Malik had pleaded guilty to the offences he was charged with in the matter, including that of waging war against the State under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that can attract a maximum punishment of death penalty.
However, judge Singh ruled that the death sentence is not warranted in the present case.
Special Public Prosecutor representing the NIA, Neel Kamal, submitted that punishment should act as a deterrent, and there were no mitigating circumstances in favour of Malik, who had no scope for reformation.
Amicus curiae Akhand Pratap Singh, appearing for Malik, however, argued that deterrence or retribution could not be a factor for punishment once the accused had pleaded guilty to the charges.
Malik had submitted before the judge that he had stopped violence from 1994 onwards, engaging with Indian leaders across the political spectrum.
He emphasised on his decision to follow the peaceful path of Mahatma Gandhi since 1994.
At the outset, the judge noted that it is well-settled that merely because the offence provides for capital punishment, the same cannot be handed over to a convict in a routine matter or as a matter of rule.
He relied on the two Supreme Court decisions in this regard – Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machchi Singh v. State of Punjab – to arrive at the conclusion that the case is not a fit one to award capital punishment.
“The net result of the judicial pronouncements is that death penalty should be awarded in exceptional cases where the crime by its nature shocks the collective consciousness of the society and has been committed with unmatched cruelty and in a gruesome manner,” the Court noted.
Source: Barandbench
