RAMNARESH & ORS. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 28-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 630 
RAMNARESH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 166-167 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) 
PENAL CODE, 1860: ss.302, 376(2)(g}, 499 - Rape and 
murder - Four accused - A/legation against the accused that 
C they raped victim-deceased and thereafter strangulated her 
to death - Testimony of servant aged 16 years (PW6) who was 
present at the time of incident and was threatened by the 
accused not to tell anyone about· the incident - Conviction u/ 
ss. 302, · 376(2)(g), 499 based on testimony of PW6 and award 
D of death sentence -
On appeal, held: There was no 
contradiction in the testimony of PW6 - His statement was fully 
corroborated by medical evidence - Both the external and 
internal injuries that the deceased suffered as a consequence 
of rape and the strangulation clearly indicated that the crime 
E could not have been committed by a single person - Once 
that possibility is ruled out, testimony of PW6, despite he 
being the sole eye-witness, need not be doubted -
In 
statement made u/s.313, CrPC accused denied their presence 
on the spot, at the time of occurrence - Thus, it was for them 
F to prove that they were not present at the place of occurrence 
and were entitled to plea of alibi - They miserably failed to 
establish this fact - Delay in lodging FIR duly explained -
The cumulative effect of the oral/documentary and expert 
evidence was that the prosecution was able to prove its case 
beyond any reasonable. doubt - The accused were guilty of 
G committing the offence ulss. 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 - As 
regard sentencing, the possibility of their being reformed not 
ruled 'out - Considering the age of the accused, possibility of 
· the death of the deceased occurring accidently and the 
H 
630 
RAMNARESH & ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 631 
possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they cannot A 
be termed as 'social menace' - All these accused committed 
a heinous and inhuman.e crime for satisfaction of their lust, 
but it cannot be held with certainty that the case fell in the 
'rarest of rare' cases - Accordingly, the sentence of death 
commuted to that for life imprisonment (21 years). 
B 
SENTENCE/SENTENCING: Sentencing policy -
Guiding principles - Death sentence and principles governing 
its conversion to life sentence - Held: The law requires Courts 
to record special r~asons for awarding death sentence - Court C 
has to consider matters like nature of the offence, how and 
under what circumstances it was committed, the extent of 
brutality with which the offence was committed, the motive for 
the offence, any provocative or aggravating circumstances at 
the time of commission of the crime, the possibility of the 
convict being reformed or rehabilitated, adequacy of the D 
sentence of life imprisonment and other attendant 
circumstances - These factors cannot be similar or identical 
in any two given cases - Thus, it is imperative for the Court 
to examine each case on its own facts, in light of the 
enunciated principles - It is only upon application of these E 
principles to the facts of a given case that the Court can arrive 
at a final conclusion whether the case is one of the 'rarest of 
rare' cases and imposition of death penalty alone shall serve 
the ends of justice - Both aspects have to be given their 
respective weightage - The Court has to strike a balance F 
between the two and see towards which side the scale/balance 
of justice tilts - The principle of proportion between the crime 
and the punishment is the principle of Just deserts' that serves 
as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable 
- In other words, the 'doctrine of proportionality' has a valuable G 
application to the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal 
jurisprudence - Thus, the court will not only have to examine 
what is just but also as to what the accused deserves keeping 
in view the impact on the society at large - Every punishment 
imposed is bound to have its effect not only on the accused H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
alone, but also on the society as a whole - Thus, the Courts 
should consider retributive and deterrent aspect of 
punishment while imposing the extreme punishment of death. 
B 
WITNESSES: Sole witness - TestimonY of - Evidentiary 
value of - Discussed. 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the 
victim-deceased was sleeping in her house. PW-6, the 

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