SUSHIL MURMU versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 12-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUSHIL MURMU 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND 
DECEMBER 12, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860/Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 201, 
3021354(3)-Sacrifice of a young child-Severing and throwing the head 
of the child in a pond-Death sentence awarded by trial court-High Court 
C confirming the death sentence-Correctness of-Held, on facts, this is a 
fit case to be treated as 'r:irest of rarest cases '-Hence conviction and 
death sentence upheld. 
A 9-year old child was sacrificed before Goddess Kali by the 
appellant. The appellant severed the head of the child and threw it in 
D a pond. The trial court found the appellant guilty under sectiOns 302 
and 201 IPC and awarded death sentence and 7 years imprisonment 
respectively. The High Court confirmed the death sentence. 
In appeal, the appellant contended that the death sentence awarded 
E to the appellant be altered to life sentence on the ground that the killing 
of the child was not done with any motive;. th-at the appellant was an 
illiterate and a tribal and brought upJn an atmosphere surcharged 
with super:otition; and that the appellant could be reformed. 
F 
G 
The State contended that the appellant was rightly awarded death 
sentence as this is a case which clearl~ falls within· the "rarest of rare" 
category; that the appellant was also charged for commission of a 
similar offence which is pending. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : l.1. The principle of proportion between crime 3'11d 
punishment is a principle of just desert that serves as the foundation of · 
every criminal sentence that is justifiable. As a principle of criminal 
justice, it is hardly less familiar or less important than the principle that 
H only the guilty ought to be punished. Indeed the requirement that 
702 
SUSHIL MURMU v. ST A TE OF JHARKHAND 
703 
punishment not be disproportionately great, which is a coroloary of just A 
desert, is dictated by the same principle that does not allow punishment 
of the innocent, for any punishment in excess ofwhat is deserved for the 
criminal conduct is punishment without guilt. (712-F-H] 
1.2. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of B 
proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of 
each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant 
discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case. Judges 
in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet 
in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. C 
Sometimes, it is the correctional need of the perpetrator that are 
offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him 
out of circu~ation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. 
Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as 
the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are 
serious and widespread. (713-A-C) 
D 
Ediga Anamma v. State of A.P., [1974] 4 SCC 443; Bachan Singh 
v. State of Punjab, (1980] 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, 
[1983] 3 sec 470, referred to. 
1.3. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected 
in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence 
in the determmation of sentences. ~nything less than a penalty of 
greatest severity for any serious crime is thought to be a measure of 
toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact quite apart from 
those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out 
of proportion to the crime uniformly disproportionate punishment has 
some very undesirable practical consequences. (713-C-DJ 
1.4. The appellant was not possessed of the basic humanness and 
E 
F 
he completely lacks the psyche or mind set which can be amenable for G 
any reformation. He had at the time ofoccurrence a child of same as the 
victim and yet he diabolically designed in a most dastardly and revolting 
manner to sacrifice a very hapl~ss and helpless child of another for 
personal gain and to promote his fortunes by pretending to appease the 
de\~. The brutality of the act is amplified by the grotesque and revolting H 
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A manner in which the helpless child's head was severed. Even if the 
helpless and imploring face and voice of the innocent child did not 
arouse any trace of kindness in the heart of the accused, the non-challant 
way in which he carried the severed head in

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