SUTHENTHIRARAJA ALIAS SANTHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am in respectful agreement with the reasons by which my learned brother Wadhwa, J. has concluded that the review petitions are to be dismissed, though I have a dissent in regard to the sentence aspect concerning A-1 Nalini. On that score, apart from reiterating my reasons for awarding imprisonment for life as the sentence for the offence under S. 302 read with S. 120-B of Indian Penal Code to A-1 Nalini, I wish to express my separate stand regarding the review petition filed by her.

(2.) The Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 : (AIR 1980 SC 898 : 1980 Cri LJ 636) has narrowed down the scope for awarding death sentence to the extremely restricted radius of "rarest of rare cases" in which the alternative lesser sentence of imprisonment for life is unquestionably foreclosed. In the main judgment in the present case one of the three-Judges found that sentence of imprisonment for life would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice as for A-1 Nalini.

(3.) In a case where a Bench of three-Judges delivered judgment in which the opinion of at least one judge is in favour of preferring imprisonment for life to death penalty as for any particular accused, I think it would be a proper premise for the Bench to review the order of sentence of death in respect of that accused. Such an approach is consistent with Art. 21 of the Constitution as it helps saving a human life from gallows and at the same time putting the guilty accused behind bars for life. In my opinion, it would be a sound proposition to make a precedent that when one of the three-Judges refrains from awarding death penalty to an accused on stated reasons in preference to the sentence of life imprisonment that fact can be regarded sufficient to treat the case as not falling within the narrowed ambit of "rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed."