Misplaced Pages

#785214

137-465: Commander K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra was a 1959 Indian court case where Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover . Commander Nanavati, accused under section 302, was initially declared not guilty by a jury , but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the case was retried as a bench trial . The case

274-421: A pardon might have been seen by the press and public at other times as a blatant misuse of power to help the crony of an influential political family. However, public opinion , in the largely conservative country, was decidedly in favour of Nanavati, seen as an upright naval officer with middle class values and a strong sense of honour. Public opinion held the sentence of life in prison was too harsh and supported

411-464: A remedy . The remedy sought may be money, an injunction , which requires the defendant to perform or refrain from performing some action, or a declaratory judgment , which determines that the plaintiff has certain legal rights. The remedy will be prescribed by the court if the plaintiff wins the case. A civil case can also be arbitrated through arbitration , which may result in a faster settlement, with lower costs, than could be obtained by going through

548-452: A calm and collected Nanavati dropped his family at the movie theatre, drove to his naval base and according to the Navy log, had acquired a gun and rounds, under a false pretext. This indicated that the provocation was neither grave nor sudden and that Nanavati had the murder planned. Ahuja's servant Anjani testified that four shots were fired in quick succession and the entire incident took under

685-465: A close Sindhi friend of Nanavati's. In her testimony in court, Prem's sister Mamie Ahuja, stated that Prem had agreed to marry Sylvia, provided she divorced her husband. However, this was contradicted by the letters written by Sylvia (admitted as Sylvia's testimony), where she expressed her desire to divorce Nanavati and marry Prem, but she doubted whether Prem had the same intentions. In a letter, she wrote "Last night when you spoke of your marrying me and

822-419: A copy of the documents associated with the designation previously assigned to the case. However, it is often more convenient to refer to cases – particularly landmark and other notable cases – by a title of the form Claimant v Defendant (e.g. Arkell v Pressdram ). Where a legal proceeding does not have formally designated adverse parties, a form such as In re , Re or In

959-552: A death sentence is the appropriate punishment. Other landmark judgments which have elaborated on the 'rarest of rare' framework are as follows: The Supreme Court attempted to explore the doctrine of rarest of rare in the Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, July 1983, three years after the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, May 1980 judgment. The court reinstated and reemphasized the principles of sentencing policy propounded in

1096-508: A desire to limit the imposition of the death penalty in India. The CrPC, 1973 also bifurcated a criminal trial into two stages with separate hearings, one for conviction and the other for sentencing. After the completion of proceedings as prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge pronounces the judgment in a case under Section 235. In case of conviction of the accused, there shall be

1233-497: A factor which would lead to a commutation and that no mentally ill person may be executed. In Accused X v. State of Maharashtra, April 2019, the Supreme Court in this case recognized post conviction mental illness as a mitigating factor to convert death penalty to life imprisonment. The SC noting that there appear to be no set disorders or disabilities for evaluating the 'severe mental illness' laid down 'test of severity' as

1370-468: A favourable position to abolish the capital punishment. However, the jurisprudence regarding the capital sentence inordinately changed throughout various landmark judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court of India. The first challenge to the capital punishment in India came during the 1973 case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, October 1972. The judgment came before the CrPC was re-enacted in 1973 , whereby

1507-434: A guiding factor for recognizing those mental illnesses which qualify for an exemption. The court noted that these disorders generally include schizophrenia , other serious psychotic disorders, and dissociative disorders with schizophrenia. Therefore, the test envisaged herein predicates that the offender needs to have a severe mental illness or disability, which simply means that a medical professional would objectively consider

SECTION 10

#1732790495786

1644-468: A judge. The Supreme Court in the said case held that in order to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgements in exercise of its inherent powers. The curative petition would be circulated before the same bench which decided the review petition, if available, or the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The curative petition would be disposed of without oral arguments, unless ordered otherwise by

1781-405: A legal case may occur between parties that are not in opposition, but require a legal ruling to formally establish some legal facts. A civil case, more commonly known as a lawsuit or controversy , begins when a plaintiff files most a document called a complaint with a court, informing the court of the wrong that the plaintiff has allegedly suffered because of the defendant , and requesting

1918-512: A man representing the ideal middle class values as against Ahuja's playboy image , that symbolised the corruption and sleaze of the bourgeois . A copy of Blitz during the trial sold for rupees 2 per copy, up from the normal rate of 0.25 rupees. Peddlers on the street sold Ahuja Towels and toy Nanavati Revolvers. Influential Parsis held regular rallies in Bombay, with Karl Jamshed Khandalavala representing Nanavati. Nanavati had moved in

2055-414: A mandatory pre-sentencing hearing as according to Section 235(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, also contains a provision regarding special reason for death sentence. Section 354(3) of the Code provides that the court must record "Special reasons" justifying the sentence and state as to why an alternative sentence would not meet the ends of justice in the case, according to

2192-518: A minute to occur, thus ruling out a scuffle. Nanavati walked out of Ahuja's residence, without explaining to his sister Mamie (who was present in another room of the flat) that it was an accident. He then unloaded the gun, went first to the Provost Marshal and then to the police to confess his crime, thus ruling out that he was dazed. The deputy commissioner of police testified that Nanavati confessed that he had shot dead Ahuja and even corrected

2329-442: A person belonging to SC/ST or a minority community , dowry-death etc.); (iv)The degree of the crime: Multiple murders of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste , community, or locality; and (v) The Status of the victim: Murder of an innocent child or a helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or infirmity; murder of a person by the murderer who is in a position of domination or trust or murder of

