http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

JAI KUMAR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF M.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/05/1999

BENCH:

Umesh C Banerjee, M.Srinivasan

JUDGMENT:

BANERJEE, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal by the grant of special leave is directed

against the order of confirmation of death sentence by the

Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur. Since the appeal pertains to confirmation of

death sentence by the High Court and the submission in

support of the appeal is restricted to the question of

sentence, it would be convenient to note at this juncture

that it is only in the rarest of rare cases that this

punishment is to be inflicted and it is on this score that

Mr. Muralidhar, the amicus curiae appointed in the matter

with his usual ability strongly contended that the

punishment awarded by the Sessions Judge and as confirmed by

the High Court, runs counter to the basic concept of law and

justice of the situation. As a part of the submission, Mr.

Muralidhar placed strong reliance on Sections 235 (2) and

354 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But before

consideration of the submissions on legal issue as above, it

would be convenient to advert to the factual matrix of the

matter in issue, in order to assess the situation as to

whether the matter in issue in fact falls squarely and

evenly on the category of rarest of the rare cases. The

factual score depicts that the appellant was charged under

Section 302 read with Section 201 for committing murder of

deceased Dev Vati, aged 30 years and a girl child Renu aged

8 years, on the night of 7th January, 1997. Both the lady

and the girl child, however, were related to the accused,

being the sister-in-law (brother's wife) and the niece

respectively. Apart from the evidence tendered before the

court by the mother and the nephew respectively of the

accused, the latter himself in his examination under Section

313 of the Code categorically stated and admitted the factum

of murder - the situation, therefore, is that the accused

admits of murdering his sister-in-law and the niece- and the

reason put forth- the sister-in-law has not been giving him

enough food and as such on being enraged therewith, this

offence was committed - but what about the child?

Significantly there is no whisper pertaining thereto - is it

because that the child witnessed the gruesome murder of the

mother and as such the child shall also have to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

eliminated - may be, but let us not proceed on any

hypothesis, the fact remains however, that both the Sessions

Judge and the High Court disbelieved this version of the

accused. The mother in her evidence in no uncertain terms

stated that there was an attempt to commit rape on the

sister-in-law and by reason of resistance, the rapist

committed the offence and on the same being put forth to the

accused - the answer comes that all the children of the

sister-in-law were illegitimate children and her visit to

her father's place and affinity with friends in that area

had brought about this situation of having two children:

Incidentally, however, the lady murdered was at an advanced

stage pregnancy at the time of her death. The evidence on

record depicts that on the fateful night of 7th January,

1997, at village Rakri Tola, Tikuri, District Rewa, Madhya

Pradesh, the accused entered the house and bolted from

outside the mother's room and thereafter removed certain

bricks from the wall and `choukat' thus facilitating the

entry into the room where the deceased sister-in-law was

sleeping with the child and had to face this gruesome death

in the hands of the brother-in-law. The evidence on record

depicts that the accused committed the murder of his

sister-in-law at about 11.00 p.m. by Parsul blows and then

kulhadi (tanga) blows on her neck severing her head from the

body and taking away her 8 years old daughter Renu and

killing her in a jungle by Axe blows said to be by offering

sacrifice to Mahuva Mahraj and burying her in the sand

covered with stones and it is thereafter that the accused

comes back home and carry the body of the deceased

sister-in-law tied in a cloth to the jungle and hung the

head being tied on a branch with the hairs and put the body,

on the trunk of the Mahua tree. As regards the injuries

suffered, P.W.11, Dr. RR Misra stated:-

(1) Rigor mortis was present over the body and clotted

blood was present all over the body. Head was separated

from the body. Whole face, head and hair were stained with

blood. Clothes, saree, blouse, petticoat were also stained

with blood. Left eye was damaged. Lacerated wound at the

bridge of nose size 3x2x1 cm. Length, width and depth and

bone of nose fractures. (2) Incised wound on occipital

region of head, size was 13 cm. x 4 cm. x. 4 cm. length,

width and depth,. Bone at the place of injury was cut,

brain matter was visible at that place and damaged. (3)

Incised wound on upper part of neck. Head is separated from

the body. All structure of neck, muscles, veins were cut

due to this injury. (4) Incised wound on middle finger of

left, ring finger and index finger and injury of size was

3x2x1 cm. was present on last vein.

2. All the above mentioned injuries appeared to be

caused with hard and blunt object."

On the same date, the same constable had brought

before me the dead body of deceased Renu, daughter of Gulab

Prasad, aged 7 years for the post-mortem. I started post-

mortem on the dead body at 2.30 p.m. and found following in

the examination:-

External examination:-

Rigor mortis was present all over the body and dust

particles were attached all over the body, clotted blood was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

present all over the body. All the clothes were blood

stained.

(1) Incised wound on front of chest on right side,

size was 4.5 cm. x 1-1/2x1 cm.

(2) Incised wound on left side of neck , middle part

of back of neck size was 7 cm. x 6 cm. x 2 cm. At the

place of wound muscles, and veins were cut. Vertebra of

neck 3rd and 4th were fractured.

(3) Incised wound on left side of cheek. Size was

6x3x3 cm. and mandible bone was fractured and it was in the

left side.

(4) Incised wound on right index finger and middle

finger. Size was 2x1x1 cm. Middle finger of left hand was

found cut and separated means upper portion was separate."

It is on this evidentiary backdrop that the learned

Sessions Judge thought it fit to pass death sentence in the

matter and which stands confirmed by the High Court and it

is on this perspective that the basic issue of punishment

ought to be assessed. Turning attention on to the issue as

regards non-compliance of Section 235 (2) of the Code Mr.

Muralidhar contended that there has been a violation of the

mandatory legal requirement of an effective and substantial

opportunity to be given to the accused for being heard on

the question of sentence. It has been submitted that

requirement of hearing of the accused on the question of

sentence, upon a plain reading of Sections 235(2) is not an

empty formality but a mandatory requirement and in support

of his contention placed strong reliance on the decision of

this Court in the case of Muniappan v. State of TamilNadu

[1981 (3) SCC 11] wherein this Court at page 13 observed:-

"We are also not satisfied that the learned Session's Judge

made any serious effort to elicit from the accused what he

wanted to say on the question of sentence. All that the

learned Judge says is that "when the accused was asked on

the question of sentence, he did not say anything". The

obligation to hear the accused on the question of sentence

which is imposed by Section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is not

discharged by putting a formal question to the accused as to

what he has to say on the question of sentence. The Judge

must make a genuine effort to elicit from the accused all

information which will eventually bear on the question of

sentence... question which the judge can put to the accused

under section 235 (2) and the answers which the accused

makes to those questions are beyond the narrow constraints

of the Evidence Act. The court, while on the question of

sentence is in an altogether different domain in which facts

and factors which operate are of an entirely different order

than those which come into play on the question of

conviction"

Mr. Muralidhar contended that there are certain other

factors which shall also have to be taken into account by

the Court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence to wit:

his education, his home life, social adjustments and the

emotional and mental conditions of the offender and it is in

this context reliance was placed on the decision of this

Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab [1976 (4) SCC 190]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

wherein this Court observed:- "The reason is that a proper

sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature

of the offence, the circumstances - extenuating or

aggravating - of the offence, the prior criminal record, if

any, of the offender, the age of the offender, the record of

the offender, as to employment, the background of the

offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety

and social adjustment, the emotional and mental condition of

`the offender', the prospects for the rehabilitation of the

offender, the possibility of return of the offender to a

normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment

or training of the offender, the possibility that the

sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender

or by others and the current community need, if any, for

such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of

offence. These are factors which have to be taken into

account by the court in deciding upon the appropriate

sentence and therefore, the legislature felt that, for this

purpose, a separate stage should be provided after

conviction when the court can hear the accused in regard to

these factors bearing on sentence and then pass proper

sentence on the accused. Hence, the new provision in

Section 235(2)."

