JAI KUMAR versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 426 · Decided: 11-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JAI KUMAR 
v. 
• 
STATE OF M.P. 
MAY 11, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., M. SRINIVASAN AND 
UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with Section 201-
Appellant murdering his pregnant sister-in-law aged 30 years-When faced 
C with resistance while attempting to rape her, severed her head from the 
body-Thereafter hanging her hand being tied on a branch with hair and 
putting the body on the trunk of a tree-Appellant also murdering his niece 
aged 8 years being witness to the gruesome murder of her mother-Mother 
of the accused giving evidence about the bad character and the reputation 
D of the accused in the locality-Award of death sentence by the Sessions 
Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court-Appeal 
against-Held, the facts established the depravity and criminality of the 
accused in no uncertain terms-Murder was cold-blooded and brutal without 
any provocation-Accused being 22 years of age cannot be said to be a 
mitigating factor-Rarest of the rare cases in which there are no extenuating 
E or mitigating circumstances-Conviction and sentence upheld-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 354(3). 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--Section 235(2)-Requirement of 
hearing of an accused on the question of sentence-Compliance of-Both 
parties heard and none wanted to give any documentary or oral evidence 
F with regard to sentence-Defence lawyer merely pleading two facts to be 
considered in the matter for award of punishment viz. the accused being 22 
years of age and no other past criminal record, both of which were duly 
considered by the Sessions Judge-Held, no infirmity in complying with 
Section 235(2). 
G 
On the night of 7th January, 1997, the appellant murdered D his 
sister-in-law aged 30 years who was at that time at an advanced stage of 
pregnancy and R, his niece aged 8 years. He first bolted from outside his 
mother's room and thereafter removed certain bricks from the wall in order 
to facilitate his entry into the room where D and R were sleeping. The 
H appellant attempted to rape D and when faced with resistance murdered her 
426 
\ 
I 
J, 
JAi KUMAR v. STATE OF M.P. 
427 
by severing her head from the body by inflicting blows with a "kulhadi". The A 
appellant then took R. who was witness to the gruesome murder of her 
mother, to a jungle and killed her by axe blows and buried her in the sand 
covered with stones. The appellant thereafter came back to his house and 
carried the body of D tied in a cloth, to the jungle and hung the head being 
tied on a branch with the hair and put the body on the trunk of a tree. 
The Sessions Judge awarded death sentence to the appellant which was 
confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
B 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the sentence ran 
counter to the basic concept of law and justice of the situation and that there C 
was non-compliance of Sections 235(2) and 354(3) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure. It was further contended that there was a violation of the mandatory 
legal requirement of an effective and substantial opportunity to be given to 
the accused for being heard on the question of sentence. It was also averred 
that the court has to take into account certain other factors in deciding upon 
the appropriate sentence like the education, home life, social adjustment, and D 
the emotional and mental conditions of the offender. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The facts of the case establish the depravity and criminality 
of the accused in no uncertain terms. The savage nature of the crime has E 
shocked the judicial conscience. The murder was cold-blooded and brutal 
without any provocation. It certainly makes it a rarest of the rare cases in 
which there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances to interfere 
with the conviction and sentence.1441-C-D-G) 
1.2. In the matter in issue there are no mitigating circumstances or F 
any balancing factor so as to strike a balance. On the contrary the 
aggravating situations are galore to support the finding of the Sessions 
Judge as confirmed by the High Court. The age of the accused being 22 
years cannot, in the factual matrix of the matter under consideration, be said 
to be a mitigating factor. Accused is of 22 years of age while the victim was G 
aged 30 years and at the time of the unfortunate death, she was under 
pregnancy between 22 to 30 weeks- the ot'her victim was an innocent girl 
- 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.