Journalism of Courage
The Bombay High Court Saturday set aside the death sentence of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus-driver Santosh Mane,who mowed down nine people in Pune last year. The HC observed that the trial court did not give him a hearing on the quantum of punishment after his conviction.
While upholding his conviction,a Division Bench of Justices P V Hardas and P M Deshmukh remitted the case back to the sessions court in Pune to hear Mane before handing out the sentence of punishment to the 40-year-old father of four.
The HC Division Bench,which heard the appeal by the 40-year-old driver,however,upheld the conviction by the Sessions Court under various sections,including murder.
While the HC decision may be a breather for Mane,who is behind bars for last one and a half years,the sessions court that has been asked to decide the quantum punishment afresh after hearing Mane,will have to re-decide about the capital punishment that it handed out.
According to the prosecution,on the morning of January 25,2012,Mane hijacked a ST bus from Swargate depot and went on a rampage killing nine people,injuring 37 and damaging over 25 vehicles. The police and citizens managed to stop the bus near Neelayam theatre bridge after a 45-minute pursuit over a distance of 15 km. On April 8,additional sessions judge V K Shevale had held Mane guilty under various sections of the IPC,including murder. Terming Manes offence rarest of the rare,the sessions court had sentenced him to death.
In his appeal before the HC,Manes lawyers Jaydeep and Dhananjay Mane said the accused was not given a hearing on the question of sentence. The (trial) judge was in such a hurry to send the accused to the gallows that he did not follow the mandatory provision under section 235(2) of the CrPC, the appeal stated. The prosecution,however,argued that the Manes lawyers were heard on the question of sentence by the sessions court. The defence contended that the legal flaw was incurable. The defence had also taken a stand that Mane had committed the act in a fit of insanity. The HC however upheld the trial court decision.
REACTIONS
In the beginning of our argument in the High Court we raised the issue that the accused was not allowed to present his say about the quantum of punishment. We complained to the Bench the the trial judge was so eager to send the accused to the gallows that he did not allow him to speak before he sentenced him to death. The Bench took cognisance of this objections and passed the directive.
Jaideep Mane,Defence lawyer
It is the right of a convict to be heard before he is handed out the sentence. The HC has all the power to order such a thing as is done in this case. I remembers a case in Satara where I was a defence laywer.We had taken the insanity defence. The HC told the trial court to conduct fresh argument.
Harshad Nimbalkar,Criminal Llawyer:
There are examples where the Supreme Court had vitiated the trials where the accused were not allowed to put forth their say before sentencing them. Its a right of the accused and if this is not done it is said,in legal parlance,that the jugdes have lost sight of the trial.
B A Aloor,Defence laywer in Nayana Pujari gangrape case
