Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.967-968 OF 2010

AMAR SINGH YADAV … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J

These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated

16

th

February, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1942 of 2009 and Reference No.5

of 2009. By the impugned common judgment, the High Court

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence

for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307 and 436 IPC and

thereby answered the Reference in confirming the death sentence.

2. The case of the prosecution in short is that Urmila Devi was

married to accused Amar Singh Yadav, who was posted as Constable

in Police Chowki Gurdev Palace, Kanpur. Three daughters, Mamta,

aged 24 years; Pooja aged 22 years; and Sudha 18 years and one

son, Pankaj Yadav, aged 13 years were born from their wedlock.

Amar Singh had developed illicit relationship with two other

women, namely, Shashi of Kanpur and Rani of Bharthana, causing

Page 2 2

differences in the family. Urmila got effected deduction of half

salary of the accused from the Department directly to pull on the

expenses of the family. On account of such deductions of salary

and illicit relationship, the accused became determined to cause

the death of his wife, Urmila and all four children. Pursuant to

that determination, accused along with companion driving the

Maruti Van No.UP 78 C 8262 came to his wife Urmila and he had

taken away his wife and four children in Maruti Van on the

pretention of doing shopping for the marriage of one of the

daughters. Further case of the prosecution is that when the sun

had set, at the time of return the accused got Maruti Van stopped

25-30 metres ahead of Udharanpur bridge on Jahanganj road and he

along with the driver came out of the Van. They sprinkled the

petrol all around the Van after locking the doors thereof. The

accused along with companion then set the Maruti Van ablaze, with

intention of burning all occupants of the Maruti Van to death.

Thereafter, the accused and the driver tried to push the vehicle

down in the pit so that the occupants might not escape but

meanwhile Inspector, Police Station Chhibramau along his

companion Police Constables luckily arrived there and he without

caring of his life broke open the doors of the burning vehicle

and took out accused’s wife and all four children from the

burning car. He immediately removed them to the Hospital for

treatment. The complainant having received the information,

rushed to Lohia Hospital, Farrukhabad where sister of the

Page 3 3

complainant i.e. Urmila and four children briefed the entire

incident to him.

3. Dhruv Narain, Constable Police No.286 (PW-14), registered

the First Information Report at 1.30 a.m. being Crime No.310/2005

under Section 436, 307 IPC. He received direction from Inspector

Uma Shankar Yadav on R.T. Set to depute the additional force. On

this, Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar Katiyar along with other

Constables proceeded to the spot. The next day at about 7.20

a.m., Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar Katiyar returned to the Police

Station; vide General Diary it is reported that he got admitted

all the injured of the incident in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on

the direction of Inspector, Uma Shankar Yadav.

4. After registration of the case, its investigation was

entrusted to Pramod Kumar Katiyar, Sub-Inspector (PW-13), He

proceeded to the spot and prepared site plan Ext.Ka-20. He then

proceeded to Lohia Hospital, Farrukhabad and recorded the

statement of Urmila Devi, Ext.Ka-18; Mamta, Ext.Ka-15; Pooja,

Ext.Ka-17; Sudha, Ext.Ka-16 and Pankaj Singh, Ext.Ka-19. Out of

injured persons Urmila Devi, Mamta and Pooja died. The case of

the accused was forwarded for trial under Section 307/302/436

IPC.

5. In support of prosecution case, as many as 15 witnesses were

examined by the prosecution, out of them Sudha(PW-5) and Pankaj

Singh(PW-6) are injured witnesses. In the defence statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the allegation. Total 17

Page 4 4

exhibits including dying declarations of Urmila Devi, Ext.Ka-18;

Mamta, Ext.Ka-15; Pooja, Ext.Ka-17 were produced.

6. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and

hearing the parties, the Sessions Judge, Kanpur held the

appellant-accused guilty for the offences under Section 302, 307

and 436 IPC. The accused was convicted and sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for life on count of Section 307 IPC. He was further

convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years

on count of Section 436 IPC. The accused was further convicted

and sentenced to death and Rs.10,000/- fine on count of Section

302 IPC and it was directed that he shall be hanged by the neck

till death. All sentences shall run concurrently. The High Court

by the impugned judgment dated 16

th

February, 2010 upheld the

conviction and death sentence of the accused. The Reference was

answered accordingly.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the

impugned judgment submitted as follows:

(i)Deduction of 50% salary of the appellant for

paying to his wife by the Department cannot be a

motive to ruin the entire family.

(ii)Due to extra marital relationship with two

other women the appellant has been implicated.

(iii)If at all there was any motive to kill his

wife but there was no reason to ruin the life of

two daughters specially the elder daughter who

was going to be married and for that purpose

articles were purchased.

Page 5 5

(iv)The person who informed PW-4 that the

vehicle was set on fire was not produced by the

prosecution.

(v)Dying declaration cannot be relied because

the Doctor who examined, who gave the certificate

of fitness was not examined. Statements of PW-5

and PW-6 injured witnesses are contradictory to

the dying declaration.

(vi)That no one has deposed that they saw the

appellant spreading the petrol. Hence, there is

doubtful of identity of such person.

(vii) The driver of the van was not arrested and

examined nor the two women who had an extra

marital affair with the appellant were examined.

(viii) The alleged incident does not fall within

the category of “rarest of the rare case”, and,

therefore, death penalty was uncalled for. This

is not a fit case to impose a death penalty.

8. Complainant, Satendra Singh (PW-1), brother of the deceased-

Urmila, has proved the contents of the FIR. He is not the eye-

witness of the incident in question. He deposed that on 29

th

April, 2005, he received the information from the Police Station

at 9 p.m. that his sister and four children were put to fire

while confined in the Maruti Van. He arrived at Lohia Hospital at

11 a.m. and found all the persons in burn condition. His sister

recognised him and briefed the entire incident. He reported the

same to the Police. The accused-Amar Singh Yadav and driver

straightaway ran awayfrom the scene. The Police had taken them

out of the burn Maruti Van after breaking open the door.

9. This witness has told the motive of Amar Singh to cause the

incident that his sister obtained the order of half of salary of

Page 6 6

Amar Singh payable to him by the order of the Superintendent of

Police, Kanpur because Amar Singh was maintaining the illicit

affairs with two women. The marriage of Mamta was settled on 11

th

May, 2005 and on pretend of purchase for marriage of Mamta

accused Amar Singh had taken his wife and all the children to the

market.

10.Uma Shankar Yadav, Inspector (PW-4), has testified in the

Court that on 29

th

April, 2005 at about 8.30 p.m. when he was in

search the wanted accused, he noticed a Maruti Van being blown

near Udharanpur bridge. He immediately arrived there. Two persons

standing there who immediately fled away from the scene. He and

accompanying Home Guard, tried to extinguish the fire by throwing

sand on fire and as soon as the fire receded, he broke open the

window panes and had taken all the five occupants out of the

Maruti Van. This witness further informed that all the injured

were removed to Primary Health Centre, Chhibramau for treatment

by him. Urmila then had briefed the matter to him about the

accused maintaining illicit relationship with two women and she

also told that in what manner the accused had pretended to take

them away to the market and blew up the Maruti Van.

11.Sudha (PW-5), aged 18 years deposed on oath that on the day

of the incident, i.e., 29

th

April, 2005, her father (accused) had

taken her mother Urmila, elder sister Mamta, younger sister Pooja

and brother Pankaj in Maruti Van to Chhibramau for purchasing

material for the marriage of sister Mamta. No purchase was made

Page 7 7

from Chhibramau. They started returning to the house; at about

6.30 p.m. The vehicle was being driven at very slow speed. Her

father stopped the vehicle at Chhibramau bus stand where he

passed on time for one hour. In between 7.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

all of them driven towards the village, the Maruti Van was caused

to be stopped where a board containing the information, ”stop

there is a school here”. The driver stopped the vehicle saying

that “the car has become hot”. Her father then told that, “Let

him bring the wet cloth so that the engine may be cooled down”.

The Van was again made to drive and ultimately her father and

driver had come out of the Van after locking the windows. Her

father had already sprinkled the petrol in the Van. He torched

the Van at once and the Van started burning. Meanwhile, the

Police had arrived there to their rescue and they were taken out

of the vehicle by the Police after breaking open the window. She

also proved the fact of her father having maintained extra

marital relationship with two other women due to which, her

mother got deduction of half salary from the salary of her

father.

12.Likewise, Pankaj (PW-6) corroborated the statement of Sudha.

He stated that on 29

th

April, 2005 his father Amar Singh and the

driver took all of them to Chhibramau to purchase materials. At

the time of return near the river Kali, the car was stopped then

petrol was poured on them and set on fire. They tried to come out

but their father and the driver just watched the fire. He further

Page 8 8

stated his father was working in Police and posted at Kalyanpur

in Kanpur. He stated that his father and driver set all of them

on fire.

13.Anil Kumar Katiyar (PW-12), Nayab Tehsildar, having received

the instruction from the District Magistrate, recorded the dying

declaration of injured Sudha, Pooja, Mamta, Urmila and Pankaj,

out of whom, Urmila and Pooja died. Mamta, whose dying

declaration was recorded by Sub-Divisional Magistrate(PW-10) also

died. The dying declaration of Urmila, which is Ext.Ka-18, is

reproduced in English version as under:

“My husband-Amar Singh is in Police

department and is posted at Police Station-

Kalyanpur in Kanpur. My husband has

soleminsed two marriages after me. My

children and I had started getting half of

his salaries and by which allowance (we

were) maintaining. Due to all these reasons,

my husband was angry with me and the

children. But yesterday on 29.04.2005 by

saying that articles were to be purchased

for the marriage of daughter, all of us were

taken to Chhibramau. Deliberately (we were)

taken to Chhibramau and despite of our

repeated requests delay was caused and (we)

left late. While coming back the driver and

my husband-Amar Singh stopped the car near

the bridge of river Kali by saying that the

car had become hot. After that oil was

sprinkled on all of us and set on fire. When

we tried to leave the car, then again we

were pushed into the car. They kept on

watching at us in flames from outside. I do

not know the name of the driver, my husband

set me and my children on fire and the

driver fully co-operated in it.”

Page 9 9

14.The dying declaration of the deceased-Pooja made to PW-12,

which is Ext.Ka-17, in English version is as under:

“Yesterday on 29.04.05 my father-Amar

singh and the driver took me, my mother and

both the sisters and brother with them to

Chhibramau by Maruti by saying this that

articles were to be purchased for the

marriage of ‘Didi’ (elder sister) and

clothes etc. were to be got purchased for

us. Some articles were purchased for ‘Didi’

at Chhibramau and much delay was caused

there. Left Chhibramanu in the evening and

stopped the car near the river Kali while

saying that the car had become hot and was

to be cooled down. By stopping the Maruti,

father-Amar Singh and the driver put oil

upon us and set us on fire and when (we)

tried to come out of the car, then again we

were pushed into the car. Do not know the

name of the driver who was with the father.

Mother had started getting half amount of

the salary of father and due to this reason

father was angry from all of us. Father and

the driver after setting us on fire ran

away. After sometime the Police got us

admitted here.”

15.The verbatim reproduction of dying declaration of deceased-

Mamta made to City Magistrate (PW-10), Raj Pal singh, which is

Ext.Ka-15, is as under:

“I, Mamta daughter of Amar Singh, resident of

Vida, village-Mohammadabad, Farrukkhabad, age

about 20 years, am in full senses and state

of mind, my father-Amar Singh along with the

driver was taking me, mother-Urmila, Shobha

and Pankaj to Chhibramau as articles(relating

to) my marriage were to be purchased from

there. At about 7.30 p.m. on 29.04.05 while

coming back from Chhibramau I, my mother-

Urmila, Shobha, Pankaj and Pooja were closed

in Maruti Van near the river Kali, before

closing the car father said that car had

become hot up and on the pretext of

sprinkling water, sprinkled the petrol inside

Page 10 10

the car and set on fire. The door was closed

from outside, my father set on fire, the

driver was helping him. My father was

desiring to kill me and as well as to all

those who were closed inside by setting on

fire. My father had soleminsed second

marriage. My mother had got made his salary

half and since then he used to quarrel.”

16.In the initial stage dying declarations of Sudha and Pankaj

were also recorded by Nayab Tahseeldar (PW-12), but as both of

them survived so their statements were only treated as exhibits.

The statement of Sudha, which is Ext.Ka-16, is as under:

“Yesterday on 29.04.05 in the evening at

about 7.00 hours, my father and the driver

closed my mother, me and my two sisters and

my brother in the car and set on fire. Before

closing the car firstly the oil was poured on

us. Father took all of us on the pretext of

purchasing goods for the marriage of sister-

Mamta and clothes etc. for all of us, from

Chhibramau. In chhibramau only some cream and

powder etc. were purchased for sister. After

that left Chhibramau very late. At the time

of coming back stopped the car near the

bridge that the car had become hot and it was

to be cooled down and suddenly set us on

fire. When we started burning at that time

father and the driver kept on looking at us

from outside and when sister tried to go out

of the car, then father once again pushed me

inside the car. My father is in Police

department. He is posted at Kalyanpur in

Kanpur. I was set on fire by my father and

the driver. All of us have been set on fire

by these people only.”

17.The statement of Pankaj Singh, which is Ext.Ka-19, is

reproduced as under:

“Yesterday on 29.04.05 my father-Amar Singh

and the driver took me and my three sisters

and mother in Maruti to Chhibramau for

purchasing. While coming back, the car was

Page 11 11

stopped near the river Kali, oil was poured on

us and set on fire. We tried to come out, then

again (we were) pushed inside the car. My

father and driver kept on watching us while

standing outside and we kept on crying and

screaming, but that did not put any effect on

them. My father is in Police department and is

posted at Kalyanpur in Kanpur. Father and the

driver set all of us on fire.”

18.The facts brought out in the dying declarations of Urmila,

Ext.Ka-18; Pooja, Ext.Ka-17 and Mamta,Ka-15 has corroborated the

statements of injured eye-witnesses, Sudha (PW-5) and Pankaj

Singh (PW-6).There is no room but to suggest that the accused

caused the death of the deceased. The dying declarations clearly

implicate the accused. There are no suspicious features which

affect the credibility of the dying declarations particularly the

deceased being related to the accused. There is no apparent

reason as to why the deceased Urmila(wife), Mamta(daughter),

Pooja (daughter) were connecting their husband/father with the

murderer attack. Mere fact that Doctor in whose presence the

dying declaration was recorded and/or who endorsed it, is not

examined, does not affect the evidentiary value of the dying

declaration. The evidence of Uma Shankar Yadav, Inspector (PW-4)

is also corroborated by the evidence of eye-witnesses Sudha (PW-

5) and Pankaj (PW-6). There is no discrepancy in the statements

of the eye-witnesses to disbelieve them. The Trial Court rightly

convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, 307

and 436 IPC as affirmed by the High Court.

Page 12 12

19.The next question is whether the death sentence awarded to

the appellant is excessive, disproportionate on the facts and

circumstances of the case, i.e. whether the present case can be

termed to be a “rarest of the rare case".

20. The Guidelines emerged from Bachan Singh vs. State of

Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 684 were followed in Machhi Singh and

others vs. State of Punjab, 1983 (3) SCC 470. In the said case

the Court observed:

“38. In this background the guidelines

indicated in Bachan Singh case, 1980 (2) SCC

684 will have to be culled out and applied

to the facts of each individual case where

the question of imposing of death sentence

arises. The following propositions emerge

from Bachan Singh case(supra):

“(i) The extreme penalty of death need not

be inflicted except in gravest cases of

extreme culpability.

(ii) Before opting for the death penalty

the circumstances of the ‘offender’ also

require to be taken into consideration along

with the circumstances of the ‘crime’.

