Read Time: 11 minutes

The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to two men who were convicted for murdering a family of 8 including an infirm minor child to life.

Remarking that it is well-settled law that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which has to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death, the Supreme Court yesterday held,

"There is a bounden duty cast on the Courts to elicit information of all the relevant factors and consider those regarding the possibility of reformation, even if the accused remains silent."

While holding so, a bench of Justices L Nageshwar Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna further relied on the judgment of Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar in which it was held that before imposing the extreme penalty of death sentence, the Court should satisfy itself that death sentence is imperative, as otherwise the convict would be a threat to the society, and that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the convict, after giving the convict an effective, meaningful, real opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence, by producing material.

A petition was filed before the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the judgment whereby the Mofil Khan and his brother were convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to death for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 449 read with Section 34, IPC.

Owing to a property dispute between the Review Petitioners attacked their brother, Haneef Khan, his wife and their children who died due to the same.

Brief facts:

At 8.30 PM on 06.06.2007, the Petitioners, along with others, assaulted Haneef Khan, who was offering namaz in the mosque of village Makandu, with sharp-edged weapons such as sword, tangi, bhujali and spade. Haneef Khan died on the spot. They then attacked Gufran Khan @ Pala and Imran Khan, who were proceeding to the mosque on hearing their father. Gufran Khan and Imran Khan were attacked in front of their house and they died. The Petitioners and others then rushed into the house of Haneef Khan and murdered Kasuman Bibi, wife of Haneef Khan and their four sons, namely, Yusuf Khan (physically disabled and aged about 18 years), Maherban Khan (aged about 12 years), Danish Khan (aged about 8 years) and Anish Khan (aged about 5 years). 

The trial court had convicted the petitioner and sentenced them to death. This sentence was upheld by the High Court.

After the appeal filed before the Supreme Court by the instant petitioners was dismissed in 2014, the present review petition was filed.

The principal contention of the Petitioners was that the plausibility of reformation and rehabilitation was not taken into account by the trial court, the High Court as well as this Court while sentencing them to death.

It was noted by the bench that the Criminal Appeal was dismissed after taking note of the manner in which the offence was committed against the helpless children and others and concluded that the petitioners would be a menace and threat to harmony in the society.

"Putting an end to the lives of innocent minors and a physically infirm child, apart from other members of the family, in a pre-planned attack, was taken note of by this Court to hold that the case falls under the category of “rarest of the rare” cases", noted the bench.

Relying on the judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the court said,

"One of the mitigating circumstances is the probability of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated. The State is under a duty to procure evidence to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. Death sentence ought not to be imposed, save in the rarest of the rare cases when the alternative option of a lesser punishment is unquestionably foreclosed.."

Keeping this in mind, the court said that a scrutiny of the judgments of the trial court, the High Court and the top Court indicated that the sentence of death was imposed by taking into account the brutality of the crime. It added,

"There is no reference to the possibility of reformation of the Petitioners, nor has the State procured any evidence to prove that there is no such possibility with respect to the Petitioners."

The Court thus examined the socio-economic background of the Petitioners, the absence of any criminal antecedents, affidavits filed by their family and community members with whom they continue to share emotional ties and the certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent on their conduct during their long incarceration of 14 years.

Considering such material before it, the bench was of the view that it cannot be said that there was no possibility of reformation of the Petitioners, foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making the imposition of death sentence imperative.

Thus, while disposing the review petition, the court ordered,

"Therefore, we convert the sentence imposed on the Petitioners from death to life. However, keeping in mind the gruesome murder of the entire family of their sibling in a pre-planned manner without provocation due to a property dispute, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners deserve a sentence of a period of 30 years."

Cause Title: Mofil Khan & Anr. v The State of Jharkhand