Review of Death Penalty XXXIV

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Anvar, (2014) 10 SCC 472 as clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 is law declared on Section 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We deem it appropriate to eschew electronic evidence.

It is clear, there is no reason to doubt guilt. Even though Sundar has committed a ghastly crime, there is possibility of reformation. His conduct has been satisfactory, except for an attempt to escape. Sundar is suffering from a case of systemic hypertension and has attempted to acquire a diploma in food catering. The acquisition of a vocation in jail has an important bearing on ability to lead a gainful life.

Life Imprisonment; 20 Years – No Remission.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sundar v. Inspector of Police, [Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 159-160 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011].

_____

Sundar v. Inspector of Police, [Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 159-160 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011] held, Court will have to consider whether there was a possibility of reformation.

Digambar was a young boy of about 25. Only a single injury was inflicted. Digambar has been found to be well-behaved, helping with leadership qualities.

Capital Punishment is commuted to Life Imprisonment.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 221-222 of 2022] decided on 28.04.2023.

'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.