DEEPAK RAI versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2013] 14 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 19-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 14 S.C.R. 297 
DEEPAK RAI 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 249-250 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 
[H.L. DATIU, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA 
AND M. Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
Death sentence - On conviction for offence u/s. 302 /PC 
A 
B 
c 
- Propriety of - Death penalty can be awarded only in 
exceptional cases where the crime is so brutal, diabolical and 
revolting so as to shock the collective conscience of the 
community - In the present case, so far as the case of 0 
accused Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, the case falls under rarest 
of rare category - The acts of murder committed by the 
accused are so gruesome, merciless and brutal that the 
aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating 
circumstances - Hence their death sentence confirmed -
However, for accused No. 3, in view of the role played by him 
E 
during commission of the offence, sentence of imprisonment 
till the end of his life would be proportionate to the degree of 
offence committed by him - His death sentence altered to 
imprisonment till the end of his life - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 
302. 
' 
F 
Sentencing - Determination of sentence - Judicial 
approach - Held: Judicial approach towards sentencing has 
to be cautious, circumspect and careful - The courts at all 
stages must peruse and analyze the facts of the case and 
G 
reach an independent conclusion -
The touchstone for 
determining correctness of decision, is not the length of 
discussion, but the lucidity of the reasons. 
297 
H 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 354(3) - 'Special 
masons' - Recording of - For award of death sentence -
Adequacy of - Held: s. 354(3) mandates recording of 'special 
masons' for imposition of capital punishment - The test to 
d'etermine the correctness of decision would be that the 
B 
'reasons' must be lucid and satisfy the appellate court that 
court below has considered the case in toto and thereafter, 
upon balancing all the mitigating and aggravating factors, 
n9corded the sentence. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Scope of -
To 
C 
e•xamine 'special reasons' for awarding death sentence as 
e'nvisaged u/s. 354(3) Cr. P. C. -
Held: The appellate 
jurisdiction by virtue of Article 136 is not plain statutory, but 
e1xpansive and extraordinary - Such jurisdiction is not fettered 
by rules of criminal procedure, or limited to mere confirmation 
D or rejection of the appeal -
The Court while considering 
correctness of sentence can not only examine the reasons 
so assigned u/s. 354(3), but can also substantiate upon the 
same - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 354(3) -
E 
Sentence/Sentencing. 
Remand - Of criminal case - By Supreme Court - For 
cfeciding the question of sentence - Held: Remand is an 
exception, not the rule -
Ought to be avoided as far as 
possible in the interest of expeditious, though fair disposal of 
F 
cases. 
Appellants A-1, A-2 and A-3 alongwith other accused 
persons were prosecuted ulss. 1208, 148, 302/149, 307/ 
149, 326, 429, 436 and 452 IPC. The prosecution case 
was that the accused persons came to the house of 
G deceased informant (PW 7) while he was sleeping in the 
verandah of his house at night. The accused persons 
locked the room where the wife of PW 7 was sleeping 
alongwith her five children and after sprinkling kerosene 
<>ver the house, set it on fire. They first gagged PW 7 and 
H then sprinkling kerosene over his body and set him on 
DEEPAK RAI v. STATE OF BIHAR 
299 
fire. On the basis of Fardbayan, FIR was registered. The 
A 
alleged motive for the offence was that the informant had 
lodged an FIR against A-1 and his family alleging theft of 
his bufallow and despite repeated threats, the informant 
refused to withdraw the FIR. Trial court convicted the 
appellants-accused while acquitting the rest of the 
B 
accused and sentenced them to death. High Court 
affirmed the order of trial court as well as death reference. 
Hence the present appeals. The appeals are limited to the 
question of sentence. 
A-1 contended that since no extraordinary reasons 
C 
have been assigned by courts below for awarding death 
sentence to the accused, the orders do not conform to 
the statutory mandate prescribed u/s. 354(3) Cr.P.C. 
which requires the judgment to record 'special reasons' 
in case of death sentence; that this Court in exercise of D 
appellate jurisdiction could not go into the same for the 
first time while confirming the death
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.