The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has emphasised that brutality or gruesome nature of a crime is not sufficient to award death penalty as mitigating and aggravating circumstances and possibility of reformation of the convict have to be examined.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta upheld the conviction of appellant Jai Prakash for rape and murder of 10-year-old girl in 2018 in Dehradun.
However, the court commuted his death penalty to a life term without remission.
"Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the threshold of 'rarest of rare' category, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant instead of the punishment of the death penalty," the bench said.
Considering the appeal, the court found the recovery of the dead body from the appellant's hut at an under constructed building and the DNA evidence, linking him to the victim, were proved.
The court also noted from the testimony of children, it was proved beyond doubt that the appellant was last seen with the victim inside his hut on the date of the incident, and this was immediately prior to the occurrence of the incident.
On the sentence awarded, the court noted the case was based on circumstantial evidence.
The court pointed out in the case of Mohd Farooq Abdul Gafur vs State of Maharashtra (2010), it was held that a court may choose to give primacy to life imprisonment over death penalty in cases which are solely based on circumstantial evidence.
"We are also conscious of the brutality of the crime in question. A helpless child was at first, mercilessly raped after being lured into the appellant’s hut on the pretext of buying sweets with the offered money. Thereafter, to hide the evidence of his crime, the child was strangulated by hand, in a defenseless condition," Justice Karol wrote in 17-page judgment on July 16, 2025 for the bench.
However, the bench pointed out, the courts below have only commented on the brutality of the crime in question to hand down the death penalty to the appellant.
"No other circumstance came to be discussed by the courts in reaching the conclusion that the case forms part of the “rarest of the rare” category. Such an approach in our view cannot be sustained," the bench said.
The bench pointed out in Manoj vs State of MP (2023) this court had recognised the disparity in the application of the “rarest of rare” test for imposition of the death penalty and re-emphasised the two-step process to determine whether a case belongs to the rarest of rare category.
For the first step, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have to be identified and considered equally. For the second test, the court had to consider whether the alternative of life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed, the bench noted.
In the present case, the bench said, "The courts below have failed to make any detailed reference to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the appellant. Moreover, the High Court, which was the reference court for confirmation of death sentence, though expounded on the requirement of law to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, failed to consider any of these circumstances – only dealing with the brutality of the incident".
The bench found the courts have reiterated the gruesome nature of crime to award the death penalty.
Going through the reports of the probation officer, jail administration and psychological evaluation of the appellant, the bench noted that the condition of the family of the appellant is “very pathetic” and they earned their livelihood by doing labor work.
The court noted that the appellant could not attend school due to the socio-economic condition of the family and had started working at the age of twelve. He has good relations with other inmates. He does not suffer from any psychiatric disturbance.