the judges should consider age of the offender, his character, his upbringing, social background, the

circumstances under which he committed the offence, and the object with which he committed such
offence.

by a sympathetic and loving treatment every offender can be transformed into a better human being.
One does not cease to be a human being even if he commits grossest crime.

In the present case the accused was awarded death penalty by the lower courts which even got
uphold by high court for the brutal murder that she committed not one but two which clearly
depicted her mens rea and guilty mind. She although got awarded lesser punishment of life
imprisonment by the apex court but still the act of hers was considered heinous and brutal enough
to prevent her to be part of the society any more

In the case of Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh[xii] which followed

Justice Krishna Iyer commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment by
citing factors like age, gender, socio-economic background and psychic
compulsions of the accused. It was laid out in this case that apart from
looking into the details of the crime and deciding based on the extent of
violence committed the judges should also look into the criminal and his
condition or haplessness while committing the crime. Justice Krishna Iyer
in support of the life imprisonment over capital punishment said:

“A legal policy on life or death cannot be left for ad hoc mood or individual
predilection and so we have sought to objectify to the extent possible,
abandoning retributive ruthlessness, amending the deterrent creed and
accenting the trend against the extreme and irrevocable penalty of putting
out life.

These cases were followed by three important developments. Section 354

(3) was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which clearly laid
down that in conviction for cases which are punishable either with death or
life imprisonment, the judgment shall state the reasons for award of the
punishment and in the event that it is death sentence mention the special
reasons for that decision. This made the lesser punishment the rule and
death penalty the exception as opposed to the previous situation.
 1. The appellant was tried convicted and sentenced by the trial court
with death penalty for two murders.
2. The appellant appealed before the HC against his conviction and the
same was dismissed and the HC confirmed the sentence.
3. On further appeal before the SC bench the court commuted the death
sentence to life imprisonment by citing factors like age, gender,
socio-economic background and psychic compulsions of the
accused.

ISSUES

1. whether the conviction of accused by the lower courts was valid

2. whether the sentence of awarding life imprisonment to be converted into lesser penalty i.e.
life imprisonment.

Analysis of the judgement

In the above case the accused was awarded death penalty by the lower courts which even got
uphold by high court for the brutal murder that accused committed not one but two which clearly
depicted her mens rea and guilty mind. She although got awarded lesser punishment of life
imprisonment by the apex court but still the act of hers was considered heinous and brutal enough
to prevent her to be part of the society any more

The court after observing all the factors mentioned above collectively and individually and thereafter
realizing the correlation between crime and punishment in this case chose to liquidate the death
penalty by awarding her life imprisonment

The court believed that better world would be without legal knifing of life

It was laid out in this case that apart from looking into the details of the
crime and deciding based on the extent of violence committed the judges
should also look into the criminal and his condition or haplessness while
committing the crime. Justice Krishna Iyer in support of the life
imprisonment over capital punishment said:

“A legal policy on life or death cannot be left for ad hoc mood or individual
predilection and so we have sought to objectify to the extent possible,
abandoning retributive ruthlessness, amending the deterrent creed and
accenting the trend against the extreme and irrevocable penalty of putting
out life.

Also mention 354(3)

She was therefore awarded death sentence by the trail court and conviction was upheld by high
court also. Now the question before Supreme Court was whether the conviction of accused by the
lower courts was correct and whether the sentence of awarding life imprisonment to be converted
into lesser penalty i.e. life imprisonment.

The case of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab[xvii] again brought up the

question of validity of capital punishment. This was the case that gave birth
to the “rarest of the rare cases” doctrine and still remains one of the most
important cases in this subject. The 5 judge bench said :

“A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates
resistance to taking a life through law instrumentality. That ought not to be
done except in rarest of rare cases where the alternative opinion is
unquestionably foreclosed.”[