Khushi Bansal & Tanya Goyal*
CASE ANALYSIS – Ediga Anamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Citation: 1974 AIR 799,1974SCR (3) 329
ABSTRACT
The appellant was a modest young woman living with her parents and her only child after her father-in-law had whipped her out of her husband’s house. Due to rivalry between the slain woman and the appellant for the attentions of an unfaithful lover, she killed another young woman and her kid with premeditation and sophisticated planning. The Sessions Court imposed the death penalty, and the High Court upheld it. In the current case of Ediga Anamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh (1974), a bench of Justices Krishnaiyer, V.R. Sarkaria, and Ranjit Singh of the Supreme Court of India had established a list of “positive indicators against the death penalty under Indian law” while arguing the subject of punishment.
INTRODUCTION
In a small village in Andhra Pradesh called Konapally, on November 4, 1971, a young woman named Anasuya and her infant daughter Nirmala were brutally murdered by the accused Ediga Anamma. The victim’s extramarital affair with her lover had caused the accused to become enraged. Following all the investigations and conclusions, the sessions court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to death. The Andhra Pradesh High Court affirmed the verdict and the punishment. The accused filed a criminal appeal with the Supreme Court, requesting that the death sentence be revoked and replaced with a life sentence. The issue was whether to replace the death sentence with life imprisonment considering the fact that the accused is a young women and mother of a 10-year-old child and was flagged out of her conjugal home and moreover the judgment by the sessions court was pronounced on 31 December 1971 and the appeal by the accused was heard in February 1974, this extended period of time had caused great distress to the accused. The appeal was heard by a bench of judges which was consisted of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria. The judgment encapsulates the long standing debate of usage of death sentence and its relevance in today’s times.
RELEVANT FACTS
The appellant in this case is the accused Ediga Anamma and the case is of criminal nature. The accused is a married woman who developed an illicit relation with a widower living in the same village of Ankenpally even while being in her husband’s home. This relationship was discovered by her in-laws resulting in her flagellation by her father in law and she shifted back to her parent’s home in Konapally village. Her paramour responded by shifting himself to the same village and the accused and the person continued on with their interdicted meetings. The victim anasuya was also a married woman and even she had an extra marital relation with accused’s lover and she was unfortunately neighbour of the accused. The accused eventually came to know about this, she was fired up by jealousy for her rival, and she decided to eliminate the victim. On 4th November 1971 anasuya left her house for the fields with her baby in the afternoon hours. She was followed by the accused into the fields where she and her child were ruthlessly murdered by the accused and the victim’s clothes were replaced by the accused with her own clothes and her face was disfigured so as to mislead the investigators and the baby’s body was buried under the sand bed of a nearby stream. Then she went to her paramour’s home and confessed everything to him asked him to elope with her and flee the place with her, but he refused to go with her. She then proceeded to her uncle’s village. The police were informed by the villagers after the discovery of the body of victim, it was initially misunderstood as accused’s body but later when she returned from her uncle’s village and when the her lover confessed to the police everything under stress and with all other corroborative evidence found, an amma was charged with the offence of murder. The sessions court convicted her of murder under section 302 and 201 of I.P.C and gave her death sentence which was also upheld by the High Court and finally she made an appeal in the Supreme court. She appealed that her death sentence be substituted by life imprisonment.
ISSUES
The question before the court was whether the conviction by lower courts was correct and whether to substitute the accused’s death sentence with life sentence or not, considering the fact that modern criminology regards crime and criminal equally important in picking up the right sentence and also taking into account the amendment in the criminal procedure code in1973 which inserted a line that after the post-conviction period, judges should hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass the sentence on him according to law.
CONTENTIONS
The contentions raised by the amicus curiae Shri Khathuria were that there was no direct evidence in the case and the confession of the appellant’s paramour was in extra judicial settings and that the accused’s death sentence is not justified after conviction, considering the fact that the appellant is young woman and a mother of 10-year-old child, she suffered flagellation from her father in law and that she was victim to uncontrolled sex indulgences. And also that she suffered prolonged agony due to an extended period of court proceedings over 3 years. He also stated that amendment to the criminal procedure code in 1973 which adds the line that post-conviction period the judges should hear the accused on the question of the sentence before passing the sentence on him according to law. He stressed that the accused’s social background should be considered taking into account the mentioned amendment, On the other hand the counsel for the state stated that the baby’s body was found in the sand bed with the accused clothing on it and also a chisel which was used as the murder weapon was discovered with it
The appellant’s own father admitted that it was his chisel which went missing and appellant’s clothes were also found on ansuya’s body. The council of state also argued that the accused’s illicit lover had no ill will towards the accused so his confession can be relied upon and it was also corroborated by the evidence found and also by the three witnesses who confirmed that they saw anamma following her victim to fields on that day. The counsel said that all the evidence and the confession point to the fact that the accused committed gruesome murder of the victim and her daughter which is reasonable grounds for conviction and death sentence.
JUDGEMENT
The court confirmed the conviction of the accused stating that Shri Kathuria’s attacks on the prosecution’s evidence testifies to his industry but it lacks conviction. It also stated that confession alone wouldn’t have sufficed but due to existence of the corroborative evidence and testimonies given by the witnesses it becomes evident that the accused has committed the crime. So the court confirmed the conviction of the accused the court awarded the accused life imprisonment instead of death sentence taking into account many factors such as the social background of the accused, her youthfulness, her flagellation by her in laws and also her being a mother of a young boy and agony she suffered in the last three years since she committed the crime. The judgement also cited the 1973 amendment in criminal procedure code to state that the death sentence can be given only in special cases. The judgement established that the rights of a person do not end with his conviction. The judgement was unanimous. The convict’s age, both young and old, would be a significant factor to consider in her favor, the Supreme Court decided. Additionally, it stated that sentencing considerations can take into account socioeconomic, psychological, or criminal compulsions that might not be sufficient to support a legal exemption. The Court also listed the length of time spent under a death sentence, the criminality of other accused parties, and the lack of premeditation as favorable conditions. However, factors such as the victim’s characteristics, the weapon used, and the manner the crime was perpetrated would all play a significant role in determining the severity of the punishment.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion The judgement dissolved the death sentence of the accused substituting it with the life imprisonment and upheld the conviction of the accused. This judgement highlights the reformative aspect of penology in India, it reconfirmed in the belief that punishment shouldn’t be retributive in nature and it reaffirmed that death penalty can only be awarded in rarest of the rare circumstances and many factors should be taken note of before pronouncing a death sentence. It also strengthened the legal principle that after the conviction the court shall hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass the sentence on him according to law. The death penalty, also referred to as the capital punishment, is still a divisive topic in India. India still only carries it in the “rarest of rare” situations, despite international efforts to outlaw the practice. The Bacchan v. State of Punjab (1980) decision created the “rarest of the rare” theory, which states that if a crime is deemed “exceptionally violent,” the accused should be executed as a result.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1496005/
https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Harsh_death.pdf
https://thelegallock.com/case-summary-ediga-anamma-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh/.
https://www.scribd.com/document/678823944/case-summary-of-Ediga-Annamma-V-State-of-Andhra-Pradesh.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-cases-death-penalty-india/.
****
*Authors Khushi Bansal and Tanya Goyal are fourth-year students studying at UPES Dehradun. They are currently pursuing a specialization in corporate laws within the BA LLB Honors program.
Author Bio
