Death penalty can be awarded even in the case where a Judge has given his dissent.

Shubhani Mittal | Vivekananda Global University | 30th December 2019 

Manoharan Versus State by Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1174-1175 of 2019

Facts

On the date 29.10.2010, Mohanakrishnan kidnapped two children, a girl aged 10 and her brother aged 7 from outside a Hindu temple on their way to school. He then drove the children away and picked up the appellant from his house

The children were taken to a distant place called Gopalsamy Temple Hills on the same day where ghastly rape was allegedly committed on that girl.

In order to get rid of the children, Mohanakrishnan and the appellant mixed a poisonous cow dung powder which is added in the cow dung to keep the insects away with mild and administered to the children.

However, the children took only a small amount of milk which was mixed with cow dunk powder and didn’t die.

Thereafter, to get rid of the children, they were thrown away alive in Parambikulam-Axhiyar Project canal (“PAP Canal”). Mohanakrishnan went to the house of PW7 from whom he borrowed Maruti Omni Van, informed the police, pursuant to which he was arrested.

The girl’s body was recovered from the canal. The Appellant was arrested and the boy’s body was also recovered from the canal. Mohankrishnan was shot dead by the police in an encounter and Manoharan was convicted of death penalty.

Issue

Whether  death penalty can be awarded even if one of the judges disagree ?

Judgement

The  review petition was brought to the Supreme Court of India before the division bench comprising of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Sanjiu Khanna, and Justice Surya Kant. The order was passed in the majority of 2:1.

The majority view has prevailed that upholded conviction and death penalty while dismissing the review petitions. The  senior advocate Siddharth Luthra argued  that death penalty ought not to be awarded in case of a single dissent, even if the majority sanctioned it. It was purported that the offence committed by the petitioner was so grave so as to shock the conscience of the court and of society and would without doubt amount to ‘rarest of the rare’. Also, the crime was not in the spur of the moment or a crime of passion but was craftily planned, meticulously executed  and with multiple opportunities to cease and desist .So the dissent by Justice Sanjiv Khanna on the question of sentencing alone could not come in for rescue in any manner in saving the petitioner from being sent to the gallows

The honorable Supreme Court dismissed the review petition and convicted the accused of death penalty.