Mr. Muralidhar contended further that the

constitutional basis for recognising this inviolable right

of the accused has also been very lucidly elucidated by this

Court in Allaudin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC (5)

wherein this Court at page 20 of the report observed: "The

requirement of hearing the accused is intended to satisfy

the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental

requirement of fair play that the accused who was hither to

concentrating on the prosecution evidence on the question of

guilt should, on being found guilty be asked if he has

anything to say or any evidence to tender on the question of

sentence. This is all the more necessary since the courts

are generally required to make the choice from a wide range

of discretion in the matter of sentencing. To assist the

court in determining the correct sentence to be imposed the

legislature introduced sub-section (2) to section 235. The

said provision therefore satisfies a dual purpose; it

satisfies the rule of natural justice.. And at the same

time helps the court to choose the sentence to be awarded..

There can be no doubt that the provision is salutary and

must be strictly followed. It is clearly mandatory and

should not be treated as a mere formality... In case of

life or death.. The presiding officer must show a high

degree of concern for the statutory right of the accused and

should not treat it as a mere formality... We think as a

general rule the trial court should after recording the

conviction adjourn the matter to a future date and call upon

the prosecution as well as the defence to place the relevant

material bearing on the question of sentence before it and

thereafter pronounce the sentence to be imposed on the

offender...."

Before launching a discussion on the merits of the

submissions, it would be convenient to note the true purport

of Section 302 for ascertainment of the legislative

perspective. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

authorises the Court to punish the offender of murder with

death or imprisonment for life - the statute therefore has

provided a discretion to the court to sentence the offender

either with death or with imprisonment for life: Obviously,

a serious decision and a heavy burden imposed on the Court -

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

This discretion conferred however, shall have to be thus

exercised in a manner and in consonance with the concept of

law so as to sub-serve the ends of justice and it is on this

aspect of the matter that in a long catena of cases this

Court in no uncertain terms laid down that award of death

sentence though within the ambit of jurisdiction of the

courts, but that does not clothe the courts to exercise the

same in a manner indiscriminate - This Court has been candid

enough to record on more occasions than one that it is only

in the rarest of the rare cases that this discretion as

regards capital punishment ought to be exercised. Ours is a

civilised society - tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye

ought not to be the criteria; the civilisation and the due

process of law coupled with social order ought not to permit

us to be hasty in regard to the award of capital punishment

and as a matter of fact the Courts ought to be rather slow

in that direction. Justice is supreme and justice ought to

be beneficial for the society so that the society is placed

in a better off situation. Law courts exist for the society

and ought to rise up to the occasion to do the needful in

the matter, and as such ought to act in a manner so as to

sub-serve the basic requirement of the society. It is a

requirement of the society and the law must respond to its

need. The greatest virtue of law is its flexibility and its

adaptability, it must change from time to time so that it

answers the cry of the people, the need of the hour and the

order of the day. In the present day society, crime is now

considered a social problem and by reason therefore a

tremendous change even conceptually is being seen in the

legal horizon so far as the punishment is concerned. One

school of thought on this score propagates the function of

the law court is that of a social reformer and as such in

its endeavour to act as such, question of deterring

punishment would not arise since the society would otherwise

be further prone to such violent acts or activities by

reason of the fact that with the advancement of the age the

mental frame of boys of tender age also go on changing and

in the event of any arrogance being developed or a sense of

revenge creeps the society, the society would perish to the

detriment of its people. The other school, however,

expressly recorded and rather emphatically that unless

severest of the severe punishments are inflicted on an

offender (obviously depending upon the nature of the crime)

the society would perish. The other school professes that

since one has taken the life of another that does not mean

that his life shall have to be taken but during the trial if

it transpires the method and manner or the nature of the

activities which has resulted in the elimination of a human

being from this world, there should not be any laxity on the

part of the law courts, otherwise people will and in turn

the society will be engulfed in false sense of security of

life in the event of there being most heinous crime of the

earth. The law courts as a matter of fact have been rather

consistent in the approach that a reasonable proportion has

to be maintained between the seriousness of the crime and

the punishment. While it is true that a sentence

disproportionately severe, ought not to be passed but that

does not even clothe the law courts with an option to award

the sentence which would be manifestly inadequate having due

regard to the nature of the offence since an inadequate

sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the

society at large. Punishments are awarded not because of

the fact that it has to be an eye for an eye or a tooth for

tooth, rather having its due impact on the society: while

undue harshness is not required but inadequate punishment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

may lead to sufferance of the community at large. Having

dealt with the matter as above, it would be convenient to

note the finding of learned Sessions Judge as regards the

compliance of Section 235 (2) of the Code. At page 22 of

the judgment the learned Sessions Judge records:- "26. From

the appreciation of the above mentioned all the evidences,

the charge against the accused Jai Kumar is found proved

under Section 302 and Section 201 IPC beyond any doubt.

Therefore, the judgment is adjourned for hearing on the

question of order of sentence in the crime."

Sd/- R.C. Chandel Sessions Judge, Rewa M.P.

27. Learned counsel of both the parties were heard on

the question of sentence. Both the parties do not want to

give any documentary oral verbal evidence with regard to the

above. It is the request of the learned defence counsel

that the age of the accused is 22 years and he has not any

past criminal history and this is not such a case in which

the accused may be awarded the maximum sentence i.e.

sentence of death. Learned counsel cited the reference of

the 1996 (1) Crimes-137 (S.C.) Ravender Trimbak Chothmal vs.

State of Maharashtra. Learned Public Prosecutor pleads that

the accused has committed efforts to commit rape with his

motherlike Bhabhi-deceased Dev Vati and on being failed in

this, caused her brutal death, severed her head from the

body and hanged her head on the tree and put her dead body

on the tree. Along with this, the accused after taking the

minor child deceased Kumari Renu to the jungle merely for

the reason that she had seen the accused committing murder.

Firstly he offered prayers in the jungle and then he

committed her murder with the axe. The above act of the

accused being brutal is such a case where it is necessary to

award the accused the sentence of death. Learned Public

Prosecutor has given the reference of 1996 Crl.L.J. 4158

Kamta Tiwari vs. State of M.P., 1995 Na.Ni.Sa.? 18,

Amritlal Someshwar Joshi versus State of Maharashtra. I

have carefully perused the legal illustrations referred by

the learned counsel and I am agree with the principals which

are propounded in the judicial illustrations.

28. As is clear from the evidences come up in the

case that the accused tried to commit rape on the deceased

Dev Vati who was his bhabhi and on being protested by her

against him, he committed her murder. Not to talk of this,

he severed the head with kulhari and after tying the dead

body in a dhoti took it in the jungle at the Hardia Pahari

and there the head of the deceased was hanged with the tree

and put the dead body of the deceased on the tree. Because

the deceased Kumari Renu had seen the above accused

committing the murder of the deceased Dev Vati. For this

reason, the accused offered the nine years minor child

(female) deceased Kumari Renu who was the daughter of the

deceased Dev Vati, in the jungle and further offered the

broken mirror, oil of Awala Mustard oil, Guvava, onion,

Bindia to Mahua Maharaj (see thereby question No. 25 under

Section 313 Crl.P.C.) and then after causing the blow with

kulhari on the head of the deceased Kumari Renu committed

her murder and after putting her dead body under the Balu

sand suppressed her dead body but keeping the stones on her

foot and head.

.............

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

Before arriving at the conclusion, I seriously

discussed over this for so many times but in the

circumstances of the case and keeping in view the brutal act

of the accused Jai Kumar, it would not be sufficient to

award him the sentence of life imprisonment and with this

there would not be any proper effect on the society.

Therefore keeping in view the entire circumstances, the

accused Jai Kumar is sentenced to death for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder

of the deceased Dev Vati and the deceased Kumari Renu.

Beside this, the accused is sentenced to undergo 7 years

rigorous imprisonment for the crime punishable under Section

201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Jai Kumar has

been in judicial custody since 8.1.97 in this case".

