Death Penalty Needs Reasons, Not Silence: SC Reconsiders Its Own Order

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v. State of Maharashtra occupy a significant place in India’s evolving death penalty jurisprudence, not merely for the ultimate commutation of a death sentence but for the constitutional principles articulated on judicial responsibility, review powers, and the sanctity of human life within criminal procedure.

The case reflects a deeper judicial introspection on how capital punishment is imposed, reviewed and justified within a constitutional democracy committed to due process.

What's The Matter?

The petitioner was convicted of murder, rape and wrongful confinement and was awarded the death penalty by the trial court, a sentence later confirmed by the Bombay High Court. His special leave petition challenging the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine, without reasons.

It was this summary dismissal that became the focal point of the subsequent review proceedings.

What Court Said?

The Court, while entertaining the review petition, confronted a foundational question: whether a death sentence can be allowed to stand without reasoned judicial scrutiny at every level of adjudication.

In allowing the review petition and recalling its earlier order, the Supreme Court underscored that cases involving the death penalty occupy a constitutionally distinct category.

Article 137 of the Constitution empowers the Court to review its own judgments, but the exercise of that power becomes especially critical where the irreversible punishment of death is involved.

The Court made it clear that while it retains discretion to dismiss special leave petitions, such discretion cannot be exercised mechanically when a human life is at stake.

A non-speaking dismissal, the Court held, risks reducing the review remedy to an illusion rather than a substantive safeguard.

The judgment draws strength from long-standing precedent that treats capital punishment cases as deserving of heightened judicial care.

Reiterating the “time-honoured practice” of independently reappreciating evidence in death sentence cases, the Court relied on its earlier observations in Mohd. Ajmal Kasab and reinforced by Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India.

The insistence on reasoned orders, open-court hearings at the review stage, and multi-judge benches reflects an understanding that procedural fairness is not a technicality but an essential component of legitimacy in capital sentencing.

Equally important is the Court’s engagement with sentencing philosophy. While upholding the conviction on the basis of an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court revisited the question of whether the case truly met the “rarest of rare” threshold laid down in Bachan Singh.

This inquiry was not confined to the brutality of the crime alone but extended to the offender’s age, absence of prior criminal history, prospects of reform, and conduct during incarceration.

In commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment with a minimum term of twenty years without remission, the Court reaffirmed that sentencing must balance retribution, deterrence and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The judgment also reinforces the mandatory nature of a meaningful hearing on sentence under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Drawing from a rich line of precedent, the Court reiterated that sentencing is not a mechanical sequel to conviction but a distinct judicial exercise that demands consideration of the offender as a social being.

This emphasis reflects a shift away from purely offence-centric punishment toward a more nuanced, humanised approach consistent with constitutional values of dignity and fairness.

The message is clear: the death sentence cannot survive on the weight of precedent or public outrage alone; it must withstand the most rigorous judicial examination at every stage.

Citation: Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v. State of Maharashtra Review Petition (Criminal) No. 388 of 2015 in SLP (Criminal) No. 458 of 2015 decided on 1 November 2018, Supreme Court of India

Disclaimer: This content is published strictly for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel.