STATE Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the judgement dated 17th April 2014, this Court had confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant Bharat Singh for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code ('IPC') i.e. life imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 50,000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment ('RI') for a period of one year. The Court also confirmed his conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By this further order, which should be read in continuation of the above judgment, the Court pronounces on the question of sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) ON the question whether the Appellant should be awarded the death penalty as recommended by the trial Court, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Court in the aforementioned judgment dated 17th April 2014 discussed in some detail the decisions of the Supreme Court from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab : (1980) 2 SCC 684 onwards. After noting that in the present case, where the Appellant has been convicted for the rape and murder of a three year old child, there was little difficulty as regards the existence of the 'aggravating circumstances' i.e. the satisfaction of the 'crime test', the Court noted that "no materials have been placed by the State to show whether the accused is capable of being reformed and rehabilitated." This was in the context of two of the mitigating circumstances suggested by Dr. Y.V. Chitaley, Senior Advocate, and noted in para 206 (3) and (4) of the decision in Bachan Singh viz., "the probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society" and "the probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated." The Supreme Court in Anil @ Anthony Arokiaswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra : 2014 (2) SCALE 554 directed that "the criminal courts, while dealing with offences like Section 302 IPC, after conviction, may, in appropriate cases, call for a report to determine, whether the accused could be reformed or rehabilitated.." In Birju v. State of MP : 2014 (2) SCALE 293, the Supreme Court suggested that in appropriate cases the Court can also call for a report from the PO while applying the Crime Test Guideline No. 3 as laid down in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra : (2013) 5 SCC 546. It was further observed in the said decision that "Court can then examine whether the accused is likely to indulge in commission of any crime or there is any probability of the accused being reformed or rehabilitated."

(3.) THIS led the Court, in its judgment dated 17th April 2014, to call for a report of the Probation Officer ('PO') on the following two aspects: