Guided by the above facts, we must scrutinize not
only the nature of the offence but also the totality of
the offender’s circumstances. In the instant case,
while the offence is undoubtedly brutal, certain
mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of
criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in
prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation. There
is no material demonstrating that he would remain a
perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond
reform. Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the
Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a
potentially reformable individual. Further, this Court
has consistently recognized that the imposition of
capital punishment is an exception and not the rule.
Even where multiple murders have been committed,
if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility
of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred. {Para 21}
22. Weighing the totality of circumstances and
having regard to the legal principles discussed above,
we are of the view that while the crime is heinous and
deserves the highest degree of condemnation, it does
not meet the threshold of “the rarest of rare” so as to
irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2220-2221 OF 2022
DEEN DAYAL TIWARI Vs STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH
Citation: 2025 INSC 111.
Dated: JANUARY 16, 2025.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material placed before us.
2. The present Criminal Appeals arise out of the
impugned Judgment and final Order dated
09.05.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Capital Case No. 01
of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 1776 of 2016,
whereby the High Court confirmed the conviction and
the sentence of death imposed upon the Appellant by
the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Court No.5, Faizabad, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 2
2013 (arising out of Case Crime No. 748 of 2011,
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).
3. The relevant facts are summarized hereunder:
3.1 The Appellant, Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari,
resided in village Pure Brijlal Tiwari Moiya
Kapurpur, Police Station Pura Kalandar, District
Faizabad (now Ayodhya), Uttar Pradesh. He was
married to one Smt. Siyallali and had four minor
daughters, namely (i) Mani, (ii) Riya, (iii) Guddan,
and (iv) Mahima.
3.2 Incident day : In the intervening night of
11/12.11.2011, at around 2:30 a.m., the
Appellant’s brother, PW-1 (Shri Dinanath Tiwari),
and PW-1’s wife, PW-2 (Smt. Suneeta alias
Anita), purportedly heard frantic cries of
“bachao-bachao” (save-save) emanating from the
Appellant’s house, which was adjacent to their
own. Alarmed by these cries, PW-1 and PW-2
rushed towards the Appellant’s house. They
noticed that the door to the Appellant’s room was
locked from inside. Despite knocking and
threatening to break the door, it was not opened.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 3
3.3 PW-1’s Version/Lodging of FIR:
According to PW-1, when they continued to
demand that the door be opened, the Appellant
emerged briefly from within, allegedly holding a
blood-stained axe, and warned them to leave or
face the risk of being killed. He then went back
inside and locked the door again. Sometime
thereafter, PW-1 proceeded to the Police Station
Pura Kalandar, located about 14–15 km away,
and claims to have lodged a written complaint
(Ex. Ka-1) at around 6:10 a.m. on 12.11.2011. A
formal FIR (Case Crime No. 748 of 2011) under
Section 302 IPC was registered against the
Appellant at the said police station.
3.4 Arrival of Police & Arrest of the
Appellant: On receiving information about the
gruesome incident, PW-5 (Station Officer, Ajay
Prakash Mishra) reached the Appellant’s house
on the morning of 12.11.2011. Villagers had
assembled in large numbers. The inner room,
where the Appellant allegedly remained, was
bolted. PW-5, with the help of the villagers, forced
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 4
the door open and found the Appellant inside the
room, holding an axe with fresh blood stains on
it. The Appellant was immediately apprehended
on the spot. Inside the same room, five bodies—
those of the Appellant’s wife (Smt. Siyallali) and
their four minor daughters—were lying in pools
of blood.
3.5 Discovery & Recovery of Weapons:
According to the prosecution, the Appellant,
upon interrogation by PW-5, confessed to having
killed his wife and daughters. On the Appellant’s
pointing out, the police recovered two knives
from the same room. The axe, initially seen in the
Appellant’s hand, was also seized. Recovery
memos (Ex. Ka-7, Ka-8, and Ka-9) pertaining to
the axe, knives, blood-stained clothes, and soil
samples were prepared by PW-5 in the presence
of witnesses, including PW-3 (Shri Visheshwar
Nath Mishra).
3.6 Condition of the Deceased &
Panchayatnama: PW-5 prepared separate
inquest reports (panchayatnama) for each of the
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 5
five deceased. Photographs were taken, and
blood-stained soil as well as plain soil samples
were collected from the place of occurrence. The
bodies were dispatched for postmortem
examination at the District Women Hospital,
Faizabad, between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on
12.11.2011.
3.7 Postmortem Findings (PW-4, Dr. S.K.
Shukla): Multiple incised and lacerated wounds
were found on each deceased victim—indicating
that at least one sharp-edged weapon
(axe/knives) had been used. Some injuries also
suggested blunt force or wide-edged impact, but
overall, the cause of death in each case was
determined to be shock and hemorrhage due to
the ante-mortem injuries. The estimated time of
death for all five deceased aligned with the early
morning hours of 12.11.2011, broadly
corroborating the prosecution’s timeline.
3.8 Charge-Sheet & Commencement of
Trial: Pursuant to the investigation, PW-5 filed a
charge-sheet against the Appellant under Section
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 6
302 IPC before the competent Magistrate, who
committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
The learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad, proceeded with
Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2013. During trial, the
prosecution examined five witnesses:-
• PW-1, the informant and younger
brother of the Appellant;
• PW-2, wife of PW-1, who was present
near the scene;
• PW-3, an independent witness who
reached the spot after receiving a call
around 2:30–3:00 a.m.;
• PW-4, Dr. S.K. Shukla, who conducted
the postmortem; and
• PW-5, Investigating Officer (Station
Officer).
• PW-1 and PW-2 testified about hearing
the cries from the Appellant’s house and
seeing the Appellant with a bloodstained axe. PW-3 corroborated the fact
that the Appellant was found inside his
locked room, walking around with the
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 7
axe, while the five bodies lay on the
floor.
• PW-5 deposed on the arrest of the
Appellant at the spot, the recovery of
incriminating weapons, and the
subsequent investigative steps.
3.9 Appellant’s Defence: In his statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied
committing the murders. He contended that he
was sleeping in the barn (khalihan) to guard
paddy on the night of the incident and that
unknown miscreants killed his wife and children.
The Appellant also alleged false implication by
his brother (PW-1) and certain villagers,
ostensibly due to jealousy and property disputes.
3.10 Trial Court Verdict: By Judgment and
Order dated 29.01.2014/30.01.2014, the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Court No.5, Faizabad, convicted the Appellant
under Section 302 IPC for the murders of his wife
and four minor daughters. The Trial Court
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 8
awarded the death penalty, observing that the
case fell under the “rarest of rare” category.
3.11 Appeal & Confirmation (High Court):
The Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.
1776 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). Additionally, the
Trial Court made a reference (Capital Case No. 01
of 2014) for confirmation of the death sentence.
On 09.05.2022, the High Court dismissed the
Appellant’s appeal, confirmed the findings of
guilt, and upheld the sentence of death,
concurring with the Trial Court that the murders
were committed in an extremely brutal and
diabolical manner.
4. Aggrieved by the High Court’s Judgment and final
Order, the Appellant approached this Court by way
of the present Criminal Appeal challenging the
conviction as well as the sentence imposed upon.
5. Mr. Shree Singh, the learned counsel for the
Appellant , submitted a broad range of contentions
challenging both the conviction and the sentence of
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 9
death. The principal arguments are summarized
hereunder:
5.1. Entirely Circumstantial Evidence It is
urged that there is no direct or ocular evidence
linking the Appellant to the crime. The
prosecution’s case is premised solely on
circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel
contends that the chain of circumstances is far
from complete and cannot form the basis for a
conviction According to the Appellant, the
prosecution failed to establish each link of the
chain in a manner that unequivocally points to
the Appellant’s guilt and excludes every other
hypothesis.
5.2. Contradictions & Lacunae in Ocular
Evidence The Appellant highlights material
inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-1 (the
informant and brother of the Appellant), PW-2
(the wife of PW-1), and PW-3 (an independent
witness). It is argued that PW-1 gave multiple
versions regarding the events of the night and
subsequent lodging of the FIR, rendering his
account unreliable. Likewise, PW-2’s and PW-3’s
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 10
depositions are said to suffer from contradictions
about who first arrived at the scene, how the door
was opened, and when the police reached. These
inconsistencies, according to learned counsel,
create serious doubts about the veracity of the
prosecution story.
5.3. FIR Allegedly Ante-Timed- The Counsel
for the appellant questions the authenticity of the
FIR (Case Crime No. 748 of 2011), contending
that it was lodged after the Appellant’s arrest, yet
shown to have been registered at 6:10 a.m. on
12.11.2011. Learned counsel submits that no
credible explanation has been given as to how the
police arrived at the crime scene well before the
FIR was purportedly lodged, thereby indicating
that the FIR was manipulated to suit the
prosecution’s narrative.
5.4. Inadmissibility of Confessional
Statement- The Appellant’s alleged confession to
the police is assailed as inadmissible under
Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, particularly since it was made while in
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 11
police custody. Even if such a statement had
been made, learned counsel stresses that it must
be corroborated by unimpeachable independent
evidence, which is lacking in the present case.
5.5. Unreliable Recovery of Weapons- The
Appellant further contends that the purported
recovery of the axe and two knives is fraught with
discrepancies. No independent witness has
credibly deposed that the Appellant led the police
to discover these items from a concealed location.
Rather, the weapons were allegedly lying in plain
sight, thereby raising the possibility of planting
or fabrication. It is further emphasized that no
disclosure memo bearing the Appellant’s
signature has been produced, undermining the
credibility of the prosecution’s recovery memos.
5.6. Gaps in Forensic Evidence- Learned
counsel submits that the prosecution has not
conclusively established that the bloodstains on
the weapons or clothes belong to the deceased.
In the absence of any serological report
confirming that the blood was human and
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 12
matched the victims, the link between the
Appellant and the weapons remains unproved.
Moreover, the presence of certain injuries (as
noted by PW-4, the autopsy doctor) that could
have been caused by a broader instrument (like
a stick) further casts doubt on the theory that
only an axe and knives were used.
5.7. Possibility of Alibi- The Appellant has
consistently maintained that he was sleeping in
the barn (khalihan) to protect his paddy at the
time of the murders, and that unknown
miscreants entered the house and killed his wife
and daughters. Learned counsel argues that the
prosecution failed to disprove this defence or to
show why it was impossible for the crime to have
been committed by others.
5.8. Sentencing: Death Not WarrantedWithout prejudice to the plea of innocence,
learned counsel assails the imposition of capital
punishment as violative of guidelines laid down
in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
684 and subsequent decisions, including Machhi
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 13
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 and
Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022
SCC OnLine SC 677. It is urged that the Courts
below overlooked mitigating factors, such as the
Appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents,
and possibility of reformation. Death penalty is
said to be an exception, not the norm, and must
be imposed only when the alternative of life
imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.”
6. Learned Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh has
opposed the appeal and supported the concurrent
findings of the Trial Court and the High Court,
making the following submissions:
6.1 Gravity and Heinous Nature of OffenceIt is contended that the present case involves an
extremely grave and heinous crime, wherein the
Appellant brutally murdered his wife and four
minor daughters using an axe. The very nature
of this offense, committed against helpless and
vulnerable family members, underscores the
severity and depravity of the crime.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 14
6.2 Clear Evidence of Guilt- The prosecution
relies on the fact that PW-1 (the Informant and
the Appellant’s own brother) and PW-2 reached
the Appellant’s house upon hearing cries for
help. Despite the door being locked, the
Appellant is stated to have briefly emerged with a
blood-stained axe, threatened them, and
retreated inside. Subsequently, PW-1 and PW-5
(Investigating Officer) forced the door open and
found the Appellant walking in the room while
holding the axe. According to learned counsel,
the evidence on record, both oral and
documentary, amply demonstrates that the
Appellant alone is responsible for committing the
murders. The Trial Court and High Court have
rightly appreciated these facts to conclude the
Appellant’s guilt under Section 302 IPC.
