LexRAJESH KUMAR versus STATE THROUGH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI-II
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A
B
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 92
RAJESH KUMAR
v.
STATE THROUGH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELI-II
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1871-1872 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
[D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Murder- Death penalty-
Concept of 'rarest of rare' case - Mitigating circumstances -
c Murder of two children - one aged 4~ years, and the other
aged B months - Trial court convicted accused-appellant U/
s.302 and sentenced him to death - Conviction and sentence
upheld by High Court - Sustainability of death sentence -
Held: In the instant case the State failed to show that the
o appellant was a continuing threat to society or that he was
beyond reform and rehabilitation - This was certainly a
mitigating circumstance which the High Court failed to take
into consideration - While considering thl!I aggravating
circumstances, the High Court was substantially influenced
E with the brutality in the manner of committing the crime ... No
doubt the murder was committed in this case in a very brutal
and inhuman fashion, but that alone cannot justify infliction
of death penalty - For a person convicted of murder, life
imprisonment is the rule and death sentence, an exception,
and the mitigating circumstances must be given due
F consideration ....: Except in 'rarest of rare cases' and for 'special
reasons' death sentence cannot be imposed as an alternative
option to imposition of life sentence - In the facts of this case,
the death sentence Imposed by the High Court cannot be
sustained and is thus substituted by the sentence of
G imprisonment for life :- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.~~
.
. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.235(2) and
354(3) - Opportunity of hearing to accused on the question
H
92
•
RAJESH KUMAR v. STATE THROUGH GOVT. OF
93
NCT OF DELHI
of sentence at the post-conviction stage - Effect of - Held: It A
gives the accused an opportunity to raise fundamental issues
for adjudication and effective determination by Court of its
sentencing discretion in a fair and reasonable manner - The
object of hearing u/s.235(2) being intrinsically and inherently
connected with the sentencing procedure, the provision of B
s.354(3) which calls for recording of special reason for
awarding death sentence must be read conjointly with s.235(2)
- Special reasons can only be validly recorded if an effective
opportunity of hearing contemplated uls. 235(2) of Cr. P. C. is
genuinely extended and is allowed to be exercised by the c
accused who stands convicted and is awaiting the sentence
- These two provisions do not stand in isolation but must be
construed as supplementing each other as ensuring the
constitutional guarantee of a just, fair and reasonable
procedure in the exercise of sentencing discretion by the court 0
- Sentence/Sentencing.
Sentence/Sentencing - Death Sentence - Evolution of
sentencing structure and the concept of mitigating
circumst{lnces in India relating to death penalty - Discussed:
Sentence/Sentencing - Changes in sentencing structure E
- Evolving standards of decency - Concept of dignity of the
individual - Paradigm shift in jurisprudence with gradual
transition of legal regime from 'rule of law' to 'due process of
law' - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21.
F
Appellant was charged with the offence of
committing the murder of two children- one aged 4Yz
years, and the other aged 8 months, in a brutal and
inhuman manner. The trial court convicted the appellant
under Section 302 IPC and imposed death sentence. On
G
appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and the
death sentence.
The question which arose for consideration in the
instant appeals was whether the Trial Court and the High
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Court had improperly balanced the consideration of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and that if
mitigating circumstances are properly weighed in
accordance with the well-known judicial principles, the
death sentence awarded to the appellant cannot be
B sustained.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
had section 376(5) which required that if an accused is
C convicted of an offence punishable with death and the
court sentences him with any punishment other than
death, the court shall, in its judgment, give reasons why
death sentence was not passed. This was during the
colonial days when the worth and dignity of huExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.