2466-517: A person suspected of a crime is indicted by a grand jury or otherwise charged with the offense by a government official called a prosecutor or district attorney . A criminal case may in some jurisdictions be settled before a trial through a plea bargain . Typically, in a plea bargain, the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge than that which was originally brought by the grand jury or prosecutor. A defendant who goes to trial risks greater penalties than would normally be imposed through

2603-409: A plea bargain. Legal cases, whether criminal or civil, are premised on the idea that a dispute will be fairly resolved when a legal procedure exists by which the dispute can be brought to a factfinder not otherwise involved in the case, who can evaluate evidence to determine the truth with respect to claims of guilt, innocence, liability, or lack of fault. Details of the procedure may depend on both

2740-587: A proposal, mooted by the Blitz, to grant a pardon to the naval officer. The Blitz magazine played a significant part in raising public opinion in favour of Nanavati and keeping the issue alive for over three years until the pardon was granted. Nanavati spent 3 years in prison; it was feared that a pardon for him could elicit an angry reaction from the Sindhi community to which the Ahuja family belonged. At around this time,

2877-524: A public figure generally loved and respected by the community for the services rendered by him and the murder is committed for political or similar reasons other than personal reasons. It focused more on the 'crime factors' or adopted 'crime centric approach' on the sentencing policy of the death sentence. Furthermore, it moved towards the practice of balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances to impose death sentence, where Bachan Singh judgment mandated that death sentence be imposed where life imprisonment

SECTION 20

#1732790495786

3014-489: A remand to the trial court. After convicting an accused, courts must unquestionably hear him on the question of sentence but if they omit to do so, it would be open to the higher court to remedy the breach by giving a real and effective hearing to the accused on the question of sentence. The accused must be permitted to adduce before the Court all the data which he desires to adduce on the question of sentence. The Court may adjourn

3151-440: A sentence was not valid in law as it would amount to legislating a new sentence, and it was also trenching into the domain of the executive. The law provided for certain persons to be exceptions to the liabilities imposed by Criminal law. The law assumes persons such as children below the age of 7 and insane persons to be incapable of understanding the consequences of their act and therefore does not hold them accountable for any of

3288-799: A standard pseudonym ( Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade ) or by an initial ( D v D ). In titles such as R v Adams , however, the initial "R" is usually an abbreviation for the Latin Rex or Regina , i.e. for the Crown . (For an explanation of other terms that may appear in case titles, see the Glossary of legal terms .) [REDACTED] Quotations related to Legal proceedings at Wikiquote Capital punishment in India Capital punishment in India

3425-444: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on the death penalty: holding, in particular, that an excessive delay in carrying out the death sentence was an essential mitigating factor in a plea for commutation. This was also held in a previous case Triveniben V. State of Gujarat & Ors, February 1989 stating that the Court may consider whether there was undue long delay in disposing of mercy petition; whether

3562-639: A trial. The plaintiff must make a genuine effort to inform the defendant of the case through service of process , by which the plaintiff delivers to the defendant the same documents that the plaintiff filed with the court. At any point during the case, the parties can agree to a settlement , which will end the case, although in some circumstances, such as in class actions , a settlement requires court approval in order to be binding. Cases involving separation including asset division, support (also known as maintenance or alimony), and matters related to children are handled differently in different jurisdictions. Often,

3699-548: A young woman in Delhi . In Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura, March 2014, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a minimum of twenty years. It introduced the concept of 'residual doubt' as a mitigating circumstance in Indian sentencing jurisprudence. The court stated that there could be a state of lingering uncertainty that exists, beyond 'reasonable doubt' but below 'absolute certainty'. In 2019,

3836-552: Is an ancient method of execution which was a part of the Roman law , Anglo-Saxon law , English law , French law , and German law . Hanging as a punishment was a prevalent and standard mode of execution until the abolition of capital punishment in the United Kingdom in 1965. This traditional method of execution may involve suspending the convict from a gallows or crossbeam until death occurs from asphyxia , or it may be that

3973-480: Is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence. It was opined that in such cases a deeper scrutiny coupled with reasons in support of death penalty should be given by the Court. A petition seeking review of a judgment or order passed by the Supreme Court may be filed under Article 137 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court within thirty days from

4110-474: Is not available under CrPC, 1898, therefore it violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of India refused to accept the argument and held that the death sentence is pronounced after detailed recording and evaluation of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, thus such procedure justifies the imposition of capital punishment and does not violate Article 21 of

4247-491: Is often erroneously believed to be the last jury trial in India, but there were several trials afterwards that used juries, some well into the 1960s. Nanavati was finally pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit , newly appointed Governor of Maharashtra and sister of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru . The incident received unprecedented media coverage and inspired several books and films such as the 1963 movie Yeh Rastey Hain Pyar Ke,

K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra - Misplaced Pages Continue

4384-591: Is provided for under the Army Act , Navy Act, and Air Force Act. Section 34 of the Air Force Act, 1950 empowers the court martial to impose the death sentence for the offences mentioned in Section 34 (a) to (o) of The Air Force Act, 1950. It is at the discretion of the court martial whether the method is by hanging or shooting. The Army and Navy Acts have similar provisions. Section 163 of the act provides for

4521-514: Is taken. The High Court also has the power under Section 407 of the CrPC to withdraw a case pending before a subordinate court and conduct the trial, and may award the sentence of death. After the death sentence is confirmed by the High Court, an appeal by Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution may be filed. The Supreme Court may in its discretion after considering

