In a significant judicial development, the Supreme Court redefined its stance on a death penalty last week. The case in question involved the overturning of the death sentence for Madan, a key figure in a 2003 shooting incident in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, where multiple lives were lost.

The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, BV Nagarathna, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivered a verdict challenging the conventional approach of considering past criminal behavior as an automatic factor in imposing the death penalty. Despite the crime falling into the 'rarest of rare' category, the court emphasized the potential for rehabilitation and cautioned against inconsistent sentencing among co-accused.

The appeal was a response to the Allahabad High Court's 2017 judgment, affirming Madan's murder conviction and death sentence. Notably, the high court had modified the capital punishment for another accused, Sudesh Pal, to life imprisonment. Both appeals were heard by the same bench, leading to the dismissal of Pal's plea and the reconsideration of Madan's sentence.

The case originated from a politically fueled assault in 2003, resulting in six fatalities. The Supreme Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime, deeming it capable of "shocking the collective conscience of society." However, it chose to focus on the potential for the convicts' reformation.

The court's decision to commute the death penalty marked a departure from the traditional binary of either death or life imprisonment with remission after 14 years. Citing precedents, the bench outlined a nuanced approach, emphasizing the court's authority to substitute a death sentence with life imprisonment for a fixed term, in this instance, 20 years without the possibility of remission.

Crucially, the court referred to a recent judgment, Sundar alias Sundarrajan v. State, highlighting the 'rarest of rare' doctrine's application. It stressed that the death penalty should only be imposed when there is no possibility of reformation. In Madan's case, the court found a lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's claim that he was beyond reformation. Reports from jail authorities and the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences suggested a possibility of rehabilitation.

An additional factor influencing the court's decision was the anomaly of imposing the death penalty solely on Madan when Sudesh Pal's sentence had been commuted. The court deemed this situation inconsistent and opted for a balanced approach.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court, while rejecting Sudesh Pal's appeal, overturned Madan's death sentence, maintaining the murder conviction. Advocating for a middle path, the court converted the death penalty to life imprisonment, specifying a non-negotiable 20-year term without the possibility of remission, thereby emphasizing the importance of reformation in sentencing.

Case: Madan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1381-1382 OF 2017.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1790 OF 2017.

Read/Download Order