Review of Death Penalty XXIV

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

In our opinion, it is a sound and well-­established rule of law, Court is concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence necessary for proving or dis­proving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classi­fied into three categories, namely: (1) wholly reliable; (2) wholly unreliable; (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

– Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, (1957) SCR 981.

_____

We are at pains to observe, manner in which present case has been dealt with by Trial Court as well as by High Court, particularly, when Trial Court awarded Death Penalty and High Court confirmed it. Death Sentence imposed is totally unsustainable in law. Jaikam Khan directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal Nos. 434-436 of 2020].

_____

Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sundresh in Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014] cites Vadivelu. It is said, ‘evidence’ is ‘adjective law’ highlighting and aiding ‘substantive law’.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.