Supreme Court: Maximum punishment should be based on facts like number of murders, age of the dead
Supreme Court: The bench observed that courts should take into account certain factors while calculating appropriate punishment for convicts in crimes not falling into the rarest of rare categories so that convicts who are spared the death penalty are given harsher punishment.
The Supreme Court said that while determining the period of punishment for the culprits of brutal murder, certain serious facts like the number of murders, age and gender of the deceased, nature of injuries, sexual assault during the crime etc. should be kept in mind. Along with this, the apex court has issued guidelines to fix the period of imprisonment for the culprits in such cases and ensure public safety. A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan issued these guidelines while sentencing Navas to 25 years imprisonment for the murder of four persons, including three girls and women aged between 11 years and 80 years, in Kerala.
To ensure that convicts who are spared the death penalty receive harsher punishment, the bench noted that courts should consider specific factors when determining appropriate punishment for convicts for crimes that do not fall into the most unusual categories. For instance, the number of homicides, the age and gender of the deceased, the type of injuries sustained, and whether or not a sexual assault occurred during the commission of the crime, etc. Also, the motive behind the crime, whether the crime was committed when the accused was on bail in another case, whether it was pre-planned, the relationship between the culprit and the victims and abuse of trust, the criminal history of the convict, whether the time before Care should also be taken to ensure that the convict will not pose a threat to the society upon release.
In favour of reducing the punishment of the convict, the bench said that the courts should examine whether the convict expressed remorse for committing the murders. Also, the age of the criminal and his conduct while in jail should be taken into consideration. In the present case, it was found that the convict had obtained a good conduct certificate from the Jail Superintendent. Given this, the bench reduced the sentence of 30 years given to the convict by the High Court to 25 years of imprisonment without remission.