(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and

death sentence is an exception. In other

words death sentence must be imposed only

when life imprisonment appears to be an

altogether inadequate punishment having

regard to the relevant circumstances of the

crime, and provided, and only provided, the

option to impose sentence of imprisonment

for life cannot be conscientiously exercised

having regard to the nature and

circumstances of the crime and all the

relevant circumstances.

(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and

mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up

and in doing so the mitigating circumstances

have to be accorded full weightage and a

just balance has to be struck between the

Page 13 13

aggravating and the mitigating circumstances

before the option is exercised.

39. In order to apply these guidelines

inter alia the following questions may be

asked and answered:

(a) Is there something uncommon about the

crime which renders sentence of imprisonment

for life inadequate and calls for a death

sentence?

(b) Are the circumstances of the crime

such that there is no alternative but to

impose death sentence even after according

maximum weightage to the mitigating

circumstances which speak in favour of the

offender?

40. If upon taking an overall global view

of all the circumstances in the light of the

aforesaid proposition and taking into

account the answers to the questions posed

hereinabove, the circumstances of the case

are such that death sentence is warranted,

the court would proceed to do so.”

21.In Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris and others vs. State of

Maharashtra, 1998 (3) SCC 625, this Court noted the law laid-down

in Allauddin Mian & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5, that

unless the nature of the crime and circumstances of the offender

reveal that criminal is a menace to the society and the sentence

of life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate, the Court

should ordinarily pass a lesser punishment and not punishment of

death which should be reserved for exceptional cases only.

Considering the cumulative effect of all the factors, like the

offences committed under the influence of extreme mental or

emotional disturbance, the young age of the accused, the

Page 14 14

possibility of reform and rehabilitation, etc. the Court may

convert the sentence into life imprisonment.

22.This Court noticed the aggravating and mitigating

circumstances in Ramnaresh and others vs. State of Chattisgarh,

2012 (4) SCC 257, and held as follows:

“76. The law enunciated by this Court in

its recent judgments, as already noticed,

adds and elaborates the principles that were

stated in Bachan Singh,(1980) 2 SCC 684, and

thereafter, in Machhi Singh,(1983) 3 SCC

470. The aforesaid judgments, primarily

dissect these principles into two different

compartments—one being the “aggravating

circumstances” while the other being the

“mitigating circumstances”. The court would

consider the cumulative effect of both these

aspects and normally, it may not be very

appropriate for the court to decide the most

significant aspect of sentencing policy with

reference to one of the classes under any of

the following heads while completely

ignoring other classes under other heads. To

balance the two is the primary duty of the

court. It will be appropriate for the court

to come to a final conclusion upon balancing

the exercise that would help to administer

the criminal justice system better and

provide an effective and meaningful

reasoning by the court as contemplated under

Section 354(3) CrPC.

Aggravating circumstances

(1) The offences relating to the

commission of heinous crimes like murder,

rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. by the

accused with a prior record of conviction

for capital felony or offences committed by

the person having a substantial history of

serious assaults and criminal convictions.

Page 15 15

(2) The offence was committed while the

offender was engaged in the commission of

another serious offence.

(3) The offence was committed with the

intention to create a fear psychosis in the

public at large and was committed in a

public place by a weapon or device which

clearly could be hazardous to the life of

more than one person.

(4) The offence of murder was committed

for ransom or like offences to receive money

or monetary benefits.

(5) Hired killings.

(6) The offence was committed outrageously

for want only while involving inhumane

treatment and torture to the victim.

(7) The offence was committed by a person

while in lawful custody.

(8) The murder or the offence was

committed to prevent a person lawfully

carrying out his duty like arrest or custody

in a place of lawful confinement of himself

or another. For instance, murder is of a

person who had acted in lawful discharge of

his duty under Section 43 CrPC.

(9) When the crime is enormous in

proportion like making an attempt of murder

of the entire family or members of a

particular community.

(10) When the victim is innocent, helpless

or a person relies upon the trust of

relationship and social norms, like a child,

helpless woman, a daughter or a niece

staying with a father/uncle and is inflicted

with the crime by such a trusted person.