4658-449: Is that it undoubtedly rejected the strict channelling of discretion or classification of particular types of offences deserves death sentence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the weight accorded to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be decided on the case to case basis. Furthermore, it also deconstructed the notion of 'shock to the collective conscience' as standard to impose the death sentences. The Court categorically stated

4795-688: Is the highest legal penalty for crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code , as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'. Currently, there are around 539 prisoners on death row in India. The most recent executions in India took place in March 2020, when four of

4932-413: Is too expensive to freely feed and house dangerous criminals all their lives, and eliminating the possibility of parole after a life sentence removes the positive and rehabilitative incentive to improve behaviour; all criminals sentenced to life imprisonment in India are automatically eligible for parole after serving 20 years, as per IPC 57), and required 'special reasons'. This significant change indicated

5069-424: Is unquestionably foreclosed. Thus, this precedent and subsequent line of cases had systematically permitted the justification of death sentence on the manner, nature and gravity of the crime, without taking into the account of circumstances of the criminal, in order to exercise judicial discretion on the death sentence. The fundamental contribution of Bachan Singh was that the focus of sentencing policy in regards to

5206-426: Is unquestionably foreclosed." Moreover, the Supreme Court ascertained that the "special reasons" in the context of inflicting death sentence must pay due regard to both the crime and criminal and the relative weight has to be given both aggravating and mitigating circumstance prior to the stating of special reasons for inflicting the death sentence.  The Supreme Court recognized that the mitigating factors includes

5343-514: The 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder perpetrators were executed at the Tihar Jail in Delhi. In the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898 death was the default punishment for murder and required the concerned judges to give reasons in their judgment if they wanted to give life imprisonment instead. By an amendment to the CrPC in 1955, the requirement of written reasons for not imposing

5480-495: The Bombay High Court , the defence put forth their version of the incident, for which there were no witnesses other than the two men, and no evidence . Hearing Sylvia's confession , an enraged Nanavati wanted to shoot himself, but was calmed down by Sylvia, who told him that he was not to be blamed and there was no reason that he should shoot himself. Since Sylvia did not tell him whether Prem intended to marry her, Nanavati sought to find it out for himself. When Nanavati met Prem at

5617-608: The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution as being cruel and unusual punishment. But, the Supreme Court of India refused to accept the reasoning and stated that there is no rational basis for concluding the death sentence as unconstitutional because the Indian Constitution does not have an equivalent to the Eighth Amendment. Since the incorporation of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, while imposing

K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra - Misplaced Pages Continue

5754-456: The Indian penal code for culpable homicide , with a maximum punishment of 10 years. This is because he could have invoked exceptions 1 and 4 of section 300 of IPC (which defines murder). Exception 1 states: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes

5891-735: The Nirbhaya rape case brought the issue of sexual violence into the notice of public, media and the Government of India. Responding to the protests and campaigns the government formed a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India , Justice J.S. Verma , Justice Leila Seth , and Mr Gopal Subramanium , former Solicitor General of India . The Committee submitted its report on 23 January 2013.  It made recommendations on laws related to rape, sexual harassment, trafficking, child sexual abuse, medical examination of victims, police, electoral and educational reforms. The committee did not recommend

6028-578: The United States , Congressional hearings are not generally considered legal proceedings, as they are generally not directed towards the imposition of a penalty against a specific individual for a specific wrong. However, impeachment proceedings are generally conducted as legal proceedings, although experts dispute the question of whether they are primarily legal proceedings, or are merely political proceedings dressed in legal formalities and language. Richard Posner , for example, has asserted that it

6165-400: The collective conscience of the society must be avoided while sentencing a convict guilty of a brutal crime. However, public opinion and collective conscience have played a major role in imposition of the death penalty in several cases in India, including Mukesh v. State of NCT Delhi, May 2017, which resulted in the execution in March 2020 of four persons convicted of gang rape and murder of

6302-451: The 'principled sentencing' to a judge-centric sentencing policy of the death sentence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also critiqued the categorization of the crime (manner of commission of murder, motive for commission of murder, antisocial or socially abhorrent nature of the crime, magnitude of crime and personality of victim of murder) propounded in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, July 1983. The Court noted that Machi Singh standardization of

6439-585: The 1973 film Achanak , the 1983 film Asthram , the 2016 film Rustom , and the 2019 web series The Verdict . Kawas Manekshaw "K. M." Nanavati (1925 — 24 July 2003), a Parsi , was a Commander in the Indian Navy who had settled in Bombay with Sylvia (née King), his English-born wife and their two sons and a daughter. With Nanavati frequently being away from home on assignments for long periods of time, Sylvia fell in love with Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja,

6576-400: The Bachan Singh case. Also, the Court listed the two question that needs to be answered prior to the imposition of death sentence on individual cases. Firstly, is the offence committed so exceptional that there is no scope for awarding any other sentence? Secondly, even when weightage is accorded to the mitigating circumstances does the circumstances still warrants death penalty? It was held that

6713-409: The Court commuted the death sentence of the convict on the ground of inordinate delay in the execution of sentence and mental health problems faced by the petitioner. In the case of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, January 2014, while discussing various other supervening circumstances which would lead to the sentence of death being commuted, it was held that mental illness of the prisoner would be

6850-490: The Court of Sessions might have convicted them, order a new trial on the same or amended charge or acquit the accused person under Section 368, Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court may also enhance the sentence awarded by the Court of Session to death sentence according to Section 386 (c), CrPC. The High Court shall not enhance the sentence awarded to the accused without giving them a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing such cause,

