Death sentence confirmation upheld where aggravating circumstances justified capital punishment and jurisdiction existed under the old Code

Conviction for a capital offence was upheld because the evidence and sentence disclosed aggravating circumstances, extreme depravity, diabolical conduct and brutal treatment of the body, so the trial court's choice of death penalty was not disturbed; delay under sentence, by itself, was insufficient for leniency. On jurisdiction, the Court held that confirmation of a death sentence under section 377 of the old Code applied only when the relevant High Court or equivalent court had two or more judges at the time of hearing, and the presence of a single Judicial Commissioner meant the provision was not attracted. The statutory Regulation did not exclude the Code's appellate or revisional jurisdiction, so confirmation was within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction and sentence of death were liable to be interfered with; (ii) Whether the Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction to confirm the death sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Goa, Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioners Court) Regulation, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction and sentence of death were liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The conviction was upheld on merits. On sentence, the Court applied the then governing principle that life imprisonment was the rule and death sentence the exception, but held that where the crime disclosed aggravating circumstances, extreme depravity, diabolical conduct, and brutal treatment of the body, the trial court's discretionary choice of the capital sentence could not be faulted. The length of time spent under the shadow of the sentence was held insufficient, by itself, to justify judicial leniency.

Conclusion: The conviction and death sentence were not liable to be disturbed, and leave on this ground was refused.

Issue (ii): Whether the Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction to confirm the death sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Goa, Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioners Court) Regulation, 1963.

Analysis: The Court held that section 377 of the old Code applied where the High Court, including a Judicial Commissioner's Court within the statutory definition, consisted of two or more judges at the time of confirmation. Since only one Judicial Commissioner was functioning when the reference was heard, the section was not attracted. The Regulation did not curtail the criminal appellate and revisional jurisdiction conferred by the Code, and the referral jurisdiction was treated as akin to appeal and revision for this purpose.

Conclusion: The confirmation by the Judicial Commissioner was held to be within jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both the merits and the jurisdictional objection, and the death sentence was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the context of confirmation of a death sentence, section 377 of the Code applies only when the relevant High Court or equivalent court consists of two or more judges at the time of hearing, and a statutory regulation conferring appellate and revisional jurisdiction does not exclude that power unless it does so expressly.

---