New Delhi: holding that the court should not consider only crime but also criminals, the state of his mind and his socio-economic conditions while giving punishment, the Supreme Court has slapped the death penalty from the first violations to be killed by two cakes and nephews for property disputes.
Judge L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna said there was a possibility of reform for convicts because his behavior was in a satisfying prison and showing his sentence of up to 30 years in prison.
The bench agreed with the opposition of advocates and harpharans who handed over prisoners that the court court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was wrong in giving punishment because they did not assume that it was the first violation and not a hardened criminal.
“Given the settling legal position, it is an obligation of our limits to consider the probability of deformed deficiency and rehabilitated For the bench, the court said that the two prisoners and the deceased were rural villagers belonging to poor families and involved in property disputes and state governments were also not placed in recording evidence to show that there was no possibility with respect to reform or rehabilitation.
“The Petitioner comes from a rural background and is economically poor.
There is no criminal antecedeen.
The applicant cannot be said to be a hardened criminal.
This is the first violation done by the applicant, no doubt, the vile Indicates that the applicant’s implementation during detention has been satisfactory.
Therefore it cannot be said that there is no possibility of the applicant reformed and rehabilitated because it has an alternative option of a lower sentence and makes imperative death sentences, “he said.
Referring to the assessment of court courts and the High Court, the court said it didn’t seem to appear that the court below had pulled the balance sheet of mitigation and worsened the situation.
“The court court and the High Court only considered crime but had not considered the criminal, the condition of his mind, socio-economic background etc.,” he said.
“Therefore we tend to change sentences imposed on applicants from death to life.
However, taking into account the terrible murder of two brothers and one niece, we believed that the applicant deserved a tight prison sentence for 30 years,” he said.