Report No. 262
Table 5.1: List of Cases Doubted in Bariyar, Sangeet, Khade
Sl. No. |
Case |
No. of persons given the death sentence |
Imposition of Death Penalty expressly678 held erroneous in |
1. |
Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 | 1 |
Bariyar |
2. |
Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 56 | 1 |
Bariyar |
3. |
Mohan Anna Chavan v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 113 | 1 |
Bariyar |
4. |
Bantu v. State of UP, (2008) 11 SCC 113 | 1 |
Bariyar |
5. |
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, (2003) 9 SCC 310 | 1 |
Bariyar |
6. |
Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 6 SCC 271 | 1 |
Bariyar |
7. |
State of UP v. Sattan, (2009) 4 SCC 736 | 4 |
Bariyar |
8. |
Saibanna v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 165 | 1 |
Bariyar |
9. |
Shivu v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 713 | 2 |
Sangeet |
10. |
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 4 SCC 37 | 1 |
Sangeet |
11. |
Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 317 | 1 |
Sangeet |
12. |
B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 85 | 1 |
Sangeet |
13. |
Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338 | 1 |
Sangeet |
14. |
Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 635 | 1 |
Shankar Khade |
15. |
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220 | 1 |
Shankar Khade |
16. |
Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P., (1996) 6 SCC 250 | 1 |
Shankar Khade |
678 In many of these cases the Court has pointed out inconsistencies in the application of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In a judicial system premised on stare decisis, especially in the context of the Court in Bachan Singh clearly mandating that sentencing discretion has to be exercised in light of precedent, these inconsistencies render many such cases per incuriam as well. However, since the Supreme Court has not expressly acknowledged that these cases are per incuriam, they have not been added to the list. See especially, Sangeet and Khade.
5.4.17 Disturbingly, in over half these cases in which the Court later found error, the accused were represented by amicus curie. The over-representation of amicus curie in cases relating to error is a cause for caution, not least because it may signal the impact of structural and systemic disadvantages on the imposition of the death penalty, as discussed above.