The order of the learned Sessions Judge as recorded

above unmistakably depicts that both the parties were heard

and none of the parties wanted to give any documentary or

oral evidence with regard to sentence. But the factum of

submissions and considerations thereof as appears from

paragraphs 27 and 28 leads us to a definite conclusion that

there has been no miscarriage of justice. Be it noted that

the statute has engrafted in the statute book the provisions

of Sections 235 (2) so as to see that proper appreciation of

the evidence takes place and proper opportunity of hearing

as regards punishment be afforded, but if there is no taker

of such an opportunity inspite of there being lawyers

appearing for the accused as well, question of further

adjournment of the matter would not arise. It is true that

the obligation is not discharged by putting formal questions

to the accused -The Judge is supposed to elicit materials

from the accused which will have a bearing on the question

of sentence and it is on this requirement of law, let us

consider as to whether there was in fact such a genuine

attempt to elicit materials-but as the record depicts there

was no taker of this opportunity and the defence lawyer

pleaded two facts to be considered in the matter for award

of punishment viz. (a) The accused is aged 22 years and (b)

No other past Criminal Record: We wish to put on record

that trying Judge has shown utmost concern and after much

deliberation came to the conclusion as above in the matter

of the grant of punishment. The ratio dicedendi of the

cases noticed is to see that there is no statutory mockery

resulting in a total miscarriage of justice. The judgment

was adjourned and the lawyer was asked - and prompt came the

reply that the sentence ought to be considered by reason of

the age and no past record: Both these aspects have duly

been considered by the Sessions Judge and we do not see any

infirmity therein. Incidentally the High Court on the issue

of punishment did rely upon the decision of this Court in

Bachan singh vs. State of Punjab [1980 (2) SCC 684] and a

long catena of cases and upon reliance thereon, the High

Court observed: "Absence of proof of motive and youth of

the accused are two factors urged here and also that he

pleaded guilty. Let us ignore the statement of the mother

of the accused that he wanted to violate the chastity of the

deceased Dev Vati as no other overt-act of the accused about

it is established. It makes no difference whatsoever. His

ruthlessness as indicated by the fact that he is not content

with slaying Dev Vati into two pieces and hung her head and

trunk on a Mahua tree, but he is now murdering her

reputation by totally false assertion that she was unchaste

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

and all her children were illegitimate. The fact that even

his mother deposed against him (of course, the truth), goes

to show what type of living danger, he is to the family and

to society. Absence of proof of motive has not been held to

be so relevant factor in reaching the conclusion about a

case being rarest of rare or not. As we have seen in above

precedents, absence of motive loses its mitigating weight if

the crime is concluded with extreme cruelty on innocent

child and hapless lady. In this case, help to the lady was

foreclosed by the accused by bolting his mother in the room.

He broke into the room of the victim by dismantling the

bricks of wall around the door. We have found it as a fact

that the plea taken by him about suspicion for the last five

years against the chastity of the deceased is deliberately

false and an after-thought. Similarly, his plea that the

deceased child was born by illicit connections with somebody

at her matrimonial home is also deliberately false. His

plea that he was not being given food for the last 3 days is

certainly false and an after-thought as already discussed.

The deceased was his brother's wife and he had no grievance

against his brother. He broke into the room of the lady,

dragged her out and killed her and chopped off her head. He

was not content with this. It was not sudden rage. He was

acting in a calculated manner. He took away his 7 year old

niece and chopped off her neck, but for slander attachment

of the neck with the rest of the body. Some of her fingers

were chopped off and the body was buried. He had offered

`Puja' to Mahuva Tree and hung the head of Dev Vati there,

separately. So, that shows the type of the man he is. All

these factors are corroborated by various photographs of the

scenes of killing, the scenes of body placed on Mahuva tree

and the scene of the girl buried in sand and below stones.

The mere fact that the accused admits to have killed the

lady and the daughter does not amount to remorse on his

part. He is justifying it on false and indecent pleas.

Such calculated ghastly and cruel murder of hapless lady who

was pregnant of about 22-30 weeks and hapless innocent child

is bound to send shock waves in the society. It creates

feeling of revolt in the conscience."

