The trial was conducted in a hurried manner without providing ample and proper opportunity. Bashira v. State of U.P., AIR 1968 SC 1313 had a matter remitted back to Sessions Court because trial was conducted in 13 days. The issue concerning importance of a fair trial was considered by this Court in Zahira v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly. A fair trial obviously would mean an atmosphere of ‘judicial calm‘. It is settled, a hasty trial in which proper and sufficient opportunity has not been provided would vitiate a trial as being meaningless and stage-managed. Judge is to exude an aura of tranquillity, offering a sanctuary of reason and measured deliberation. The matter is remitted back to Trial Court for de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to Naveen to defend himself.

– Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Naveen v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 489-490 of 2019].

_____

While mathematical exactitude is an impossibility, Court will not be deterred from imposing a period of sentence which will constitute “a just dessert“.

– Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Nawas v. State of Kerala, [Criminal Appeal No. 1215 of 2011] decided on 18.03.2024.

_____

Every trial is a march towards truth. A trial should be a real one and, therefore, not a mere pretence [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158; Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516; J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 2 SCC 401]. Sentencing shall not be a mere lottery. Societal experience would come handy in coming to a correct conclusion.

Our thought process has been ignited from ‘Discretion, Discrimination and the Rule of Law’, authored by Mr. Mrinal Satish, published by Cambridge University Press in 2017. It presents an excellent insight into sentencing policy.

– Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sundresh, Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, [Criminal Appeal No. 3924 of 2023] decided on 17.05.2024.

Koli was shifted from Dasna Jail at Ghaziabad to District Jail at Meerut on 04.09.2014 for execution of Death Sentence, since Jail at Ghaziabad did not have facilities for hanging. It was at this stage, Koli obtained knowledge of his impending execution. Koli has been in custody since 29.12.2006 for about 8 years and under Death Sentence for 5 years and 10 months. It is clear, conduct of Koli, post-conviction, is not such as to disentitle him from claiming relief under head of delay, since execution of Death Sentence was not postponed by any dilatory tactic or proceeding adopted by Koli.

An execution of Death Sentence for Koli, on facts of present case, would amount to an unconstitutional infraction of his right to life under Article 21. Life Imprisonment.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Surendra Koli v. Union of India, [Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No 23471 of 2014] decided on 28.01.2015.

Koli was employed as a domestic help at D5, Sector 31, Noida. Extensive searches of D5 did not yield human bloodstains, remains or transfer patterns consistent with multiple homicides. There was no expert testimony establishing, a domestic help could perform precise dismemberment described. Criminal law does not permit conviction on a conjecture or a hunch. Koli will be released forthwith if not required in any other case or proceedings.

– Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Diary No. 49297 of 2025] decided on 11.11.2025.