Shyam Singh Alias Bhima v. State Of Madhya Pradesh ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was convicted by the trial court for committing a triple murder, which included the killing of both his parents, and was sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court’s reference for confirmation of the death sentence was affirmed by the High Court (2012 SCC OnLine MP 3081), and the appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition. By order dated 7 September 2012 in SLP (Cri) Crl. MP No. 16249 of 2012, the Supreme Court issued limited notice restricted solely to the question of sentence. The present order confines itself to determining whether the death penalty should be maintained or commuted.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684	(i) Age of the accused (ii) Possibility of reform	Recognised youth and potential for reformation as mitigating factors against death penalty.
Rajesh Kumar v. State, (2011) 13 SCC 706	Possibility of reform	Reiterated that the chance of reform is a relevant mitigating circumstance.
Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508	Socio-economic background of the accused	Considered the appellant’s poor and backward background as a mitigating factor.
Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 4 SCC 679	Circumstances in which the crime was committed	Acknowledged that brutality alone is not determinative; broader circumstances must be weighed.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498	Quality of evidence; relevance of circumstantial evidence	Noted that conviction resting on circumstantial evidence is one among several factors to be considered at sentencing.
Gudda alias Dwarikendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 16 SCC 596	Lack of criminal antecedents	Emphasised the appellant’s clean past record as a ground militating against capital punishment.
State of M.P. v. [Appellant], 2012 SCC OnLine MP 3081	High Court confirmation of death sentence	Cited to record procedural history; no substantive principle extracted.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684

(i) Age of the accused
(ii) Possibility of reform

Recognised youth and potential for reformation as mitigating factors against death penalty.

Rajesh Kumar v. State, (2011) 13 SCC 706

Possibility of reform

Reiterated that the chance of reform is a relevant mitigating circumstance.

Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508

Socio-economic background of the accused

Considered the appellant’s poor and backward background as a mitigating factor.

Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 4 SCC 679

Circumstances in which the crime was committed

Acknowledged that brutality alone is not determinative; broader circumstances must be weighed.

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498

Quality of evidence; relevance of circumstantial evidence

Noted that conviction resting on circumstantial evidence is one among several factors to be considered at sentencing.

Gudda alias Dwarikendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 16 SCC 596

Lack of criminal antecedents

Emphasised the appellant’s clean past record as a ground militating against capital punishment.

State of M.P. v. [Appellant], 2012 SCC OnLine MP 3081

High Court confirmation of death sentence

Cited to record procedural history; no substantive principle extracted.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed established principles that guide the imposition of the death penalty, identifying several illustrative factors: the accused’s age, potential for reform, socio-economic background, circumstances surrounding the crime, the evidentiary basis of conviction, and absence of prior criminal conduct. Applying these factors, the Court highlighted the following:

The appellant was 23 years old at the time of the offence—an age suggestive of potential rehabilitation.

He had no prior criminal history, and his behaviour during approximately five years of custody was unblemished.

Evidence showed the appellant was unemployed, drug-dependent, and from a deprived socio-economic background.

Although the murders were brutal, conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence, a factor that, while not decisive, weighs against imposing the ultimate penalty.

Considering the aggregate of mitigating circumstances, the Court concluded that the possibility of reform could not be ruled out.

Balancing the aggravating circumstance of a triple murder against the cumulative mitigating factors, the Court found that the death penalty was not the "rarest of rare" necessity in this case.

Holding and Implications

Sentence Commuted: The death penalty is commuted to life imprisonment, subject to statutory provisions on remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appeal is therefore partly allowed.

Implications: The decision directly spares the appellant from capital punishment and reinforces the Supreme Court’s adherence to a nuanced, factor-based approach in capital sentencing. No new legal doctrine is created, but the ruling underscores the continuing relevance of mitigating factors such as youth, socio-economic deprivation, and potential for reform when determining whether the death sentence is justified.

Shyam Singh Alias Bhima v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .

Order

1. By order dated 7-9-2012 SLP (Cri) Crl. MP No. 16249 of 2012, limited notice was issued in this case confined to the question of sentence only.

2. The appellant who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC was awarded the death penalty by the learned trial court. The reference made by the learned trial court to the High Court has been confirmed 2012 SCC OnLine MP 3081 and the appeal filed by the appellant-accused against the said conviction and sentence has been dismissed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the limited notice that has been issued by the order dated 7-9-2012 SLP (Cri) Crl. MP No. 16249 of 2012, we have confined the present consideration to the question of sentence which alone is being dealt with by the present order.

4. No doubt, the appellant-accused has been found guilty of triple murder including the murder of both his parents. The manner in which the crime was committed is, indeed, brutal and cruel. The question that confronts the Court is whether the offence of triple murder and the manner of commission of crime alone would be sufficient to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

5. We need not burden this order by an exhaustive consideration of the large number of precedents that would be available on the point laying down the principles on the basis of which the justification for death penalty awarded to an accused is required to be considered. Suffice it would be to notice that some of the principles which have emerged are:

(1) the age of the accused [Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab . (1980) 2 SCC 684, para 206];

(2) the possibility of reform [Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab . (1980) 2 SCC 684, para 206], [Rajesh Kumar v. State (2011) 13 SCC 706, para 74];

(3) the socio-economic background of the accused [Mulla v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508, paras 80 and 81];

(4) the circumstances in which the crime has been committed [Dharmendrasinh Alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State Of Gujarat . (2002) 4 SCC 679, para 20];

(5) the quality of the evidence which had prevailed with the Court in upholding the conviction [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State Of Maharashtra . (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 56 and

(6) lack of criminal antecedents [Gudda Alias Dwarikendra v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .. (2013) 16 SCC 596, para 31];

The above enumeration, we must hasten to add, is certainly not exhaustive but is merely illustrative.

6. In the present case, the appellant-accused at the time of commission of the crime was admittedly 23 years of age. There is no criminal history of the appellant-accused. Though the appellant-accused has been in custody for over about five years, there is no material on record to show that his conduct while in custody suffers from any blemish.

7. From the deposition of Shivraj Singh (PW 2), who has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, it is clear that the appellant-accused used to take “Marijuana” and that he used to forcibly take money from his father. It is also evident from the evidence of PW 2 that the accused was unemployed and had no source of earning. The family of the appellant-accused belongs to a poor and backward socio-economic background. The evidence in the case is entirely circumstantial. Though the same would not be a determinative factor, undoubtedly, as held by this Court in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State Of Maharashtra . (2009) 6 SCC 498 the same would be one of the factors that could be taken into account in adjudging the sentence to be awarded.

8. From the above, it would appear to us that the appellant-accused is a young man addicted to drugs who needed money to sustain his habits. The accused comes from a deprived socio-economic background without any criminal history and his conduct while in custody does not suffer from any blemish. The possibility of reformation, on the materials on record, cannot be ruled out. Having regard to the broad and illustrative principles discussed above, we are of the view that the present is a case where we would be justified in holding that instead of death penalty the punishment of life imprisonment subject to the provisions of remission, etc. under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be adequate to meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, order accordingly and commute the sentence of death penalty to life imprisonment.

9. The appeal consequently is partly allowed in the above terms.

(Record of Proceedings),Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2013, decided on September 1, 2016

Shyam Singh Alias Bhima v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Shyam Singh Alias Bhima v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .

Comments