In the contextual facts, we have no hesitation to

record that as a matter of fact there are no mitigating

circumstances and our search in that direction was in vain,

on the contrary the aggravating situations are galore to

support the finding of the Sessions Judge as confirmed by

the High Court. And it is on this count Mr. Muralidhar

contended that hearing on the question of sentence is also

necessitated by reason of the fact that till then the Judge

has no opportunity to ascertain the relevant aggravating and

mitigating circumstances bearing upon the question of

sentence and many of which may not appear from the record of

the case. We are, however, unable to record our concurrence

to the submissions of Mr. Muralidhar in the contextual

facts as noticed herein before. The guidelines as

formulated in Bachan Singh's case (supra) and adopted in two

subsequent decisions of this Court in [Machhi Singh v.

State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 957 and Kamta Tiwari vs. State

of M.P. (1996 Crl. Law Journal 4158)] do not lend any

assistance to Mr. Muralidhar. This Court in Kamta Tiwari's

case as a matter of fact pointedly observed that co-relation

of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and a balance be

struck on the basis of the factual matrix of the matter in

issue, before the exercise of discretion in terms of the

provisions of Section 302. In the matter in issue, however,

we do not find any balancing factor so as to strike a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

balance. As a matter of fact aggravating factors there are

aplenty and galore without any mitigating circumstances as

noticed above. The age of the accused being of 22 years

cannot, in the factual matrix of the matter under

consideration, be said to be a mitigating factor. Accused

is of 22 years of age while the victim was aged 30 years and

at the time of the unfortunate death, she was under

pregnancy between 22 to 30 weeks - the other victim was an

innocent girl - a child of 8 years: the murders were cold

blooded while two victims were in helpless and hapless

situation. No amount of perversity would prompt a person to

break open the door by removing the bricks from the wall and

commit such gruesome murders on failure to satisfy the lust

- the human lust ought to know its limits. Imaginations

shall have to run wild to consider existence of any

mitigating factors in the matter of sentence, having due

regard to even the subsequent conduct of the accused in the

matter of disposal of the bodies as noticed above. Can

there be any mitigating circumstance on account of such a

ghastly act - the answer cannot but be in the negative. The

mother of the accused was bolted inside the room and she

watches as a bewildered spectator from the creeks of the

window and it is the mother who had given evidence about the

bad characteristics and the reputation of the accused in the

locality: the sister-in-law has been murdered along with an

innocent child - Is this a man who deserves any sympathy

from the society - Is this a man who can correct himself and

the law courts ought to permit him to lead a decent life

after he serves the sentence: The mother's evidence becomes

material and it is on this score that we are unable to

record our concurrence with the submissions of Mr.

Muralidhar that there are some mitigating circumstance and

there is likelihood of the accused being reformed or

rehabilitated. Incidentally, the High Court has described

the accused as "a living danger" and we cannot agree more

therewith in view of the gruesome act as noticed above. A

faint attempt has been made by Mr. Murlidhar as regards

non- compliance of Section 354 (3) of the Code. We however

are not in a position to record our concurrence, thereto,

having due regard to the reasonings available in the body of

the judgment itself and we need not by reason thereof dilate

much on that score. The facts establish the depravity and

criminality of the accused in no uncertain terms. - No

regard being had for precious life of the young child also.

The compassionate ground of the accused being of 22 years of

age cannot in the facts of the matter be termed to be at all

relevant. The reasons put forth by the learned Sessions

Judge cannot but be termed to be unassailable. The learned

Judge has considered the matter from all its aspects and

there is no infirmity under Section 235 (2) or under 354 (3)

of Code and as such we are not in a position to record our

concurrence with the submissions of Mr. Muralidhar. In the

present case, the savage nature of the crime has shocked our

judicial conscience. The murder was cold-blooded and brutal

without any provocation. It certainly makes it a rarest of

the rare cases in which there are no extenuating or

mitigating circumstances. The observations of this Court in

Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal

[1994 (2) SCC 220], to which one of us (CJI as he then was a

party) while confirming the sentence of death lend

concurrence to the views expressed above. This Court

opined:

"In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given

case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected

state of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment

is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's

cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that

courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that

the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The

court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal

but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society

at large while considering imposition of appropriate

punishment."

We do not see, by reason of the discussion as above,

any mistake of justice has taken place and we record our

concurrence with the observations and findings of the High

Court.

We, therefore, find no infirmity in the sentence

awarded by the Sessions Judge and as confirmed by the High

Court. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.