B. KUMAR@ JAYAKUMAR@ LEFT. KR.@ S. KUMAR versus INSP. OF POLICE TH. C.B.C.L.D.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 27-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 573 
B. KUMAR@ JAYAKUMAR@ LEFT. KR.@ S. KUMAR 
A 
v. 
INSP.OF POLICE TH. C.B.C.l.D. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 980-981 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 27, 2014 
[H.L.DATTU, CJI., S.A. BOBDE AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 342, 376, 394, 397 
and 449 - Rape of PW1 and murder of her brother, 'M' -
C 
Attempt to murder PW1 and her relative PW2 - Robbery of 
jewellery - Conviction of appellant- Propriety- Held: Proper, 
as it was based upon cogent and reliable evidence -
Appellant was greatly attracted to PW1 and came to her house 
driven by lust - He committed the murder of 'M' on the spur 
D 
of the moment, since the latter saw him committing rape and 
further tried to make a phone call to someone outside -
Similarly, appellant attacked PW2, who had seen him 
attacking 'M' and then attacked PW1 with a view to intimidate 
he~ 
E 
Sentence I Sentencing - Conviction of appellant for 
murder, attempt to murder and rape - Victims were minor 
children - Imposition of death penalty - Propriety - Held: 
Conduct of appellant was barbaric and inhumane - However, 
F 
his main motive was not to commit murder but to satisfy his 
lust - Element of recklessness in appellant's actions not · 
sufficient to attract the extreme penalty of death - Keeping in 
view the mitigating factors including appellant's conduct after 
commission of the crime, his case does not fall into the 
G 
category of rarest of the rare - Appellant convicted for the 
remainder of his life for the offence of murder - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.354(3) - Penology. 
573 
H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 11 S.C.R. 
• 
A 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. From the evidence, it is clear that the 
appellant came to the house of PW1 driven by lust with 
the intention of satisfying his desires at the cost of the 
chastity of PW1. He was armed with an aruval (a sharp 
1 8 edged weapon), which in all probability he intended to . 
use to intimidate anyone who opposed him, since he was 
probably aware that there were no adults in the house. 
There is no doubt that he committed the murder of the 
deceased 'M' on the spur of the moment, since he was 
C enraged and infuriated when the boy had untied himself, 
seeing him committing rape and further that he tried to 
make a phone call to someone outside. It is also clear that 
it was in the same state of mind that he attacked P.W.2, 
who had seen him attacking the deceased 'M'. Similarly, 
D he then attacked PW1 with a view to intimidate her. The 
conviction recorded by both, the Sessions Court and the 
High Court, is based upon cogent and reliable evidence. 
Thus, the appellant has been found guilty beyond all 
reasonable doubt. [Paras 17, 18 and 22) [581-G-H; 582-
E B, D; 585-H; 586-A] 
2.1. The conduct of the appellant against the three 
minor children was barbaric and inhumane. However, the 
main motive of the appellant was not to commit murder but · 
F to satisfy his lust. There was undoubtedly an element of 
recklessness in the appellant's actions, but that may not 
be sufficient in the circumstances of this case to attract the · 
extreme penalty of death. [Pa_ra 19) [583-B, D-E] 
2.2. As a matter of law, it is imperative for a Criminal . 
G Court to consider vide Section 354(3) Cr.P.C., the 'special 
reasons' for imposing the death· sentence. Two 
fundamental objectives of penology apply even in 
grotesque cases: (a) deterrence and (b) reformation. 
Other factors such as seriousness of the crime, the 
H criminal history of the appellant and also his propensity 
• 
B. KUMAR @ JAYAKUMAR @ LEFT. KR. @ S. KUMAR 575 
v. INSPOF POLICE TH. C.B.C.l.D. 
to remorselessly commit similar dastardly crimes in the 
A 
future, must be considered. In the present case, having 
assessed the mitigating factors including the appellant's 
conduct after the commission of the crime, it is clear that 
this case does not fall into the category of rarest of the 
rare. Consequently, the conviction and other sentences 
B 
except the death sentence are hereby upheld. The 
appellant thus stands convicted for the ~emainder of his 
lite for the offence of murder. [Paras 21, 23] [584-E; 586-
B-D] 
Bishnu Dea Shaw vs. State of West Bengal (1979) 3 
C 
SCC 714: 1979 (3) SCR 355 and Rajendra Prasad vs. State 
of U.P. (1979) 3 SCC 646: 1979 (3) SCR 78- held stood 
overruled. 
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 
and Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra 
(2013) 13 sec 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.