Supreme Court says prior conviction cannot be sole ground to impose death penalty; commutes murder convict's sentence

The criminal history of a convict cannot by itself be a ground to award the death penalty, observed the Supreme Court on Thursday while commuting the sentence of a convict from the death penalty to life imprisonment in a 2003 murder case [Madan vs State of Uttar Pradesh]..A bench of Justices BR Gavai, BV Nagarathna and PS Narasimha also clarified that the convict has to actually serve at least 20 years in prison as part of his life-imprisonment sentence before he could be considered for early release on remission..The Court commuted the convict's death penalty after also noting that the convict had been incarcerated for a long time and that a co-accused with the same role had only been given a life sentence.Pertinently, the Court found that the only factor distinguishing the two co-accused was that only one of the two convicts had a criminal history. The bench, however, emphasised that this cannot be a ground to treat the two accused differently, considering that both of them were accused of similar crimes. "No doubt that there is a history of previous conviction insofar as appellant Madan is concerned. However, this Court, in the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik (supra), has held that the history of the convict by itself cannot be a ground for awarding him death penalty," the Court added. .The top court was hearing two appeals challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court convicting two men for murder and other offences. The murder was allegedly triggered by political and family enmity which led to the death of six persons after a shooting broke out..The trial court convicted three men for the crime. Two were sentenced to death while one was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the death penalty for only one of the accused (Madan). The appeal of the other co-accused (Sudesh Pal) who had earlier been sentenced to death by the trial court was partly allowed by the High Court which upheld his conviction but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. .The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of both Madan and Sudesh Pal but commuted Madan's death penalty to that of life imprisonment on par with the sentence imposed on Pal..The Court acknowledged that the murder case did fall under the "rarest of the rare" category and that it would ordinarily warrant the imposition of the death sentence. However, the bench found that there were mitigating circumstances to persuade the Court to stop short of imposing the death sentence..The mitigating circumstances before the Court, in this case, included the fact that Madan was currently aged 64 years and had been in prison for over 18 years. He was also reported to have shown good behaviour in prison, indicating that he was not beyond reform. His psychological assessments were also positive, the Court was told.The top court, thus, held that the imposition of the death penalty on Madan was not appropriate."The role attributed in the evidence of the eye witnesses is identical to all the accused. In that view of the matter, we find that the High Court was not justified in imposing death penalty on appellant Madan while converting the death penalty imposed upon Sudesh Pal to life imprisonment. If the judgment of the High Court is maintained, it would lead to an anomalous situation," the Court added. .Madan's criminal appeal was thus partly allowed and he was sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death. .The death sentence was modified to life imprisonment of 20 years, including the period already undergone. Only on completion of this period would Madan be entitled to remission, it was clarified..Senior Advocate Anand Grover appeared for Madan (who had been on death row). Advocate Manish Kumar Vikkey appeared for co-accused Sudesh Pal whose appeal was dismissed.Senior Advocate Brijender Chahar appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..[Read Judgment]