accepted that he was ethically legitimate in committing the offense.

 That the charge acted under the pressure or mastery of someone else.

The state of the charge showed that he was intellectually blemished and that the imperfection hindered his ability to see the value in the culpability of his direct.”

. We will don’t more than to say that these are without a doubt significant conditions and should be given extraordinary load in the assurance of sentence. A portion of these variables like outrageous youth can rather be of convincing significance. In a few Provinces of India, there are in force unique establishments, as per which a ‘youngster’, that is, ‘an individual who at the date of homicide was under 16 years old’, can’t be attempted, sentenced and condemned to death or detainment for life for homicide, nor managed by a similar criminal method as a grown-up. The unique Demonstrations accommodate a reformatory technique for such adolescent guilty parties or kids.”

The perspectives on most of the Adjudicators were summarized as follows:

“209. There are various different conditions supporting the death of the lighter sentence; as there are balancing conditions of disturbance. ‘We can’t clearly take care of into a legal PC all such circumstances since they are visionary imponderables in a flawed and undulating society.’ Regardless, it can’t be over-stressed that the extension and idea of moderating elements in the space of capital punishment should get a liberal and far reaching development by the courts as per the condemning strategy writ enormous in Segment 354(3). Judges ought to never be ruthless. Hanging of killers has never been excessively really great for them. Raw numbers, though fragmented, outfitted by the Association of India, show that previously, courts have caused the outrageous punishment with outrageous rarity a reality which verifies the mindfulness and empathy which they have consistently presented as a powerful influence for the activity of their condemning caution in so grave a matter. It is, hence, basic to voice the worry that courts, supported by the expansive illustrative rules showed by us, will release the cumbersome capability with evermore trustworthy consideration and others conscious concern, coordinated along the highroad of regulative strategy framed in Segment 354(3), viz., that for people indicted for homicide, life detainment is the standard and capital punishment an exemption

JUDGEMENT

Discussing the issue of applying the “rarest of rare case” criterion to the circumstances of specific instances in the light of the applicable guidelines. This Court noted:   There are several reasons why the community as a whole does not support the humanistic attitude expressed in the ‘death sentence-in-no-case’ dogma. First and foremost, the fundamental humanistic edifice is built on the reverence for life’ concept. When a member of the community breaks this principle by murdering another member, the society may not feel constrained by the constraints of this philosophy.

In the preceding case, this Court determined that the case was not of the “rarest of rare nature,” and so remitted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

CONCLUSION

It can’t be over-stressed that the extension and idea of moderating elements in the space of capital punishment should get a liberal and far reaching development by the courts. This court found it impossible to conclude that the defendant was so dangerous that sparing his life would threaten the community. The sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by this Court because the case required a “humanist approach” in determining punishment. The issue of applying the “rarest of rare case” criterion to the circumstances of specific instances in the light of the applicable guidelines

Written by Harshika Bhutda an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin