MOHD. ARIF Vs. REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 02,2014
MOHD. ARIF,SUNDAR,SONU SARDAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE,UNION OF INDIA (UOI),The Registrar, Supreme Court of India
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]A K GOPALAN VS. STATE OF MADRAS OPPOSITE PARTY; UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KHARAK SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN SINGH HARNAM SINGH PRITHVI SINGH BRIJ MOHAN LAL R KRISHNASWAMY GOUNDER K RAJAGOPAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN STATE OF PUNJAB UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER T M GURUBUXANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUBBAIAH AMBALAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BATRA CHARLES GURMUKH SOBRAJ VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION:DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
P N ESWARA IYER VS. REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MINERVA MILLS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BACHAN SINGH MAL SINGH SUNIL BATRA NATHU SINGH KARTAR SINGH AND UJAGAR SINGH SHER SINGH SUNIL BATRA MAL SINGH NIRPAL SINGH JAGMOHAN SINGH UJAGAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:UNION OF INDIA:DELHI ADMINISTRATION:STATE OF PUNJAB:DELHI ADMINISTRATION:STATE OF HARYANA:STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MITHU MITHU SURJIT SINGH SURJIT SINGH MUNAWAR HARUN SHAH KARNAIL SINGH ALIAS FAQIR SINGH JAVED AHMED ABDULHAMID PAWALE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENIBEN HARBHAJAN SINGH LAL SINGH INDIAN COUNCIL OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL WELFARE GURCHARAN SINGH AND PRITAM SINGH REP VS. STATE OF GUJARAT:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF TAMIL NADU:STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ALOKE NATH DUTTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SWAMY SHRADDANANDA ALIAS MURALI MANOHAR MIS VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SATISHBHUSHAN BARIYAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
REMDEO CHAUHAN ALIAS RAJNATH CHAUHAN VS. BANI KANT DAS [REFERRED TO]
SHATRUGHAN CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAKESH MANEKCHAND KOTHARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-715] [REFERRED TO]OM PRAKASH GOYAL VS. ASHOK KUMAR VAISH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-240] [REFERRED TO]
VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
MD. MANNAN ALIAS ABDUL MANNAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2019-2-467] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHARAN VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KOLI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-83] [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR SINGH @ JASSA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
AMANDEEP KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
MANJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-112] [REFERRED TO]
KAWALJEET KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
M.A. ANTONY @ ANTAPPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2018-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SURI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR SINGH @ JASSA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP [LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-95] [REFERRED TO]
ABUL KALAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2021-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
SHABNAM VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
B.A. UMESH VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-101] [REFERRED TO]
SHAGUN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
JAI NRAIN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-106] [REFERRED TO]
BALJEET KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGCHANDRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. NINO MATHEW [LAWS(KER)-2023-5-180] [REFERRED TO]
RESUNA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
SHATRUGHNA BABAN MESHRAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2020-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-133] [REFERRED TO]
VEERENDRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-54] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH KUMAR @ SHALESH KUMAR, SON OF SHALIGRAM MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARNEI, PO. BERKA, POLICE STATION MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT JEHANABAD VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH JIVANLAL DAVE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2024-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
TAMANA RANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
SIHANA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI KOMAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. MATHURA YADAV [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-3-122] [REFERRED TO]
C. MUNIAPPAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2016-3-87] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIQ HUSSAIN FAKTOO VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA RANI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
MOFIL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-65] [REFERRED TO]
ACCUSED X VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KISHOR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES VS. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(SC)-2024-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. ARIF @ ASHFAQ VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPHAL DANGI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-189] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)I have had the privilege of reading the draft judgment prepared by my esteemed brother Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. With utmost respect, I am unable to agree with the view taken by him that a review petition filed by a convict whose death penalty is affirmed by this Court is required to be heard in open Court but cannot be decided by circulation. The background facts and the submissions are elaborately mentioned by my learned brother.
I do not propose to repeat them.
(2.)Extinguishment of life of a subject by the State as a punishment for an offence is still sanctioned by law in this country. Article 21 of the Constitution itself recognizes the authority of the State to deprive a person of his life. No doubt, such authority is circumscribed by many constitutional limitations. Article 21 mandates that a person cannot be deprived of his life except according to procedure established by law.
Whether Article 21 is the sole repository of the constitutional guarantee against the deprivation of life and whether it is sufficient for the State to merely prescribe a procedure for the deprivation of life by a law, or whether such a law is required to comply with certain other constitutional requirements are questions which have been the subject matter of debate by this Court in various decisions starting from A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR(SC) 27. The history of such debate and the historical background in which such constitutional protections are felt necessary have been very elaborately discussed by my learned brother. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with the said aspect of the matter.
(3.)Section 53
53. Punishments- The punishments in which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are- First - Death; Secondly - Imprisonment for life; Thirdly - [Omitted by Act 17 of 1949, sec. 2 (wef 6.4.1949)] Fourthly - Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely - (1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour; (2) Simple; Fifthly - Forfeiture of property; Sixthly- Fine. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") prescribes various punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of the IPC. Death is one of the punishments so prescribed. Provisions of the IPC prescribe death penalty for various offences as one of the alternative punishments for these offences . For example, Section 302 prescribes death or imprisonment for life as alternative punishments for a person who commits murder. Similarly, Section 121 prescribes death penalty as one of the alternatives for an offence of waging or attempting to wage or abetting to waging of war against the Government of India.
I do not propose to repeat them.
(2.)Extinguishment of life of a subject by the State as a punishment for an offence is still sanctioned by law in this country. Article 21 of the Constitution itself recognizes the authority of the State to deprive a person of his life. No doubt, such authority is circumscribed by many constitutional limitations. Article 21 mandates that a person cannot be deprived of his life except according to procedure established by law.
Whether Article 21 is the sole repository of the constitutional guarantee against the deprivation of life and whether it is sufficient for the State to merely prescribe a procedure for the deprivation of life by a law, or whether such a law is required to comply with certain other constitutional requirements are questions which have been the subject matter of debate by this Court in various decisions starting from A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR(SC) 27. The history of such debate and the historical background in which such constitutional protections are felt necessary have been very elaborately discussed by my learned brother. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with the said aspect of the matter.
(3.)Section 53
53. Punishments- The punishments in which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are- First - Death; Secondly - Imprisonment for life; Thirdly - [Omitted by Act 17 of 1949, sec. 2 (wef 6.4.1949)] Fourthly - Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely - (1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour; (2) Simple; Fifthly - Forfeiture of property; Sixthly- Fine. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") prescribes various punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of the IPC. Death is one of the punishments so prescribed. Provisions of the IPC prescribe death penalty for various offences as one of the alternative punishments for these offences . For example, Section 302 prescribes death or imprisonment for life as alternative punishments for a person who commits murder. Similarly, Section 121 prescribes death penalty as one of the alternatives for an offence of waging or attempting to wage or abetting to waging of war against the Government of India.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.