6987-569: The CrPC 1973 introduced the Section 235(2), which allowed the post-conviction hearing on sentencing which drastically changed the jurisprudence allowing a careful evaluation and analysis of circumstances revolving around the jurisprudence of death sentence. Post the re-enactment of CrPC 1973, there was ambiguity in the jurisprudential understanding of 'special reasons' for imposing the death sentence.  The Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, February 1979 dealt with

SECTION 50

#1732790495786

7124-455: The High Court may, even in the absence of an appeal enhance the sentence awarded by the Court of Session. The High Court may also in accordance with Section 367 of the Code conduct or direct further inquiry into or additional evidence to be taken on any point bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the convicted person. Unless directed by the High Court, the accused need not be present during this period of this inquiry or when additional evidence

7261-615: The Indian Constitution. Moreover, the criticism of judge-centric or wide discretion on the judges on the fixation of the punishment is subject to the scrutiny of the superior judges and premised on the well recognized judicial principles. The judgment also discussed the US Supreme Court Decision in Furman v. Georgia , October 1971 where the US Supreme Court struck down the death sentence scheme as it violated

7398-412: The Indian Constitution.   The primary challenges to the death penalty in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, May 1980 was that the death punishment is unnecessary, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and the punishment of death sentence does not serve the purpose of deterrence. Furthermore, the constitutional validity of Section 302 of IPC and  Section 366(2) of CrPC was challenged in this case on

7535-482: The State was guilty of dilatory conduct and whether the delay was for no reason at all.  Though the inordinate delay may be a significant factor,  that by itself cannot render the execution unconstitutional. Further, the courts have also recognised some other supervening circumstances which should be considered during mercy petition such as mental illness/insanity, trauma, solitary confinement etc. In cases where

7672-459: The Supreme Court reiterated that the clemency procedure under Article 72/161 provides a ray of hope to the condemned prisoners and his family members for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment and, therefore, the executive should step up and exercise its time honoured tradition of clemency power of guaranteed in the constitution one way or the other within a reasonable time. In the case of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, January 2014,

7809-532: The Supreme Court reiterated the 'residual doubt principle' of Ashok Debbarma in Ravishankar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, October 2019 and held that it creates a higher standard of proof over and above the 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold in order to sentence someone to death. One of the questions involved the validity of the special category of sentence as created by Swamy Shraddhanada @ Murli Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, July 2008. The court held that

7946-574: The Supreme Court. Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution gives power to the President of India and the Governor to grant pardons and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. The president or the governor may consider the case of the convict and may pardon the death sentence. Various legal issues surrounding mercy petition has arisen time and again, one of them being delay. In V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India, February 1947,

8083-572: The accused may even plead for acquittal or reduction of sentence awarded by the Court of Session. Additionally, the State Government or the Central Government under Section 377, CrPC may direct the public prosecutor to appeal to the High Court against the sentence granted by the Court of Session on grounds of inadequacy. Further, exercising of its suo-moto revisional powers under Section 397, CrPC read with Section 401, CrPC,

8220-402: The accused persons to file affidavits along with documents stating the mitigating circumstances. The counsels for the accused were allowed daily visits to the prison in order to communicate with the accused persons and file the requisite affidavits and materials. The prosecution was also granted liberty to file affidavits in response to the ones filed by the accused. The final judgment in this case

8357-541: The adjournment ordinarily should be for not more than 14 days. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for giving an opportunity to the accused to make a representation regarding the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the decision in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, August 1976 cannot be read to say that failure on the part of the court to 'hear' an accused on the question of sentence must necessarily entail

SECTION 60

#1732790495786

8494-518: The aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the sentencing discretion must not only be limited to crime alone, but both the factor crime and criminal should be taken into account. It has interpreted the Bachan Singh dictum in a radical manner, specifically on the sentencing aspect of death penalty.  The Court expressed concern that there is lack of consistency and coherence in the aspect of sentencing discretion in regards to death penalty. The first and foremost contribution of Bariyar judgment

8631-405: The aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court critiqued the process of drawing a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and stated that they cannot be compared with each other as each of the factors are two distinct and different constituents of the incident. Moreover, the court itself admitted that the doctrine of rarest of rare is not followed properly and departed from

8768-411: The application of 'rarest of rare' since there is lack of empirical data for making twofold comparison between murder (not attracting death penalty) and murder (attracting penalty). The Court also envisaged a new triple test, while awarding the death sentence and it required 'crime test'. 'criminal test' and the 'rarest of rare test' and this test was not equivalent to 'balance test'. The Court stated that

8905-620: The attempt of Supreme Court to principally regulate the judicial discretion and bring consistency in the sentencing discretion of the judiciary in regards to death penalty. The Supreme Court in Bariyar held that the exclusive focus on  the crime provided in the Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, December 1995 precedent is per incuriam, as it breaches the principles revolving around doctrine of rarest of rare propounded in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, May 1980. The Bariyar judgment again reemphasized that

9042-517: The basis of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice P. N. Bhagawati in August 1982, two years after the majority's decision, he held the death penalty to be unconstitutional. He opined that the capital sentencing system, which required 'special reasons' without any guidance on its meaning, essentially left decision-making to the subjective assessment of individual judges, making it arbitrary. In this case,

9179-400: The case of Deena v Union of India, September 1983 the constitutional validity of execution by hanging was challenged on grounds that hanging as contemplated under Section 354(5) Cr.P.C was barbarous and inhuman and thereby infringed on the right to life of the person. The court discussed various historical influences as well as the reports of the law commission and held that execution by hanging

9316-404: The case to the Bombay High Court for a retrial. The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points: The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court. It was claimed that the jury had been influenced by media and was open to being misled. Due to the popularity of this case, as well as

