STATE NCT OF DELHI versus AJIT SETH @ AJJI

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 17-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 343 
STATE NCT OF DELHI 
V. 
AJIT SETH @ AJJI 
(Criminal appeal No. 1059 of 2004) 
AUGUST 17, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI 
KR.PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
c 
ss. 302 and 364 - Two children aged 3 and 7, burnt to 
death by friend of their mother - Conviction by trial court with 
death sentence - High Court commuted the sentence and 
directed that accused should not be released unless he had 
served at least 20 years of imprisonment - Appeal by State 
D 
- HELD: The Court endorses the finding of the trial court that 
crime committed by the accused was indeed barbaric and 
called for no mercy - But in view of the facts that pending 
appeal the accused has already completed his sentence of 
20 years and has been released, it would be a complete 
travesty of justice to allow the appeal and to award a capital E 
sentence at this stage - This is indeed a sorry case and 
indicates the hardship and inequity that can ensue to an 
accused, the prosecution and the victims in the case of a 
delayed trial or delay in disposal of an appeal -
Administration of Criminal Justice - Delay in trial/appeal. 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1059 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and order dated 01.10.2001 of the G 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 
1999 and Murder Reference No. 1 of 99. 
Mohan Jain, ASG J.S. Attri and Brijender Chahar, SWA 
343 
H 
344 
SUPkt:ME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Qadri, Saina Bakshi, Niraj Jha, Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra 
for the Appellant. 
R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Amit Wadhwa and P.P. 
Singh for the Respondent. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
This is indeed a sorry case aiid indicates thehardship and 
C 
inequity that can ensue to an accused, theprosecution and the 
victims in the case of a delayed trialor the delay in the disposal 
of an appeal. 
Two young children, Sunny Arora aged about sevenyears 
and his sister Shikha Arora, aged about three and half years, 
D 
were burnt to death by the respondent Ajit Seth as he was 
under the impression that they were carrying tales of his illicit 
connection with their mother lndu, co-accused, to their father. 
The Trial Court, relying on the dying declarations made by 
E 
the deceased children, convicted the respondent for offences 
punishable under Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC but 
acquitted lndu, and on the question of sentence observed as 
under: 
"25. To sum up, the special reasons for imposing the death 
F 
sentence are that the murders were pre-meditated; the manner 
of commission of murders was brutal and diabolical and shocks 
the judicial conscience as the two innocent children were 
roasted alive; accused was in a position of domination and trust 
vis.-a-vis. the two deceased children the accused killed the two 
G 
children for the selfish motive of posse-:sing his women which 
exhibits his depraved mentality and meanness. 
H 
26. In view of my discussion above the accused Ajit Seth 
is sentenced as below: 
STATE NCT OF DELHI v. AJIT SETH @ AJJI 
345 
(a) U/s. 302 IPC the accused is sentenced to death. 
A 
However, the sentence shall not e executed till its 
confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court u/s 366 
Cr.P.C. 
(b) U/s. 364 IPC the accused is sentenced to R.I. 
8 
for 1 O years. He is also fined Rs.1000/- In default 
of payment of fine he shall further undergo R.I. for 
one month. The period of detention undergone by 
the accused during the investigation of trial of this 
case shall be set off against the sentence awarded 
C 
to him u/s. 364 IPC. 
The proceedings are hereby submitted to the Hon'ble High 
Court of Delhi for confirmation of the death sentence 
passed u/s. 302 IPC and the accused is committed to the 
jail custody under a separate warrant." 
The matter was therefore remitted to the High Court under 
Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. for the confirmation of the death 
sentence and an appeal was also filed by the accused 
respondent in the High Court. 
The High Court by its judgment dated 1st October 2001 
held that though the crime committed by the respondent was 
indeed heinous and barbaric but it still did not fall in the category 
of the "rarest of rare cases". The death reference was 
accordingly disallowed and the appeal of the respondent was 
dismissed with the following observations: 
D 
E 
F 
"We convert the death sentence of the appellant into life 
imprisonment with a direction that the appellant shall 
undergo

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