STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Death Reference on behalf of the State and the Criminal Appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant arise out of the judgment and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.13 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death under Ss. 302 and 307 of the IPC and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. B.M. Tripathy appearing on behalf of the appellant has confined his argument on the point of sentence and has not assailed the judgment of conviction.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant that learned trial court has failed to observe the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court for awarding death sentence. There has been a penalogical shift in sentencing criteria, particularly in exercising judicial discretion while making a choice between sentence of death and imprisonment for life. Mandate of law which has been codified since 1973 Cr.P.C. is that special reasons are to be assigned in case of sentence of death. In State of M.P. Versus Udham and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1378, it has been held that sentencing for crime is to be analyzed on the touch stone of: Crime Test, Criminal Test and Comparative Proportionality Test. It is not only the gravity and nature of crime that is to be considered while sentencing, but also the 'criminal' to be taken into account to see whether there was any prospect of reform or not. These aspects have not been considered and discussed by the learned trial Court.