9453-448: The cases, where the death sentence is appropriate. (i) Manner in which the crime was committed: Murder committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or drastic manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community; (ii) Motive behind the criminal act: Murder committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; (iii) The Nature of the crime: Murder that arouse social wrath (like homicide of

9590-467: The charges. They could not indict any accused nor could punish the accused. The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty under section 302 under which Nanavati was charged, with an 8–1 verdict. Mr. Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the sessions judge) considered the acquittal as perverse, and took a historic decision of overturning the jury's decision. He referred

9727-478: The cinema." Nanavati went to the naval base, collected his pistol on a false pretext from the stores along with six bullets, completed his official duties and proceeded to Ahuja's office. On not finding him there, he went to Ahuja's flat and found him there. There was a verbal confrontation between the two men; according to Nanavati's account related in court, he had asked Ahuja whether the latter intended to marry Sylvia and accept their children. After Ahuja replied in

9864-486: The condemned person stands on a trapdoor and when the trap is released he falls a couple of metres until stopped by the rope tied around his neck or a knot in the noose helps jerk back the victim's head sharply enough to break the neck. This mode of execution is widely debated and the Law Commission in its report in 2015 stated that the shift from hanging to more advanced methods execution must be made in India. In

10001-491: The court discussed Section 303 of the IPC which provided for a mandatory death sentence for offenders serving a life sentence. This section was based on the logic that any criminal who has been convicted for life and still can kill someone is beyond reformation and so, the only suitable punishment left would be death. It was discussed that the original idea behind drafting of this section was to discourage assaults by life convicts on

10138-560: The court's procedure for dealing with family cases is very similar to that of a civil case (it requires service and disclosure, and will issue judgments). Divorce and separation from a spouse is one of the most stressful situations, as rated by the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale , and so family proceedings are increasingly being "divorced" from the often very formal and impersonal process of civil proceedings, and given special treatment. A criminal case , in common law jurisdictions, begins when

10275-453: The crime before a magistrate without compulsion and this, he stated, was the first step back into society and should be treated as a mitigating circumstance. He therefore opined that the appropriate punishment in this case would be life imprisonment without remission. The role of public opinion first gained prominence in the capital sentencing framework through the case of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, July 1983, which allowed imposition of

10412-479: The crime considerably enlarged the scope of imposing death sentence, which was severely restricted in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, May 1980 and also affirmed that the standardization shall not be taken as absolute or inflexible rule in the sentencing policy of the death sentence. The Supreme Court in Shanker Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, April 2013, acknowledged that the difficulty in

10549-494: The crime, but focus must be on the criminal. The constitutional validity of death penalty was again challenged in the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, in May 1980, and it was premised on multiple new developments. Firstly, the re-enactment of CrPC 1973 had made the death penalty as an exception with regards to the rule of imposing life imprisonment for offences consist of choice between life imprisonment and death sentence. Secondly,

10686-401: The crime, magnitude of the crime and personality of the victim) related to the first question. The second question also has to be answered which could be done by reference to mitigating circumstances. He reiterated that the death sentence could be imposed only when the sentence for life is unquestionably foreclosed. In the facts of the case, Justice Khanna noted that the appellant had confessed to

10823-517: The date of such judgment or order. As per the Supreme Court in Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Ors, September 2014, review petitions for death sentence cases should be heard in open court, but there would be a time limit of 30 minutes for oral hearing. Such a procedure would be just and fair. The cases would be heard by a bench of three judges, and the special procedure would apply to all cases of death sentence where

10960-419: The death of any other person by mistake or accident. Exception 4 states: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation – It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. In

11097-515: The death penalty for rape even where such punishment is restricted to the rarest of rare cases. It is also stated that there is considerable evidence that the deterrent effect of the death penalty on serious crimes is actually a myth. According to the Working Group on Human Rights, the murder rate has declined consistently in India over the last 20 years despite the slowdown in the execution of death sentences since 1980. Hence we do take note of

11234-446: The death penalty in case of anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime. Subsequently, in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, January 1994, the Supreme Court held that the punishment must befit the crime so that courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It held that courts must consider not only the rights of the criminal, but also the rights of the victim and society at large while considering

11371-421: The death penalty shifted from crime to crime and criminal both. However, this judicial contribution was drastically altered in the Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, December 1995. The two bench of Supreme Court held that the nature and gravity of the crime, not the criminal should be considered as an appropriate method, for opting between choice of life imprisonment and death penalty. Subsequently, the precedent in Ravji

11508-460: The death penalty was removed, reflecting no legislative preference between the two punishments. In 1973, when the CrPC was amended further, life imprisonment became the norm and the death penalty was to be imposed only in exceptional cases, particularly if a heinous crime committed deems the perpetrator too dangerous to even be 'considered' for paroled release into society after 20 years (life imprisonment without parole does not exist in India since it

11645-423: The death sentence can only be inflicted, once they satisfy the 'crime test 100%', 'criminal test 0%' (there must no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused) such as possibility of reform, young age of the accused, lack of intention to commit the crime, no antecedents of criminal record. Once the aggravating circumstances are the fullest extent and no mitigating circumstances, the court needs to be satisfied with

11782-608: The death sentence constituted an exceptional sentence. It was argued that the death penalty violates to the right to life and equality and guaranteed by the Indian Constitution . Moreover, the uncontrolled and unguided arbitrary discretion in the judges to impose capital punishment violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and the petitioners contended that the procedure for consideration of circumstances in order to pronounce finding and reasoning to make judicial decision between capital punishment and life imprisonment