6.3 Recovery of Weapons & Medical
Corroboration- The prosecution points out that
the murder weapon (axe), allegedly used by the
Appellant, was recovered from him at the spot,
and two knives were also discovered from the
same room. These recoveries are said to be
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 15
corroborated by the postmortem reports (PW-4,
Dr. S.K. Shukla), indicating that the injuries on
the deceased were consistent with the use of
sharp-edged weapons. Forensic and medical
evidence collectively establish that the immediate
cause of death was massive blood loss resulting
from incised wounds caused by an axe or knives,
which were seized in the presence of witnesses
(PW-3 and PW-5).
6.4 Witness Credibility and CorroborationLearned counsel refutes the suggestion that
prosecution witnesses are unreliable. Minor
discrepancies, if any, are argued to be non-fatal.
Relying on settled precedents, it is submitted
that minor contradictions do not vitiate the core
prosecution story when the overall version is
consistent and corroborated by medical and
forensic evidence. Moreover, PW-1’s version is
termed natural and credible: upon discovering
such a grisly scene involving his own close
relatives, PW-1 fainted, further highlighting the
horrific nature of the incident.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 16
6.5 Concurrent Findings of Fact- Both the
Trial Court and the High Court have carried out
a thorough examination of the evidence,
including the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3,
and the postmortem reports of PW-4. According
to the State, these findings cannot be
characterized as perverse or contrary to law.
Therefore, in the absence of any new or
exculpatory evidence, no interference is
warranted by this Court.
6.6 Case Falling Under ‘Rarest of Rare’-
Emphasizing the brutality and the sheer number
of victims: five murders committed in one night
within the confines of the Appellant’s home, the
State asserts that this case satisfies the
guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh (supra)
and Machhi Singh (supra) guidelines for
awarding the death penalty. The High Court
specifically noted that the Appellant’s conduct
and the diabolical manner of execution rendered
life imprisonment insufficient. The Respondent
supports this conclusion, arguing that the
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 17
Appellant’s actions shock the collective
conscience of society and mark him as a menace.
6.7 Compliance with Manoj & Ors. v. State
of Madhya Pradesh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 677-
Learned counsel apprises the Court that reports
from the Superintendent of District Jail and the
Probation Officer have been placed on record in
compliance with the directive of this Hon’ble
Court. While the Appellant’s prison conduct is
reported as “satisfactory,” the State insists that
these factors do not outweigh the magnitude,
brutality, and impact of the crime.
7. We have heard learned counsel on both sides and
carefully perused the evidence on record, the findings
of the Trial Court, and the impugned judgment of the
High Court. The primary question that arises at this
stage is whether the prosecution has established,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the Appellant is guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. It is not in dispute that the prosecution case rests
predominantly on circumstantial evidence. The law
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 18
on conviction based on circumstantial evidence is
well-settled: the prosecution must establish each
circumstance forming a complete chain that
unerringly points to the guilt of the accused and
excludes every other hypothesis of innocence.
We have therefore tested the circumstances put forth
by the prosecution to determine whether the chain of
events proves the guilt of the Appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
9. The relevant factors in the present case include: (i)
the fact that five deceased persons (the Appellant’s
wife and four minor daughters) were found lying in a
pool of blood inside the Appellant’s house; (ii) the
prompt presence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 at or near
the scene; (iii) the Appellant’s own presence, allegedly
armed with a blood-stained axe; (iv) the subsequent
recovery of incriminating weapons; and (v) the
Appellant’s failure to furnish a satisfactory
explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act.
