Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Death and Life Sentences
1. Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases:
(Sections 467 & 468)
Adopting a constructive and purposive interpretation, the constitutional bench held that in cases where the action was initiated well in time but cognisance was taken after limitation had expired, the person concerned should not be put to prejudice since the delay was a result of processes of the court. It was held that the benefit of limitation should always weigh in favour of the person concerned.
2. Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. UOI
The constitutional bench examined the five heads established for praying for commuting death sentences -delay, insanity, solitary confinement, judgments declared per incuriam (no more a precedent) and procedural lapses.
2. Anokhilal v. State of MP
Qualification of Amicus curiae
Where a death sentence could be an option, the court has to be very circumspect and cautious and not hasty. Reasonable time should be given to the amicus curiae to prepare for the plea and such amicus curiae should have at least 10 years standing in court in capital offences.
4. Muthuramalingam v State: The 5-judge bench held that in normal circumstances, 2 life imprisonment must run concurrently. This was yet another benefit conferred on life convicts.
5. Swamy Shraddananda vs Karnataka, it was held that in a case where a death sentence is awarded and but the court finds the case does not warrant death sentence and at the same time mere award of life imprisonment would not be sufficient, the court may award a life sentence with a rider that the executive shall not exercise the power of commutation or remission for a fixed period of 20-25 years whatever the court decides.
Substantive Challenges against Certain IPC Provisions
6. In Navtej Singh Johar v UOI, a constitutional bench held that Section 377 would not be a valid provision. As such, same-sex relationships entered into by individuals would not invite criminal action under Section 377 and they cannot be proceeded against. This was a significant development in the last decade.
7. Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
A trial won't be vitiated only because the informant and I.O. are same unless the defence counsel is able to show biasness or malafide on the part of the I.O. This case had overruled Mohanlal's judgment which had taken a contrary view.
8. Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam: It was held that mere membership of a banned organisation alone can be a factor to launch an investigation into the matter and that such membership can invite prosecution even if no act had been committed by such person in furtherance of the elements which constituted the crime in question.
9. Kapil Wadhawan case: The bench held that the day the remand order was issued by the court should be considered while calculating the period of 60 days or 90 days under Section 167 of CrPC.
