RAMESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI RATHOD versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 24-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 1 S.C.R. 829 
RAMESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI RATHOD 
v. 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2007) 
JANUARY 24, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND 
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, .JJ.] 
A 
B 
Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence or life 
imprisonment - In case of rape and murder of young girl of C 
tender age - Difference of opinion between Judges on 
sentencing part - Pasayat, J. observed that the case fell within 
the category of the rarest of rare cases as the deceased was 
a helpless child of_Jender age and the appellant, being a 
watchman in the building in which she was residing was in a 
D 
position of trust, and as the murder and rape was particularly 
brutal, the death sentence was the only adequate one -
Ganguli, J. differed on this aspect and held that a sentence 
of life imprisonment was proper one in the light of mitigating 
circumstance particularly the young age of the appellant and 
E 
the possibility that he could be rehabilitated and would not c 
commit any offence later on - Held: There is a very thin line 
on facts which separates the award of a capital sentence from 
a life sentence in the case of rape and murder of a young 
child by a young man - The broad principle is that the death 
F 
sentence is to be awarded only in exceptional cases - The 
appellant was a young man, only 27 years of age, it was 
obligatory on the trial court to have given a finding as to a 
possible rehabilitation and reformation and the possibility that 
he could still become a useful member of society in case he 
G 
was given a chance to do so - In the light of the findings 
1 recorded by Ganguli, J., it would not be proper to maintain the 
death sentence on the appellant - At the same time, the 
gravity of the offence, the behaviour of the appellant and the 
. I 
829 
H 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A fear and concern such incidents generate in ordered society, 
cannot be ignored -
The death sentence awarded is 
commuted to life which must extend to the full life of the 
> • 
appellant subject to any remission or i;ommutation at the 
instance of the Government for good and sufficient reasons 
B - Crime against women - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.235 r.w. s.354, s.433-A. 
The trial court convicted the accused-appellant for 
raping and murdering a girl of tender age. The High 
C Court upheld the conviction order. The judgment of the 
High Court was challenged by the appellant in the 
Supreme Court and after the grant of special leave, the 
matter was heard by Division Bench. The Bench 
delivered two judgments on 25th February 2009. The two 
Hon'ble Judges were of the unanimous opinion that the 
D conviction of the appellant was to be maintained, 
however, a difference of opinion arose on the sentencing 
part. Pasayat, J. observed that the case fell within the 
category of the rarest of rare cases as the deceased was 
a helpless child of tender age and the appellant, being a 
E watchman in the bll!_lding in which she was residing with 
her parents, was in a position of trust, and as the murder 
and rape was particularly brutal, the death sentence was 
the only adequate one. Ganguli, J. however differed on 
this aspect and held that as there was some uncertainty 
F with the nature of the circumstantial evidence and that 
mitigating circumstance particularly the young age of the 
appellant and the possibility that he could be rehabilitated 
and would not commit any offence later on, could not be 
ruled out, and that the statutory obligation cast on the trial 
G court under Section 235 (2) read with Section 354(3), 
Cr.P.C. had been violated in as much that the appellant 
was not given adequate opportunity to plead that the 
sentence of life imprisonment was not proper. 
Accordingly, the matter came up before this Court only 
H on the question of sentence. 
, 
RAMESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI RATHOD v. STATE OF 831 
GUJARAT 
Disposing oHhe appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is a very th.in line on facts which 
separates the award of a capital sentence from a life 
sentence in the case of rape and murder of a young child 
A 
by a young man and the subjective opinion of individual 
8 
Judges as to the morality, efficacy or otherwise of a death 
sentence cannot entirely be ruled out. The broad principle 
is that the death sentence is to be awarded only in 
exceptional cases. Both Hon'ble Judges had relied 
,extensively on .*Dhanonjoy Chatterjee's case. In that C 
case, deat

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