(11) When murder is committed for a motive

which evidences total depravity and

meanness.

(12) When there is a cold-blooded murder

without provocation.

(13) The crime is committed so brutally

that it pricks or shocks not only the

judicial conscience but even the conscience

of the society.

Mitigating circumstances

Page 16 16

(1) The manner and circumstances in and

under which the offence was committed, for

example, extreme mental or emotional

disturbance or extreme provocation in

contradistinction to all these situations in

normal course.

(2) The age of the accused is a relevant

consideration but not a determinative factor

by itself.

(3) The chances of the accused of not

indulging in commission of the crime again

and the probability of the accused being

reformed and rehabilitated.

(4) The condition of the accused shows

that he was mentally defective and the

defect impaired his capacity to appreciate

the circumstances of his criminal conduct.

(5) The circumstances which, in normal

course of life, would render such a

behaviour possible and could have the effect

of giving rise to mental imbalance in that

given situation like persistent harassment

or, in fact, leading to such a peak of human

behaviour that, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the accused

believed that he was morally justified in

committing the offence.

(6) Where the court upon proper

appreciation of evidence is of the view that

the crime was not committed in a preordained

manner and that the death resulted in the

course of commission of another crime and

that there was a possibility of it being

construed as consequences to the commission

of the primary crime.

(7) Where it is absolutely unsafe to rely

upon the testimony of a sole eyewitness

though the prosecution has brought home the

guilt of the accused.

While determining the questions relating to sentencing

policy, the Court laid down the Principles at paragraph 77 which

reads as follows:

Page 17 17

“77. While determining the questions

relatable to sentencing policy, the court

has to follow certain principles and those

principles are the loadstar besides the

above considerations in imposition or

otherwise of the death sentence.

Principles

(1) The court has to apply the test to

determine, if it was the “rarest of rare”

case for imposition of a death sentence.

(2) In the opinion of the court,

imposition of any other punishment i.e. life

imprisonment would be completely inadequate

and would not meet the ends of justice.

(3) Life imprisonment is the rule and

death sentence is an exception.

(4) The option to impose sentence of

imprisonment for life cannot be cautiously

exercised having regard to the nature and

circumstances of the crime and all relevant

considerations.

(5) The method (planned or otherwise) and

the manner (extent of brutality and

inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime was

committed and the circumstances leading to

commission of such heinous crime.”

23.In Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013

(5) SCC 546, dealing with a case of death sentence, this Court

observed:

“52. Aggravating circumstances as pointed

out above, of course, are not exhaustive so

also the mitigating circumstances. In my

considered view, the tests that we have to

apply, while awarding death sentence are

“crime test”, “criminal test” and the “R-R

test” and not the “balancing test”. To award

death sentence, the “crime test” has to be

fully satisfied, that is, 100% and “criminal

test” 0%, that is, no mitigating

circumstance favouring the accused. If there

is any circumstance favouring the accused,

like lack of intention to commit the crime,

Page 18 18

possibility of reformation, young age of the

accused, not a menace to the society, no

previous track record, etc. the “criminal

test” may favour the accused to avoid the

capital punishment. Even if both the tests

are satisfied, that is, the aggravating

circumstances to the fullest extent and no

mitigating circumstances favouring the

accused, still we have to apply finally the

rarest of the rare case test (R-R test). R-R

test depends upon the perception of the

society that is “society-centric” and not

“Judge-centric”, that is, whether the

society will approve the awarding of death

sentence to certain types of crimes or not.

While applying that test, the court has to

look into variety of factors like society’s

abhorrence, extreme indignation and

antipathy to certain types of crimes like

sexual assault and murder of intellectually

challenged minor girls, suffering from

physical disability, old and infirm women

with those disabilities, etc. Examples are

only illustrative and not exhaustive. The

courts award death sentence since situation

demands so, due to constitutional

compulsion, reflected by the will of the

people and not the will of the Judges.”