10. FIR & Timing- The defense contends that the FIR
was ante-timed and lodged after the Appellant’s
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 19
arrest. However, from the record, including the
General Diary (GD) entries, it transpires that PW-1’s
written complaint was registered at around 6:10 a.m.
on 12.11.2011. That timeframe is not so delayed or
unusual as to cast inherent doubt on the entire
prosecution case, especially given that the place of
occurrence is about 14–15 km from the police
station. It is also relevant that the witnesses had to
gather sufficient courage and assistance to even
approach the house, which the Appellant had
allegedly locked from inside. Viewed cumulatively, we
do not find any material or glaring inconsistency to
conclude that the FIR was fabricated or manipulated
merely on the ground of timing.
11. Presence of the Appellant and Discovery of
Bodies- PW-1 (brother of the Appellant), PW-2 (wife
of PW-1), and PW-3 (independent witness) have
uniformly deposed that, upon hearing screams from
inside the Appellant’s house on the night of
11/12.11.2011, they rushed there. The door was said
to be locked from inside, and when threatened with
breaking it open, the Appellant himself emerged,
allegedly holding an axe stained with fresh blood.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 20
Shortly thereafter, PW-5 (the Investigating Officer)
arrived with other police personnel. The room was
forcibly opened in the presence of villagers, and the
dead bodies of the Appellant’s wife and four minor
daughters were found lying therein. The Appellant
was still present inside, apprehended on the spot,
and allegedly in possession of the same blood-stained
axe.
Medical Evidence -PW-4 (Dr. S.K. Shukla), who
conducted the postmortem examinations, found
multiple incised and lacerated injuries on each of the
deceased, consistent with weapons like an axe and
knives. The stated cause of death was “shock and
hemorrhage” due to these ante-mortem injuries. It is
contended on behalf of the Appellant that the
presence of certain blunt-force injuries creates a
discrepancy in the prosecution’s version. However, a
closer look at the postmortem findings reveals that
these blunt-force injuries can be attributed to the
blunt side of the very same axe which caused the
incised wounds. Consequently, the medical evidence
remains consistent with the prosecution theory that
all the injuries, including both sharp-edged and
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 21
blunt trauma, were inflicted by the same weapon
recovered at the scene, thus reinforcing the
conclusion that the assault was brutal and matched
the nature of the weapons seized.
12. Recovery of Incriminating Material- The Appellant
questions the validity of the recovery memos,
contending that the weapons could have been
planted. However, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5
details the seizure of the blood-stained axe from the
Appellant’s hand and the subsequent recovery of two
knives from within the same room on the Appellant’s
pointing out. While the Appellant argues that his
signature on the recovery memos is absent, such a
procedural gap by itself does not necessarily vitiate
the entire process. The presence of independent
witness PW-3 at the spot, as well as the
contemporaneous nature of the recovery, lends
credence to the prosecution’s version.
13. Alibi & Section 106 of the Evidence Act- The
Appellant’s principal defense is that he was sleeping
in his barn (khalihan) at the time of the murders,
thereby suggesting a possibility that unknown
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 22
miscreants killed his family. However, he has
produced neither documentary evidence nor any
witness to substantiate this claim.
Once it is established that the Appellant was found
at the scene and his family members were discovered
murdered in the very room to which he had access
and control, the burden to explain how the murders
occurred within his locked premises shifts to him
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. His failure to
offer a plausible explanation—particularly when
there is no material on record supporting his alibi—
fortifies the prosecution’s case.
14. Reliability of Prosecution Witnesses- The defense
asserts inconsistencies and contradictions in the
testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3. We find that
most of these so-called contradictions are minor in
nature, pertaining to peripheral or non-critical
details such as exact times or the manner in which
the villagers gathered. Material particulars, namely,
that the Appellant was inside the house, armed with
a blood-stained axe, while his wife and daughters lay
murdered- are consistently spoken to by these
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 23
witnesses. Minor discrepancies do not, in our view,
vitiate the core narrative.
