STATE OF TELANGANA Vs. SHAIK BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Death and if not life, death or life, life and if not death, is the swinging progression of the criminal jurisprudence in India, as far as the capital punishment is concerned. All murders shock the community; but certain murders shock the conscience of the Court as well as the community. The distinguishing aspect of the latter category is that there is shock coupled with extreme revulsion. However, Sec. 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') mandates that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence. In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Ediga Anamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,AIR 1974 SC 799. the unmistakable shift in the legislative emphasis is that life imprisonment for murder is the rule and capital sentence is an exception to be resorted to, for the reasons to be stated. It is obvious that the disturbed conscience of the state on the vexed question of legal threat to life by way of death sentence has sought to express itself legislatively, the stream of tendency being towards cautious, partial abolition and a retreat from total retention. It is interesting to note that the requirement for reasons to be stated for awarding any sentence for a term of years found legislative expression in Cr.P.C. for the first time in the year 1973. In the case of death sentence, there must be special reasons. That shows the paradigm shift to life imprisonment as the rule, and death, as the exception.

(2.) The above preliminary discussion on death sentence has special significance as far as the facts of the present case are concerned. Hovering between life and death, the appellants, i.e., Shaik Babu (A1), Shaik Shabuddin (A2) and Shaik Maqdhoom (A3) filed Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2020, under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment, dtd. 30/1/2020, passed in Special Sessions Case No.117 of 2019 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, FAC Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, Designated as Special Judge for speedy trial and disposal of the subject case; while the trial Court which awarded death penalty to A1 to A3 submitted the proceedings to this Court vide Referred Trial No.1 of 2020, under Sec. 366(1) of Cr.P.C., for confirmation of the death sentence imposed against A1 to A3. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced A1 to A3 as under:

(3.) Since both these cases arise out of the same judgment, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. Also, in view of the dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhupinder Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,(2003) 8 SCC 551. wherein it was held that the mandate of not disclosing the identities of the victims of sexual offence under Sec. 228A of the IPC ought to be observed in spirit by the Court, we are thus not disclosing the name of the victim and instead referring to her as the "deceased" throughout this common judgment.