11919-465: The death sentence for sexual offences. The committee proposed "life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life" as the punishment for repeat offenders. In its conclusion on capital punishment for sexual offences, the committee held: "In India in the context of international law as well as the law as explained in the American Courts, it would be a regressive step to introduce

12056-473: The death sentence is awarded, Form No. 42 in the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains the form of the " death warrant " or " black warrant ". It is addressed to the superintendent of the relevant prison who is supposed to return the warrant to the court after certifying that the death sentence has been carried out. If a sessions court issues a death warrant before the end of

12193-418: The death sentence, the courts were obliged to provide 'special reasons' for not imposing the death sentence. The true departure from death sentence as a norm to an exception came after the introduction of Code of Criminal Procedure re-enacted in 1973. The CrPC 1973 introduced Section 354(3), the section mandated that judge must provide 'special reasons'  for inflicting or imposing the death sentence. Also,

12330-594: The deceased. She gave her assent for his pardon in writing. Vijayalakshmi Pandit , then Governor of Maharashtra , pardoned Bhai Pratap and Nanavati on the same day. After his release, Nanavati, his wife Sylvia and their three children emigrated to Canada and settled in Burlington, Ontario . Kawas Nanavati died in Canada on 24 July 2003 of undisclosed reasons. Sylvia moved from their long-time Burlington home to an assisted living flat in 2019. Court case In

12467-445: The dictum of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, February 1979, had interpreted the parameter on which 'death sentence' must be related to circumstance of the criminal and not the crime itself. Thirdly, it reviewed the death sentence in the light of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , January 1978 since every punitive action must satisfy the test of reasonableness after satisfying the golden triangle test of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of

12604-405: The discussion around the shift from hanging to other advanced methods of execution in various developed countries. It was also discussed that as per international standard, execution should be as quick and as simple as possible and should produce immediate unconsciousness passing quickly into death. Apart from hanging, the other method of execution allowed under the Indian law is shooting , which

12741-407: The film Tom Thumb he had promised to take them to, but excused himself and headed straight to confront Prem Ahuja. When Sylvia was asked in court why she went to the cinema, leaving her agitated husband behind, she answered, "I was upset myself and I did not think clearly then. I was not indifferent to my husband killing himself… It is difficult to explain these things to children, so I took them to

12878-425: The following judgments of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that sentencing is an important stage in the process of administration of criminal justice and required an interdisciplinary approach. The words "hear the accused" in Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were interpreted to mean that the accused had to be given an opportunity to place before the Court various circumstances relating to

13015-410: The form of the sentence of death as; "In awarding a sentence of death, a court-martial shall, in its discretion, direct that the offender shall suffer death by being hung by the neck until he is dead or shall suffer death by being shot." Section 235(2) of the CrPC provides for a bifurcated trial, where the conviction and sentencing are meant to be separate proceedings.   This has been affirmed in

13152-443: The government received an application for a pardon from Bhai Pratap , a Sindhi trader who had been a participant in the Indian independence movement , and had been convicted for misusing an import license. Given his freedom fighter background, and the relative insignificance of his offense, the government was inclined to pardon Bhai Pratap. Finally, an application seeking pardon for Nanavati was obtained even from Mamie Ahuja, sister of

13289-406: The ground that the imposition of death penalty is arbitrary and whimsical. However, the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 did not accept this contention and affirmed the constitutional validity of death sentence but propounded the doctrine of 'rarest of rare' as that the death sentence can only imposed 'in  the  rarest  of  rare  cases  when  the alternative option

13426-411: The gun to go off and instantly kill him. The prosecution's version of the story and their counter-points against the defence's version, was based on replies by witnesses and backed by evidence. The towel that Ahuja was wearing was intact on his body and had neither loosened nor fallen off. In the case of a scuffle, it is highly improbable that the towel would have stayed intact. After Sylvia's confession,

13563-486: The illness to be most serious so that he cannot understand or comprehend the nature and purpose behind the imposition of such punishment. The notion of death penalty and the sufferance it brings along causes incapacitation and is idealised to invoke a sense of deterrence. If the accused is not able to understand the impact and purpose of his execution because of his disability, the purpose for the execution itself collapses. The infamous and brutal gang rape case also known as

13700-628: The issues grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Exercising its power under Article 136, the Supreme Court decides whether the special leave petition deserve to be heard as appeals. Correcting an earlier trend of dismissal of SLPs involving the death sentence in limine (dismissal of Special Leave Petition at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons) it was held in two cases of Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, November 2018 and Jitendra @ Jeetu v. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others, July 2020 that special leave petition filed in those cases where death sentence

13837-449: The judges must prepare a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstance of the crime and criminal and analyze the factors prior to making up choice between death sentence and life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty may imposed on the ground where the collective conscience of the society is shocked that expect the judicial authorities impose the death sentence. Thereafter, it listed five categories of

13974-638: The judicial and administrative process, it would amount to a serious violation of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shabnam v. Union of India, May 2015 which affirmed the guidelines laid down by the Allahabad High Court in PUDR v. Union of India, January 2015. In Shabnam v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice have to be read into death warrant proceedings. The convict should be allowed to exhaust all

14111-438: The kind of case and the kind of system in which the case is brought – whether, for example, it is an inquisitorial system or a solo In most systems, the governing body responsible for overseeing the courts assigns a unique number/letter combination or similar designation to each case in order to track the various disputes that are or have been before it. The outcome of the case is recorded, and can later be reviewed by obtaining

14248-501: The latter scenario (i.e. premeditated murder), Nanavati would be charged with murder, with the sentence being death or life imprisonment . Nanavati pleaded not guilty and his defence team argued it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder. The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court had only one task: to pronounce a person as 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' under

14385-420: The latter's bedroom, Prem had just come out of the bath dressed only in a white towel; an angry Nanavati swore at Prem and proceeded to ask him if he intended to marry Sylvia and look after his children. Prem replied, "Will I marry every woman I sleep with?", which further enraged Nanavati. Seeing Nanavati go for the gun, enclosed in a brown packet, Prem too went for it and in the ensuing scuffle, Prem's hand caused

14522-400: The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, August 1976 and Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, April 1977,  and held that there are two modes to cure sentencing defects- 1. to remand the matter; 2. to direct the accused persons to produce necessary data and advance the contention on the question of sentence. Following the second mode, the Court gave an opportunity to

14659-406: The legal policy on sentencing discretion and also comprehensively discussed the meaning of 'special reasons' for inflicting death sentence on exceptional grounds. The Court departed from retributive theory and emphasized on the deterrence and reformative theory as the social goals. Furthermore, the Court held that the 'special reasons' required to impose the capital punishment must not relate to

14796-438: The legal remedies available such as appeal, review and mercy petitions. The guidelines given in the PUDR case are needed to be followed before issuing the death warrant. Prior to the examination of Supreme Court of India , the abolition of the death sentence in India was examined by the 35th Law Commission report in response to a resolution moved by Raghunath Singh , Member of Lok Sabha. The Law Commission of India stressed on

14933-443: The majority opinion of Justice Nariman, upheld the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant. Justice Sanjeev Khanna dissented on the question of sentence and chose the lesser sentence of life imprisonment without remission. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna noted that the Court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, July 1983 required two questions to be answered to determine if a case was rarest of rare. These were whether there

15070-462: The matter in order to give to the accused sufficient time to make submissions on sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the accused persons to produce materials on the question of sentence. It was argued by the accused persons that the Trial Judge had not considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in respect of each individual accused. The Court went through

15207-531: The matter of is used (e.g. In re Gault ). The "v" separating the parties is an abbreviation of the Latin versus , but, when spoken in Commonwealth countries , it is normally rendered as " and " or " against " (as in, for example, Charles Dickens ' Jarndyce and Jarndyce ). Where it is considered necessary to protect the anonymity of a natural person , some cases may have one or both parties replaced by

15344-430: The mental condition, the age of the accused, the possibility of reforming or that the person committed the crime under the superior orders. The Supreme Court recognized and emphasized on the individual yet principled sentencing of the death sentence,  the court refused to create categories, instead provided discretion to the judges to apply the principled reasoning of inflicting death sentence in each individual case on

15481-488: The misspelling of his name in the police record. The High Court agreed with the prosecution's argument that the murder was premeditated and sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment for culpable homicide amounting to murder. On 24 November 1961, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction. The incident both shocked and riveted the entire country. Such a 'crime of passion' was considered unusual. People also found

15618-562: The negative, three shots were fired and Ahuja dropped dead. Nanavati headed straight to confess to the Provost Marshal of the Western Naval Command and, on his advice, turned himself over to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The crux of the case was whether Nanavati shot Ahuja in the "heat of the moment" or whether it was a premeditated murder . In the former scenario, Nanavati would have been charged under

15755-470: The offences. The rule further extends to death penalty as well, i.e. persons who are insane and declared so by a competent court, cannot be given death penalty. The legality of the death sentence and its relation with the mental illness of the accused was discussed in various cases by the Indian Judiciary. In the case of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar (Navneet Kaur v. NCT of Delhi, March 2014), 

15892-501: The open court after the above judgement, which resulted in commutations and an acquittal. As per the Supreme Court judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurrah v. Ashok Hurrah & Ors, April 2002 after the dismissal of the review petition, the Supreme Court may allow a curative petition to reconsider its judgment or order if it is established that there was a violation of principles of natural justice or apprehension of bias on part of

16029-404: The principle 'Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is the exception'. After the decision and sentencing by the Court of Sessions, a high court needs to confirm it for the death sentence to be valid. The high court may confirm the death sentence awarded by the Court of Sessions, pass any other sentence warranted by law, annul the conviction, convict the person of any offence for which

16166-491: The prison staff, but the language chosen by the legislature had widely exceeded its intention. It was held that Section 303 violated right to equality and right to life and personal liberty as conferred under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In Channulal, the Supreme Court, through Justice Kurian Joseph noted that the time was appropriate to review the constitutionality of the death penalty and take into consideration reformative aspects of punishment. While dissenting on

16303-465: The question of appropriate sentence. Recently, in MA Antony v. State of Kerala, December 2018, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence into life imprisonment and noted that the trial court committed an error by taking into account the disturbance caused by the crime to the collective conscience of the society. It was held that reference to public opinion and what is perceived by the judges to be

16440-452: The question of propriety of the death penalty, the remaining two judges on the bench emphasized on the duty of courts to be constitutionally correct, even if its views are counter-majoritarian. Public opinion is generally formed by emotionally charged narratives which need not necessarily be legally correct, properly informed. They may even be against the values of rule of law and constitutionalism that courts are bound by. The court reiterated

16577-411: The rarest of rare case. The rarest of rare must be depended on the 'society centric' instead of 'judge centric' as to whether society approve death sentence in the awarding of the death penalty. In this case, the accused was convicted of the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl. In review, a three-judge bench commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. Invoking Bachan Singh, the Court observed that it

16714-421: The reasoning that the conditions in India demands the contrary position to the proposition of 'abolition of death penalty' and concluded the death penalty should be retained. It said that the variety of upbringing, the diversity of the population, the disparity in the levels of education and morality and the paramount need for maintaining law and order were fundamental factors and issues that impede India from taking

16851-604: The relevance and desirability of 'public opinion', is no more important in the jurisprudence and adjudication of death sentences. It also disregarded the social necessity as criteria for the infliction of death sentence. The Court asserted that the judiciary is a counter-majoritarian institution and individual rights should be given more importance. The Supreme Court in Sangeet v. State of Haryana, November 2012, seriously expressed reservation regarding inconsistent and incoherent application of sentencing policy with respect to analyzing

16988-423: The review had been dismissed but the sentence was yet to be executed, including cases brought under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. Various cases such as M. A. Antony @ Antappan v. State of Kerala, April 2009, Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State Of Bihar, April 2011, Ambadas Laxman Shinde And Ors V. The State Of Maharashtra, October 2018 were reopened after being dismissed earlier to be heard in

17125-690: The same social circles as the Nehru-Gandhi family for many years. He had previously worked as Defence Attaché to V. K. Krishna Menon , while the latter was high commissioner to the United Kingdom, and had grown close to the Nehrus during that time. During the time of Nanavati's trial and sentencing, Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister of India and his sister, Vijayalakshmi Pandit , was governor of Bombay state. All of those advantages may have, in other circumstances, availed Nanavati nothing, for

17262-431: The sentence, and was not limited to just an oral hearing. It was further stated that non-compliance of Section 235(2) is not an irregularity curable under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as it amounts to omitting an important stage of the trial. In his concurring opinion, Justice Fazl Ali stated that an opportunity to give evidence in respect of sentence may necessitate an adjournment; and to avoid delay,

17399-431: The special category of sentence created by Swamy Shraddhanada @ Murli Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, July 2008 was valid in law. It further added that such a sentence could only be imposed by the high courts or the Supreme Court. However, the constitutional powers of remission under Articles 72 and 161 would be unaffected by such a sentence. The dissenting judges, Lalit and Sapre, speaking through Lalit held that such

17536-433: The unfolding relationships intriguing; Nanavati had known Ahuja for nearly 15 years and Sylvia stood by her husband after Ahuja's murder. The weekly tabloid Blitz , owned by R. K. Karanjia , a Parsi himself, publicised the story, published exclusive cover stories and openly supported Nanavati. They portrayed him as a wronged husband and upright officer, betrayed by a close friend. Blitz painted Nanavati's image, as that of

17673-473: The various other girls you might marry, something inside me snapped and I knew I could not bear the thought of your loving someone else". On 27 April 1959, Nanavati returned home from one of his assignments and finding Sylvia aloof and distant, he questioned her. Sylvia, who now doubted Prem's intention to marry her, confessed the affair to her husband. Nanavati dropped his family at the Metro Cinema , for

17810-497: The view in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra that in death penalty sentencing, public opinion is neither an objective circumstance relating to crime nor to the criminal. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after taking into consideration the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant that was evidenced by his good conduct in prison. Hanging

17947-497: The widespread media coverage it gained, there developed a misconception that this was the last jury trial in India, despite there having been several trials that utilised a jury since. Soon after the case, jury trials in criminal law were phased out in favour of bench trials , and this was officially codified in the Code of Criminal Procedure (enacted in 1973). Exceptions are made in some cases, one of them being for Parsis who still have Jury Trials for their Matrimonial Disputes. In

18084-496: Was "the intent of the framers of the Constitution that an impeachment proceeding be primarily a legal proceeding, akin to a criminal prosecution, rather than a political one". A legal case is in a general sense a dispute between opposing parties which may be resolved by a court , or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case is typically based on either civil or criminal law . In most legal cases, there are one or more accusers and one or more defendants . In some instances,

18221-522: Was a fair, just and reasonable procedure within the meaning of Article 21 and hence is constitutional. In the case of Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, October 2017, hanging as a method of execution was challenged in a writ petition and it was argued that Section 354(5) CrPC was not only barbaric, inhuman and cruel but also against the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Economic & Social Council (ECOSOC). This case brought out

18358-485: Was delivered on 5 May 2017. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, May 1980, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India while upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty in India, also laid down an elaborate sentencing framework, requiring sentencing judges to impose the punishment only in the 'rarest of rare' cases. The 'rarest of rare' doctrine developed in Bachan Singh requires judges to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances while determining whether

18495-742: Was relied on as authoritative precedent. These judgments confirmed the death sentence without considering any mitigating circumstances related to the criminal. This position was directly contradictory to Constitutional bench judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, May 1980. Finally,  the Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, December 1995 decision delivered by the Supreme Court of India was rendered as per incuriam by another bench of Supreme Court in Santhosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, May 2009. The Santhosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, May 2009 judgment holds an important position in

18632-457: Was required to consider the probability of reform and rehabilitation and not its possibility or its impossibility... 'it is the obligation on the prosecution to prove to the court, through evidence, that the possibility is that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated'. The Court also held that mere pendency of one or more criminal cases against a convict cannot be a factor for consideration while awarding sentence. The Supreme Court, through

18769-405: Was something uncommon about the crime which rendered life imprisonment inadequate and whether the circumstances of the crime were such that there was no alternative but to impose the death sentence. Justice Khanna opined that the five categories indicated by the court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, July 1983 (manner of commission of murder, motive of the murder, anti-social or abhorrent nature of

#785214