15. Motive- An additional factor that emerges from the
record is the Appellant’s alleged suspicion regarding
his wife’s moral character. The prosecution claims
that the Appellant believed his wife was engaged in
an illicit relationship, which caused frequent discord
within the family. This suspicion is said to have
motivated the Appellant to eliminate his wife, and in
the course of events, he also killed his four minor
daughters when they intervened or witnessed the
assault. Though the presence of a motive is not an
indispensable requirement for conviction in every
case, proof of motive here reinforces the prosecution’s
version that the Appellant acted with a deliberate
intention to commit these crimes.
16. Chain of Circumstances- Upon a cumulative
evaluation of the circumstances, it appears that:
o (i) the victims were last seen alive in the
Appellant’s exclusive custody (his own
house) on that fateful night,
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 24
o (ii) the Appellant was found inside the
same house soon after the murders, with
a blood-stained axe,
o (iii) the postmortem reports confirm cause
of death by repeated blows of sharp-edged
weapons, and
o (iv) no satisfactory explanation has been
provided by the Appellant to displace the
inference of guilt.
We are therefore of the considered view that these
circumstances form an unbroken chain pointing
unmistakably to the Appellant as the perpetrator
of the crime.
17. In light of the evidence in its entirety, we find no
cogent basis to disturb the concurrent findings of the
Trial Court and the High Court that the Appellant
committed the murders of his wife and four minor
daughters in the intervening night of 11/12.11.2011.
Consequently, we hold that the conviction of the
Appellant under Section 302 IPC is fully justified and
does not warrant any interference at this stage.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 25
18. The only question that remains is whether the
present case falls under the rarest of rare category so
as to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. We
have carefully weighed the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, in light of the sentencing
framework delineated in the judgements of Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab (Supra) , and Machhi Singh
(supra), and subsequent precedents.
19. Aggravating Factors
19.1 Brutal multiple murders: The Appellant
has been found guilty of murdering five
persons—his own wife and four minor daughters.
This crime, by its very nature, is undeniably
grave and horrific.
19.2 Position of trust and vulnerability of
victims: The deceased were defenseless,
particularly the four minor daughters, placing a
moral onus on the Appellant to protect them.
Instead, they were brutally killed in their own
home.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.2220-21221 OF 2022 26
19.3 Impact on societal conscience:
Undeniably, such a crime of multiple homicides
within a family can shock the collective
conscience of the society.
20. Mitigating Factors
20.1 Absence of previous criminal
antecedents: The record does not disclose any
prior conviction or past criminal history on the
part of the Appellant.
20.2 Reports suggesting scope for
reformation: In compliance with our directions,
the State has placed on record the report of the
Superintendent of District Jail, Ayodhya. It
indicates that the Appellant’s behavior in
custody has been “satisfactory” and “normal,”
noting that he has been performing assigned
duties (such as cleaning/sweeper tasks) without
any adverse conduct. While prison conduct alone
is not determinative, it is a factor supportive of
the possibility of reformation.
20.3 Socio-economic and personal
circumstances: Nothing on record suggests that
the Appellant is incapable of rehabilitation. He
does not appear to be a hardened criminal who
poses an enduring menace to society.
20.4 Possibility of commutation- In several
cases involving multiple homicides, this Court
has nonetheless commuted the death penalty to
life imprisonment, acknowledging the potential
for reformation or considering other mitigating
factors. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna
Master & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 324, the accused
wiped out almost an entire family, six persons on
the ground of saving “honour.” Despite the
heinous nature of the crime, this Court
commuted the death sentence to rigorous
imprisonment for life along with a fine. Similarly,
in Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State
of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 35, the
Appellant therein had annihilated his brother’s
entire family, but this Court held that although
the crime was heinous, it could not be classified
as ‘rarest of rare.’ It was emphasized that there
existed a possibility of reforming the offender.
21. Guided by the above facts, we must scrutinize not
only the nature of the offence but also the totality of
the offender’s circumstances. In the instant case,
while the offence is undoubtedly brutal, certain
mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of
criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in
prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation. There
is no material demonstrating that he would remain a
perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond
reform. Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the
Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a
potentially reformable individual. Further, this Court
has consistently recognized that the imposition of
capital punishment is an exception and not the rule.
