Criminal Law – ‘Rarest of rare’ case – When not – One ‘P’ was married but had a love affair with ‘G’ – This was opposed by her brother-‘D’, who along with co-accused-‘M’ committed the murder of ‘P’ and ‘G’ – Trial court and High Court holding the case to be ‘rarest of rare’, awarded death penalty and life imprisonment to ‘D’ and ‘M’, respectively – Correctness of – Held: No interference warranted with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the accused appellants are guilty of offence punishable u/s.302, IPC – However, the present case cannot be considered to be ‘rarest of rare’ – Both the appellants do not have any criminal antecedents – Medical evidence further reveals that the appellants did not act in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there was only single injury inflicted on both the deceased – Appellant‘D’ who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young boy of about 25 years at the time of the incident – Report of the Probation Officer as well as the Superintendent of the prison shows that he has been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person with leadership qualities – He is not a person with criminal mindset and criminal records – Trial court and High Court erred in holding the case to be rarest of rare and awarding capital punishment to ‘D’ – Though, his conviction u/s.302, IPC is maintained, the sentence of capital punishment is commuted to life imprisonment – However, life imprisonment awarded to ‘M’ is not interfered with – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.106, 8 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34. Criminal Law – Rarest of rare doctrine – Imposition of death sentence – Held: ‘Rarest of rare’ doctrine does not require that in such a case only death sentence has to be imposed – While considering as to whether the death sentence is to be inflicted or not, the Court will have to consider not only the grave nature of crime but also as to whether there was a possibility of reformation of a criminal.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others (2010) 12 SCC 324 : [2010] 9 SCR 563; Gandi
Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 415 : [2017] 2 SCR 62;
Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of
Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 35 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 612; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 3 SCC
294 : [2013] 3 SCR 90; Sundar @ Sundarrajan v State by Inspector of Police Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.