24.On the question of sentence of death the principle in nut -

shell has been stated in Haresh Mohandas Rajput vs. State Of Ma-

harashtra, 2011 (12) SCC 56, which reads as under:

“The rarest of the rare case” comes when a

convict would be a menace and threat to the har -

monious and peaceful coexistence of the society.

The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be

in the category of “the rarest of the rare case”.

There must be no reason to believe that the ac -

cused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and

that he is likely to continue criminal acts of

violence as would constitute a continuing threat

to the society. The accused may be a menace to

the society and would continue to be so, threat -

ening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence.

The manner in which the crime is committed must

Page 19 19

be such that it may result in intense and extreme

indignation of the community and shock the col -

lective conscience of the society. Where an ac -

cused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment

provocation and indulges himself in a deliber -

ately planned crime and meticulously executes it,

the death sentence may be the most appropriate

punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death

sentence may be warranted where the victims are

innocent children and helpless women. Thus, in

case the crime is committed in a most cruel and

inhuman manner which is an extremely brutal,

grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly

manner, where his act affects the entire moral

fibre of the society e.g. crime committed for

power or political ambition or indulging in or -

ganised criminal activities, death sentence

should be awarded. (See C. Muniappan v. State of

T.N.(2010) 9 SCC 567 , Dara Singh v. Republic of

India. (2011) 2 SCC 490 , Surendra Koli v. State

of U.P, (2011) 4 SCC 80 , Mohd. Mannan, (2011) 5

SCC 317 and Sudam v. State of Maharashtra, (2011)

7 SCC 125.)

25.In Sandeep vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 107,

this Court observed:

“72. It is, therefore, well settled that award -

ing of life sentence is the rule, death is an ex -

ception. The application of “the rarest of the

rare case” principle is dependent upon and dif -

fers from case to case. However, the principles

laid down earlier and restated in the various de -

cisions of this Court referred to above can be

broadly stated that a deliberately planned crime,

executed meticulously in a diabolic manner, ex -

hibiting inhuman conduct in a ghastly manner,

touching the conscience of everyone and thereby

disturbing the moral fibre of society would call

for imposition of capital punishment in order to

ensure that it acts as a deterrent.”

Page 20 20

26.Though we are convinced that the prosecution has proved the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused

committed the crime in a most cruel and inhuman manner. The

helpless wife and young children, who fell victims to the

avaricious conduct and lust of the appellant still the case does

not fall within the four corners of the principle of “the rarest

of the rare case”, though no leniency can be shown to the

appellant.

27.There is no reason to believe that the accused cannot be

reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue

criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat

to the society.

28.In Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC

767, even while setting aside the sentence of death penalty and

awarding life imprisonment in order to serve the ends of justice,

the Court ordered that the appellant should not be released from

the prison till the end of his life. Likewise, in Ramraj v.

State of Chhattisgarh, (2010) 1 SCC 573, this Court, while

setting aside the death sentence, directed that the appellant

therein should serve a minimum period of 20 years including the

remissions and would not be released on completion of 14 years of

imprisonment.

Page 21 21

29.In Sandeep’s (supra) taking into note the aforesaid

decisions and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

while holding that the imposition of death sentence to the

accused Sandeep was not warranted and while awarding life

imprisonment, the Court held that the accused Sandeep must serve

a minimum of 30 years in jail without remissions before

consideration of his case for premature release.

30.In the present case taking into the facts and circumstances

of the case in hand and reasons stated above, we hold that the

imposition of death sentence to the accused Amar Singh Yadav was

not warranted. Accordingly we commute the sentence to life

imprisonment. Further, we hold that the accused Amar Singh Yadav

must serve a minimum of 30 years in jail without remissions

before consideration of his case for premature release. Criminal

Appeals and Reference thus stand disposed of, modifying the

sentence of the accused Amar Singh Yadav as one of the life and

he should undergo sentence for a fixed period of 30 years without

any remissions.

31.The criminal appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid

observations.

……………………………………………………………………… J.

(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

……………………………………………………………………… J.

Page 22 22

(DIPAK MISRA)

NEW DELHI,

JULY 01, 2014.