SRI MAHENDRA NATH DAS @ SRI GOBIND DAS versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
' 
\ 
/ 
SRI MAHENDRA NA TH DAS @ SRI GO BIND DAS 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF ASSAM 
MAY 14, 1999 
[S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
··Criminal 'Procedure Code, 1973-Section 345(3)-Death sentence-
Power to award-Conviction for offence of murder-Murder committed was . 
extremely gruesome, heinous, cold blooded 'and cruel-manner of committing 
the crime was atrocious and shocking-Giving blows with a sword, accused C 
amputed is hand, severed his head from body, carried it through road to 
police station with the blood dripping weapon-Rarest of rare cases-
Declining to confirm death sentence with stultify law and justice. 
The appellant was found guilty of offence u/s-302 IPC, for killing D 
deceas.ed by giving blows with sward and when the deceased fell down, the 
appellant amputed is right hand, severed his head and moved to the police 
station with the head of the deceased in one hand and the blood dripping 
weapon· in the other. The trial Court considering the evidence of eye witnesses, 
which was corroborated by the medical evidence, found the appellant guilty 
of offence and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the High Co~rt confirmed E 
the conviction and sentence of death. This appeal by speCial leave was 
admitted by this Court limited to the question of sentence. 
\ \ 
The appellant submitted that the appellant was a young man of 33 
years, having three unmarried sisters and aged parents and that he was also F 
not well at the time of occurrence. He prayed that the death sentence may 
be commuted to life imprisonment. 
· 
Counsel for the State contended that the cruel manner in which the 
crime was committed did not admit of any leniency as the accused came 
predetermined duly armed with sword and targeted the deceased among the G 
crowd ofpersons standing there while the deceased was unarmed. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
.fIELD : 1.1. On conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the 
normal rule is to award punishment of life imprisonment and the punishment H 
729 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A of death should be reserved only for the rarest of rare cases. Whether a case 
falls within 'the rarest of rare cases' has t6 be examined with reference to 
the facts and circumstan~es of each case. The Court has to take note of 
aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances and conclude whether there 
was something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of 
B imprisonment for life inadequate and call for a death sentence. Court is also 
expected to consider whether the circumstances of the crime are such that 
there is no alternative but to impose death sentence after according maximum 
weightage to mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offendet. 
[733-B-C) 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1980) SC 989; Machhi Singh 
C & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCR 413; Kehar Singh & Ors. v. Stat~ 
(Delhi Administration), (1988] 3 SCC 609 and Shanker v. State of Tamil 
Nadu, (1994) 4 SCC 478, relied on. 
1.2. The murder committed was extremely gruesome, heinous, cold-
blooded and cruel. The manner in which the murder was committed was 
D atrocious and shocking. After giving blows with a sword to the deceased 
when he fell down the appellant amputed his hand, severed his head from the 
body, carried it through the road to police station (majestically as the trial 
court puts it) by holding it in one hand and the blood dripping weapon on the 
E 
F 
other hand. It does depict the extreme depravity of the appellant.(734-G-H] 
1.3. The mitigating circumstances as pointed out were, that the appellant 
was a young man of 33 years, having three unmarried sisters and aged 
parents and he was also not well at the time. Those circumstances when 
weighed against the aggravating circumstances leave this Court in no doubt 
that this case falls within the category of rarest of the rare cases. On these 
facts, declining to confirm the death sentence will stultify the course of law 
and justice. [735-B) 
Govindasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, JT (1998) 3 SC 260, relied on. 
Raja Ram Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1996] 9 SCC 287; Ronny v. State 
of Maharashtra, (1998] 3 SCC 625; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manohar 
G Singh Thakur, (1998] 6 SCC 158 and Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, AIR 
(1989) SC 1456, distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
700of1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.98 of the Gauhati High Court 
H in Cr!. A.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.