Even where multiple murders have been committed,
if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility
of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred.
22. Weighing the totality of circumstances and
having regard to the legal principles discussed above,
we are of the view that while the crime is heinous and
deserves the highest degree of condemnation, it does
not meet the threshold of “the rarest of rare” so as to
irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment.
23. This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
possesses the authority to scrutinize not only the
conviction of an accused but also the
appropriateness of the sentence imposed. As
articulated in the principles laid down in Swamy
Shraddananda 1, the power to impose or modify a
sentence within the prescribed framework of the
Penal Code is exclusively vested in the High Court
and this Court. The alternate punishment for
offences punishable by death, such as imprisonment
for a specific term exceeding 14 years or until the
natural life of the convict, remains within the judicial
conscience of this Court and the High Court. This
ensures that the gravity of the offence, the mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, and the possibility of
reformation are thoroughly assessed before
(2008) 13 scc 767
irrevocable sentences such as capital punishment
are affirmed. Therefore, the commutation of a death
sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the
convict’s natural life, as an alternative to death, is
well within the judicial prerogative of this Court and
adheres to the constitutional mandate of ensuring
justice. The Constitution Bench of this court in
Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1 have
propounded upon these principles. The relevant
paras from the same have been reproduced
hereunder:
“103. In fact, while saying so we must also
point out that such exercise of power in the
imposition of death penalty or life
imprisonment by the Sessions Judge will get
the scrutiny by the Division Bench of the High
Court mandatorily when the penalty is death
and invariably even in respect of life
imprisonment gets scrutinised by the Division
Bench by virtue of the appeal remedy provided
in the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, our
conclusion as stated above can be reinforced by
stating that the punishment part of such
specified offences are always examined at least
once after the Sessions Court's verdict by the
High Court and that too by a Division Bench
consisting of two Hon'ble Judges.
104. That apart, in most of such cases where
death penalty or life imprisonment is the
punishment imposed by the trial court and
confirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court, the convict concerned will get an
opportunity to get such verdict tested by filing
further appeal by way of special leave to this
Court. By way of abundant caution and as per
the prescribed law of the Code and the criminal
jurisprudence, we can assert that after the
initial finding of guilt of such specified grave
offences and the imposition of penalty either
death or life imprisonment, when comes under
the scrutiny of the Division Bench of the High
Court, it is only the High Court which derives
the power under the Penal Code, which
prescribes the capital and alternate
punishment, to alter the said punishment with
one either for the entirety of the convict's life or
for any specific period of more than 14 years,
say 20, 30 or so on depending upon the gravity
of the crime committed and the exercise of
judicial conscience befitting such offence found
proved to have been committed.
105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power
derived from the Penal Code for any modified
punishment within the punishment provided for
in the Penal Code for such specified offences can
only be exercised by the High Court and in the
event of further appeal only by the Supreme
Court and not by any other court in this
country. To put it differently, the power to
impose a modified punishment providing for any
specific term of incarceration or till the end of
the convict's life as an alternate to death
penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court
and the Supreme Court and not by any other
inferior court.
106. Viewed in that respect, we state that the
ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2)
[Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of
Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 113] that a special category of sentence;
instead of death; for a term exceeding 14 years
and put that category beyond application of
remission is well founded and we answer the
said question in the affirmative. We are,
therefore, not in agreement with the opinion
expressed by this Court in Sangeet v. State of
Haryana [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2
SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] that the
deprival of remission power of the appropriate
Government by awarding sentences of 20 or 25
years or without any remission as not
permissible is not in consonance with the law
and we specifically overrule the same.”
24. In the result, while confirming the conviction of the
Appellant for the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC, we consider it appropriate to commute the
death sentence to one of life imprisonment till his last
breath.
25. The Trial Court’s and the High Court’s concurrent
finding of guilt is thus upheld. However, the sentence
of death is modified to imprisonment for life until the
end of the Appellant’s natural lifespan.
26. The appeals stand partly allowed as above.
...........................,J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...........................,J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
...........................,J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 16, 2025.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment