MOHAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 12-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHAN AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
MAY 12, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 30:4, 365 & 364-A-Death Sentence-
~ 
Rarest of rare cases-Whether in a given case death penalty be imposed or 
not-Factors to be considered-Held, may be awarded where the court finds 
that the murder has been committed in a premeditated and calculated manner C 
with extreme brutality and cruelty-And the aggravating circumstances would 
justifY such extreme penalty-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 
345(3)-Penology. 
The accused persons entered into a conspiracy to get ransom from the 
father of the deceased by kidnapping the deceased, a young boy of IO years. D 
In accordance with the plan, A-4, driver the father of the deceased, went to 
,, 
the school where the deceased was studying and told him that his father had 
been waiting in the car. Accused persons then kidnapped the deceased and 
made phone call to the father for ransom and it is not paid they would kill 
the deceased. Immediately after the deceased was brought from the school E 
by A-4, A-I, took him in the van and kept him in confinement at a solitary 
place. It was A-I who conceived the idea of killing the deceased. A-I did not 
accede to the request of co-accused. A-3 who persuaded him not to kill the 
deceased; on the other hand A-I threatened A-3 that unless the deceased was 
killed, he would divulge the entire episode and then not only A-3 but his 
parents would also be in trouble. It was A-I who masterminded the brutal F 
killing of the deceased by mixing some poison with Rasna and gave it to the 
deceased, who after drinking the same became motionless. Even after the 
deceased vomited twice and became tired, A-1 and A-2 persuaded the deceased 
to play the game of tying and untying the hands and legs of the deceased and 
when the deceased agreed to play this game, then not only tied his hands and G 
legs but tied the rope around his neck and pulled the rope from both ends. 
When the boy struggled for breath by jerking his hands and legs, A-1, folded 
his left leg and with the knee pressed the kerchief which was put in the 
mouth of deceased to stop the sound of crying. Thereafter, A-2 took out one 
Keltron TV box from underneath the cot and packed the deceased boy in the 
same. So far as A-4 is concerned, after getting the deceased boy from the H 
317 
318 
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A school, he had not played any part either in conceiving the idea of killing 
or factually taking any art in the killing of the deceased. Rather A-4 pleaded 
,.. 
with A-1 not to kill the deceased. On these facts the Sessions Judge and the 
High Court awarded the death penalty to accused A-1 to A-4. Hence this 
appeal by Special Leave. Leave was granted by this Court limited to the 
B question of sentence. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : 1.1. It is true, that the extreme penalty of death should not be 
imposed in all cases of conviction under Section 302 and should be awarded 
C only in rarest of rare cases where the court finds that murder has been 
committed in a premeditated and calculated manner with extreme cruelty and 
brutality and the aggravating circumstances would justify such extreme 
penalty. While considering the question whether in a given case the extreme 
penalty of death should be imposed or not the court should try to find out any 
mitigating circumstances and on being satisfied about the existence of such 
D mitigating circumstances, the court would be justified in imposing the lesser 
sentence of imprisonment for life. It would, therefore, be necessary in the 
case in hand to find out the existence of any mitigating circumstances as 
against all or any of the four appellants which on consideration would justify 
a lesser punishment of imprisonment for life and the evidence on record has 
E to be ·scrutinised from that standpoint. (321-C-D) 
F 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh v. 
State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470; Suresh v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 
569; Devendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1997] 11SCC720 and State of U.P. 
v. Bhoora, (1998) 1 SCC 128, relied on. 
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, (1995) Suppl. 1 SCC 80, 
referred to. 
1.2. In view of the facts of this case, the death sentence awarded against 
A-1 and A-2 are affirmed. So far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned, the mitigating 
G circumastances of this case do not bring this case to be t

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