Previous 31 / 31 Next

2. In our view, since the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab1, has upheld capital punishment, there is no need to reexamine the same at this stage. ………………………..J. (DEEPAK GUPTA) ...……………………..J. (HEMANT GUPTA) New Delhi November 28, 2018 1 (1980) 2 SCC 684 31

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Chhannu Lal Verma

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Age at Offence: 46

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2013

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Case Background (300 words max): The case against the accused was for killing three members of a family and causing grievous injuries to three others. The circumstances against the accused are: eyewitness testimony (child); motive (previously charged of rape - involved with the same family, later acquitted) The trial court convicted the accused and awarded the death sentence on 25.06.2013. The High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed the conviction and death sentence on 11.04.2014. The Supreme Court, in its criminal appeal decision, upheld the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on 28.11.2018.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): The sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment, since the hearing for conviction and sentencing was done on the same day, in violation of established guidelines on death sentencing. The accused did not have enough time to adduce evidence in mitigation. The lower courts did not fully consider the mitigating circumstances, and disproportionately considered aggravating ones. The High Court placed the onus on the accused to mitigate, where in fact it is on the court to elicit required information. Further, the state was not able to prove that the accused did not demonstrate any probability of reformation or rehabilitation.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): By conducting hearing for sentencing on the same day, the trial court had failed to provide necessary time to the appellant to furnish evidence relevant to sentencing and mitigation. The lower courts had erroneously confirmed the death sentence, without adequately considering either mitigating factors or the possibility or reform/rehabilitation. This case did not fall into the ‘rarest of the rare’ category that would warrant the death sentence. In an observation, it expressed concern on the idea of ‘collective conscience/public morality’ determining death sentencing. The judgment authored by Kurian Joseph J held that considering the 262nd Law Commission Report, the time had come to revisit if the death penalty achieved any constitutionally valid penological goals. However, the two other judges on the bench dissented on this aspect.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Sections 302, 307, 506(2), 450 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Judicial Precedents: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra