MOFIL KHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 09-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU, R.K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 812 
MOFIL KHAN & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND 
(Civil Appeal No. 1795 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 9, 2014 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI, R.K. AGRAWAL AND 
ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
SENTENCE/SENTENCING: 
Murder - Sentencing policy - Held: The most significant 
aspect of sentencing policy is independent consideration of 
each case by the Court and extricating a sentence which is 
the most appropriate and proportional to the culpability of the 
0 accused - Aggregating circumstance,s and mitigating 
circumstances, culled out -
The doctrine of "rarest 'of rare" 
does not classify murders into categories of heinous or less 
heinous - The difference between two is not in the identity of 
the principles, but lies in the realm of application thereof to 
E individual fact situations - Sentences of severity are imposed 
ta reflect the seriousness of the crime, to promote respect for 
the law, to provide just punishment for the offence, to afford 
adequate deterrent to criminal conduct and to protect the 
community from further similar conduct - It serves a three-
fold purpose- punitive, deterrent and protective -
It is not 
F only the victims of crime that require soothing balm, but also 
the incidental victims like the family, the co-sufferers and to 
a relatively large extent the society too - The judiciary has a 
paramount duty to safeguard the rights of the victims as 
diligently as those of the perpetrators -
Code of Criminal 
G Procedure, 1973 - s.354(3). 
H 
SENTENCE/SENTENCING: 
Murder - Accused person committing murders of 8 
812 
MOFIL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 
813 
persons of their family - Death sentence by courts below -
A 
Held: The time, place and manner of the commission of crime 
are indicative of the motive of accused-appellants - They 
have ruthlessly and successively butchered their own kith and 
kin for obtaining possession of certain pass-book, money and 
immovable property without any provocation - Being armed s 
with sharp edged weapons, the quick succession with which 
the accused-appellants proceeded to slaughter the eight 
members of their family classifies their act as pre-planned 
and reflects the cold-blooded fashion with which the callous 
design was executed - Their lack of remorse is reflected from c 
the act of extending threat of life to other members of the 
family present in the house should they dare to inform the 
police - The mitigating circumstances enumerated, under 
which the appellants seek refuge, have failed to convince the 
Court - In the considered view of the Court, the "rarest of the 
0 
rare" case exists when an accused would be a menace, threat 
and anti-thetical to harmony in the society - Especially in 
cases where an accused does ndt act on provocation, acting 
in spur of the moment but meticulously executes a 
deliberately planned crime inspite of understanding the 
E 
probable consequence of his act, the death sentence may be 
the most appropriate punishment - Keeping in view the 
principle of proportionality of sentence or what it termed as 
"just-desert" for the vile act of slaughtering eight lives including 
four innocent minors and a physically infirm child whereby an 
entire family is exterminated, the depravity of appellant's 
offence would attract no lesser sentence than the death 
penalty. 
Mahesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1987 (2) 
F 
SCR 710 = (1987) 3 sec 80- relied on. 
G 
Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2013 
(9)SCR 1000 = (2014) 4 SCC 375 - held inapplicable. 
Jagmohan Singh v. The State of U.P. 1973 (2) 
H 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A SCR 541= (1973) 1 SCC 20 and Bachan Singh v. State of 
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State 
of Punjab 1983(3)SCR 413 = (1983) 3 SCC 470, Ajitsingh 
Harnamsingh Gujral v. 
State of Maharashtra 2011 
(13) SCR 1000 = (2011) 14 SCC 401, State of Uttar Pradesh 
B v. Sattan @ Satyendra & Ors. 2009 (3) SCR 643 = (2009) 4 
SCC 736; Govindasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 (2) 
SCR 1135= (1998) 4 sec 531, Atbir v . ..Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 
2010 (9) SCR 993 = (2010) 9 SCC 1, Ajay Kumar Pal v. State 
of JharkhC!!J_d, (2010) 12 SCC 118, Shobhit Chamar v. State 
C of Bihar 1998 (2) SCR 117 = (1998}- 3 SCC 455, Sunder 
Singh v. State of Uttaranchal 2010 (11) SCR 927 = (2010) 10 
SCC 611, C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., 2010 (10) SCR 262 
= (2010) 9 SCC 567, Jagdish v. State of M.P. 2009 (14) 
SCR 727 = (2009) 9 SCC 495, Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State 
D of Bihar 2008 (5) SCR 969 = (
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.