Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 July, 2025
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay Prasad
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19701-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Death Reference No. 01 of 2019
The State of Jharkhand ....Appellant
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 249 of 2019
Bandhan Oraon, son of late Budhwa Oraon, resident of vill: Hesa Gatu
Kalhutoli, PO & PS: Puso, District: Gumla. ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ...Respondent
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
For the Appellant : Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vinit Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P.
...
CAV Judgment
Pronounced on: 18/07/2025
Per, R.Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Vinit Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence dated 16.02.2019 and dated 20.02.2019 respectively
passed by Shri Lolark Dubey, the learned Additional Sessions Judge I-cum-
Special Judge, Gumla in Special POCSO Case No. 67/2018, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under
sections 302/376 AB of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to
death along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the said section.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Etwari Oraoin
in which it has been stated that on 23.09.2018 the daughter of the informant
victim ‘X’ aged 03 years was playing at around 3:30 p.m. The informant had
come out from the house and since she could not find her daughter she
started searching for her in the entire village. When she could not find her
daughter she was told by Pinki Baraik that victim ‘X’ was playing with
Bandhan Oraon (appellant) and she was in his house. The informant
knocked at the door of Bandhan Oraon who did not open the door and when
she started raising a commotion Bandhan Oraon opened the door and
1 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
disclosed that victim ‘X’ has gone to sleep and when she will wake up she
will be taken to her house. After about 30 minutes Bandhan Oraon had come
to the house of the informant and had disclosed that victim ‘X’ is not saying
anything and her body has become cold. When the informant went to the
house of Bandhan Oraon she found her child dead and when she removed
the cover she found blood coming out from her private part. Bandhan Oraon
had in the meantime fled away.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Puso PS Case No. 09/2018 was
instituted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 376 AB of the
Indian Penal Code and sections 4/5 of the POCSO Act against Bandhan
Oraon. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted vide
charge-sheet no. 03/18 for the offences under sections 376 AB/ 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and sections 4/5 of the POCSO Act. After cognizance
was taken charge was framed under sections 376 AB/ 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act which was read over and
explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of
its case.
6. PW-1 Dr. Shilpa Tigga was posted at Sadar Hospital, Gumla as
Special Medical Officer and on 24.09.2018 she had conducted post-mortem
on the dead body of victim ‘X’ and had found the following:
“On Local Examination:-
There was a perineal tear with laceration extending from
uretheral meatus to the rectum (third degree perineal tear).
Vaginal & anal mucosa were lacerated there was bruising on
labia.
On examination of vaginal sinear no spermatozoa was found.”
The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Ext.1.
In cross-examination she has deposed that no sperms were detected
in the private part of victim ‘X’. She was a member of the Medical Board
which consisted apart from her Dr. Prem Chand Bhagat and Dr. Anand
Kishore Oraon. The clothes of the victim were stained with blood.
7. PW-2 Etwari Oraoin in the informant and the mother of the deceased
who has stated that the incident is of two days back. She was applying oil
to her infant child while her daughter victim ‘X’ aged 03 years and 05
months had left the house with a roti. When she later on came out she started
searching for her daughter but she was nowhere to be found. When she
2 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
asked Pinki Baraik about the whereabouts of her daughter she had disclosed
that her daughter was playing with her daughter and thereafter Bandhan
Oraon had taken victim ‘X’ to his house. She had gone to the house of
Bandhan Oraon but he did not open the door. She had made three attempts
in search of her daughter in the house of Bandhan Oraon but the door was
not opened. On the fourth attempt she met the mother of Bandhan Oraon
who disclosed that her daughter as well as Bandhan Oraon were sleeping
and when she would wake up she can come and take her back. After some
time Bandhan Oraon came to her house and disclosed that he had let her
daughter sleep after giving her water at which she asked him to let her sleep
and she will take her back after fetching water. The sister of Bandhan Oraon
as well as Bandhan Oraon disclosed that the body of victim ‘X’ has become
cold and when she went to the house of Bandhan Oraon she found her
daughter dead. She left crying and brought her husband to the house of
Bandhan Oraon. The private part of her daughter was ruptured and she was
lying in a pool of blood. She thereafter informed the Choukidar of the village
who in turn called the police. She has stated that Bandhan Oraon had fled
away but the villagers had caught hold of him. Her fardbeyan was recorded
by the officer-in-charge and she had given a thumb impression which has
been marked as Ext. X for identification. Her statement was also recorded
under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which also she had
put her thumb impression which has been marked as Ext. Y.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the police had recorded
her statement. On hearing about the incident the villagers had assembled
and she had named Ajay, Sukra, Bahura, Silwahan, Sahdeo, Pinki, Bullu and
others.
8. PW-3 Pinki Baraik has stated that it was around 3-4 p.m. on the date
of the incident when her daughter Khooshbu Kumari and Nisha Kumari
were playing with the victim ‘X’ in front of the house of Bandhan Oraon.
Her daughter Khooshbu Kumari was chased of by Bandhan Oraon while he
had taken victim ‘X’ inside the house. When the mother of victim ‘X’ asked
her about the whereabouts of her daughter she had disclosed that the victim
‘X’ is in the house of Bandhan Oraon. Etwari Oraoin thereafter went to the
house of Bandhan Oraon and subsequently there was an alarm raised that
victim ‘X’ is lying dead in the cot of Bandhan Oraon. At this information,
she had also gone to the house of Bandhan Oraon where she had seen victim
‘X’ lying dead and her private part was found ruptured. She was throttled to
3 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
death. The clothes of victim ‘X’ and the bed sheet had stains of blood. Her
daughter had disclosed that she was shooed off by Bandhan Oraon while
victim ‘X’ was taken inside the house. Her statement was recorded under
section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and she has identified her
signature in the said statement and which has been marked as Ext. 2.
Bandhan Oraon had fled away towards the jungle and on the next day he
was apprehended.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her statement was not
recorded by the police.
9. PW-4 Sahdeo Oraon is the father of the deceased who has stated that
the incident is of 23.09.2018 at around 3-4 p.m. He was in his house and his
daughter victim ‘X’ had gone to play with Khooshbu Kumari and when she
did not return his wife went in search of her. When his wife inquired from
Pinki Baraik about her daughter she had disclosed that victim ‘X’ was
playing with Khooshbu Kumari in front of the house of Bandhan Oraon and
when his wife went to the house of Bandhan Oraon the door was found
closed and in spite of repeated attempts it was not opened. His wife had
gone to the house of Bandhan Oraon for the fourth time when the mother of
Bandhan Oraon who was inside told her that victim ‘X’ and Bandhan Oraon
are sleeping inside and she may come after some time and take her back.
When his wife after washing the utensils had gone to fetch water Bandhan
Oraon and his sister Etwari called her and disclosed that her daughter is
now no more. When his wife reached the house of Bandhan Oraon she found
her daughter lying dead in the bed soaked in blood. His wife had called him
and took him to the house of Bandhan Oraon where some of the villagers
namely Budhu Oraon, Pinki Baraik, Dineshwar Bhagat and the others were
present. He had found his daughter to have been raped with her private parts
ruptured and a mark in her neck. The incident was informed to the village
Choukidar and thereafter the police came. Bandhan Oraon had fled away
towards the jungle and the villagers had apprehended him on the next night.
He has stated that his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was recorded in the Court in which he had signed and which has
been marked as Ext.3. The police had seized blood-stained clothes of the
deceased and the bed sheet and had prepared a seizure list which was signed
by him and which has been marked as Ext.4. The inquest report of victim
‘X’ was prepared by the police in which he had put his signature and which
has been marked as Ext.5.
4 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen Bandhan
Oraon and his daughter together.
10. PW-5 Uttam Sagar Rana was posted as a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
at Gumla Civil Court and on 26.09.2018 on the order of 1 st Additional
District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) he had recorded the
164 Cr.P.C statement of Etwari Oraoin and Sahdeo Oraon. He has proved
the 164 Cr.P.C. statements which have been marked as Ext.6 and Ext.3/1.
Both the witnesses in their 164 Cr.P.C. statements had stated that Bandhan
Oraon had taken away their daughter to his house where she was found dead
in the bed blood soaked with injuries on her private parts.
11. PW-6 Khooshbu Kumari has stated that victim ‘X’ was her friend with
whom she used to play. She was playing with victim ‘X’ when Bandhan
Oraon took her inside the house. She was chased of by Bandhan Oraon
which was disclosed by her to her mother. The house of Bandhan Oraon is
situated not far from her house.
12. PW-7 Guddu Oraon has stated that on the date of occurrence he had
gone to the market and when he returned to the village he had heard some
commotion and when he had gone to the house of Bandhan Oraon he had
seen victim ‘X’ lying dead in the cot. After the incident Bandhan Oraon had
fled away towards the jungle and when on the next day he had come to his
house for meal he was apprehended.
In cross-examination he has deposed that the police did not record his
statement.
13. PW-8 Dr. Premchand Kumar Bhagat was posted as a Medical Officer
at Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 24.09.2018 the Medical Board had
conducted post-mortem on the dead body of victim ‘X’ and had found the
following:
“1. Rigor mortis was absent.
2. Dead body lying supin on P.M. Table with eye close & fully
rotated head.
On dissection tearing of ligament around cervical vertebra. C-
3 was fully rotated over C-4.
3. Spinal cord was lacerated & bleeding present around cord.
4. Stomach contains partially digested food particle (rice +
bread) small intestine contain gas. Heart, lung, liver, spleen,
kidney were mild pale.”
The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to damage of spinal
chord.
He has proved his signature in the post-mortem report which has been
5 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
marked as Ext.1/1.
On a Court question he has stated that all the veins in the spinal cord
of victim ‘X’ were damaged as the neck was wringed and her neck was
found revolving. That was the main reason for her death. Her private part
was fully ruptured and had lacerated wound which occurred due to forcible
penetration of the penis into the vagina.
14. PW-9 Dr. Anand Kishore Oraon was also a part of the Medical Board
which had conducted autopsy on the dead body of victim ‘X’. The post-
mortem report was prepared by him which has been proved and marked as
Ext. 1/2.
15. PW-10 Smt. Kusum Kumari has stated that on 01.10.2018 she was
posted at Civil Court, Gumla as Judicial Magistrate-cum-Sub Judge and on
that day she had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pinki Baraik. She has
proved the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pinki Baraik which has been marked as
Ext.2/1. Pinki Baraik in her statement has disclosed that her daughter victim
‘X’ was playing in the house of Bandhan Oraon and her daughter had stated
that she was asked to go by Bandhan Oraon while victim ‘X’ was taken to
the house where she was subjected to rape resulting in her death.
16. PW-11 Dineshwar Bhagat has stated that about two months back there
was a rumor in the village that victim ‘X’ has been murdered. When he along
with others went to the house of Bandhan Oraon they found victim ‘X’ lying
dead on the bed and rape was committed upon her. Her clothes and the bed
sheet were soaked in blood. Apart from him the other villagers who were
present were Kartik Mahto, Basil Oraon, Balram Bhagat and the mother of
the deceased Etwari Oraoin. Bandhan Oraon had fled away towards jungle
and on the next day he was apprehended from inside the house. He has
identified the signature in the inquest report which has been marked as
Ext.5/1. He has also identified his signature on the seizure list of blood-
stained clothes of the deceased and the bed sheet which has been marked
as Ext.4/1.
In cross-examination he has deposed that Pinki Baraik had disclosed
about victim ‘X’ having been taken inside the house by Bandhan Oraon
while her daughter was asked to leave.
17. PW-13 Arun Pandey was posted as an Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police at Puso PS. He has produced the seized article in connection with
Puso PS Case No. 09/18 before the Court. One is a sealed envelope and
other is a sealed box wrapped in a white cloth which contained white shirt
6 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
of victim ‘X’ and a bed sheet of the bed in which the victim ‘X’ was
subjected to rape. The carton has been marked as material Ext.-(i). In the
sealed envelope a paper was pasted in which FSL, Ranchi was written and
it contained the signature of the Assistant Director. The envelope has been
proved and marked as Ext.13.
18. PW-12 Om Prakash Sharma was posted as an officer-in-charge of
Puso PS and on 23.09.2018 at about 03:30 p.m. he had received an
information on his mobile that the daughter of Etwari Oraoin has been
subjected to rape by Bandhan Oraon and she was suffocated to death. At
this information, he had reached the place of occurrence where he had taken
the custody of the dead body. He had prepared the inquest report of victim
‘X’ which has been proved and marked as Ext.5/2. He had sent the body of
the deceased for post-mortem to Sadar Hospital, Gumla. He had recorded
the restatement of the informant and had also recorded the statements of
Sahdeo Oraon, Budhu Oraon, Pinki Baraik and Dineshwar Bhagat. He has
proved the written report of Etwari Oraoin which has been marked as Ext.
7 as well as the formal FIR which has been marked as Ext.8. He has seized
the white shirt of the victim which had stains of blood and semen as well as
the bed sheet of the bed in which the daughter of the informant had died and
the seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.4/2. He has proved the
arrest memo which has been marked as Ext.9. On 25.09.2018, the
confessional statement of the accused was recorded in which he had
confessed to have committed the rape and murder of victim ‘X’. The
confessional statement has been proved and marked as Ext.10. He had also
recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Etwari Oraoin, Sahdeo Oraon and
Pinki Baraik. He had obtained the post-mortem report of victim ‘X’ and had
sent the blood-stained shirt and bed sheet as well as blood sample of the
accused for DNA test to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi. On
completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet against the
accused Bandhan Oraon which has been proved and marked as Ext.11.
In cross-examination he has stated that on the orders of the Court the
sealed cloth was opened which had two boxes inside which had blood-
stained shirt inside them. The shirt has been proved and marked as material
Ext.(ii). The bed sheet which was also produced has been proved and
marked as material Ext. (iii). A gauze was taken out from a khakhi paper
which was sealed and which have blood stains and the same has been
marked as material Ext.(iv). He has deposed that the blood of the victim and
7 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
the blood and semen found on the wearing apparel of the deceased had
matched.
19. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has denied his complicity in the
offence.
20. Defence has examined the accused as a witness.
21. DW-1 Bandhan Oraon has stated that on 23.09.2018 he was in
Ranchi as he was working in a biscuit company situated at Sujata Chowk.
When his mother had called him on 23.09.2018 he had returned to his house
in the night. He could not see any dead body.
In cross-examination he has deposed that in the factory 30-35 persons
work with him and he has named Vivek, Rajkumar Yadav, Babulal Oraon
and Ishwar Oraon as some of the persons who work with him. He regularly
signs on the attendance register and he has claimed to produce the register
if necessary. He has accepted the fact that victim ‘X’ had died on his bed
from where the dead body was recovered. He has stated that the victim ‘X’
was wearing a white shirt but the said shirt did not contain any blood stains.
22. It has been submitted by Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the
appellant that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and only on the basis
of circumstantial evidence, the appellant has been convicted. It has further
been submitted that the victim ‘X’ was with the appellant as per the evidence
of the witnesses but the same would not in any circumstance attribute the
commission of rape and murder upon the appellant.
23. Mr. Vinit Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P. has submitted that
admittedly victim ‘X’ was recovered from the house of the appellant and
she was found to have been subjected to rape and the death was on account
of asphyxia due to damage of spinal cord and since the presence of the
appellant has been proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt
there is no occasion to have a contrary view with respect to the involvement
of the appellant in committing rape and murder of the victim ‘X’.
24. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have
also perused the trial Court records.
25. The daughter of the informant was playing with the appellant and
when she disappeared the informant had knocked at the door of the appellant
who after a considerable length of time had opened it and had disclosed that
her daughter is sleeping and as soon as she wakes up she will be returned to
the informant. This statement of the appellant placated the informant and
8 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
she left for her home but after about half an hour the appellant had come to
the house of the informant and disclosed that her daughter is not responding.
When the informant went to the house of the appellant she found her
daughter dead and blood was oozing out from the private part.
26. The informant has been examined as PW-2 and she has been
consistent with respect to her assertion made in the written report. This
version of PW-2 has been supported by PW-4 who is the father of victim
‘X’. PW-6 was the friend of victim ‘X’ who has stated that she was playing
with victim ‘X’ when she was chased off by the appellant. This would
further put muscle in the case of the prosecution that the appellant with an
ill intention had chased off PW-6 and had thereafter taken victim ‘X’ to his
house where she was subjected to rape and thereafter her murder was
committed. As we have noticed above, it is the admitted case of the
prosecution that the dead body of victim ‘X’ was recovered from inside the
room of the appellant and the presence of the appellant in the said room is
also admitted as we could gather from the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-
4 and such circumstances definitely point to the guilt of the appellant in
committing the rape and murder of victim ‘X’. In such context, we may refer
to the evidence of PW-1 who was also a member of the Medical Board and
who has stated that there were several injuries on the private part of victim
‘X’ which would suggest about the commission of rape upon her. So far as
the post-mortem report is concerned, the cause of death has been opined to
be asphyxia due to damage of spinal cord and the same is also attributed to
the appellant.
27. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence of the witnesses
as well as the post-mortem report and has rightly come to a conclusion about
the involvement of the appellant in committing the rape and murder of
victim ‘X’. We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and
consequently, the conviction of the appellant under sections 302 and 376
AB of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.
28. So far as the capital punishment which has been imposed upon the
appellant is concerned, we may refer to the case of “Machhi Singh versus
State of Punjab” reported in (1983) 3 SCC 470 wherein it was held as
follows:
“32. The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse
the humanistic approach reflected in “death sentence-in-no-case” doctrine
are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is
constructed on the foundation of “reverence for life” principle. When a9 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
member of the community violates this very principle by killing another
member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine.
Secondly, it has to be realized that every member of the community is able
to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of
the protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law
enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being
brought to book operates as a deterrent for those who have no scruples in
killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a
debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead
of gratitude by “killing” a member of the community which protects the
murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the
sake of self-preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well
withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the
community will not do so in every case. It may do so “in rarest of rare cases”
when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders
of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their
personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death
penalty. The community may entertain such a sentiment when the crime is
viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of
the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for
instance:
I. Manner of commission of murder
33. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque,
diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and
extreme indignation of the community. For instance,
(i) when the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in view to
roast him alive in the house.
(ii) when the victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or cruelty
in order to bring about his or her death.
(iii) when the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his body is
dismembered in a fiendish manner.
II. Motive for commission of murder
34. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total
depravity and meanness. For instance when (a) a hired assassin commits
murder for the sake of money or reward (b) a cold-blooded murder is
committed with a deliberate design in order to inherit property or to gain
control over property of a ward or a person under the control of the
murderer or vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in
a position of trust, or (c) a murder is committed in the course for betrayal
of the motherland.
III. Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime
35. (a) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority
community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances
which arouse social wrath. For instance when such a crime is committed in
order to terrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeing from a place
or in order to deprive them of, or make them surrender, lands or benefits
conferred on them with a view to reverse past injustices and in order to
restore the social balance.
(b) In cases of “bride burning” and what are known as “dowry deaths”
or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting
dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.
IV. Magnitude of crime
36. When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when
multiple murders say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large
number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are
committed.
V. Personality of victim of murder
37. When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child who could not
have or has not provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for
murder (b) a helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or
infirmity (c) when the victim is a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in
a position of domination or trust (d) when the victim is a public figure
10 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
generally loved and respected by the community for the services rendered
by him and the murder is committed for political or similar reasons other
than personal reasons.
38. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh case
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:
“(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 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?”
29. In the case of “Khushwinder Singh versus State of Punjab” reported
in (2019) 4 SCC 415 it has been held thus:
“14. Now, so far as the capital punishment imposed by the learned
Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court is concerned, at the outset,
it is required to be noted that, as such, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused is not in a position to point out any mitigating
circumstance which warrants commutation of death sentence to the life
imprisonment. In the present case, the accused has killed six innocent
persons, out of which two were minors — below 10 years of age. Almost, all
the family members of PW 5 were done to death in a diabolical and
dastardly manner. Fortunately, or unfortunately, only one person of the
family of PW 5 could survive. In the present case, the accused has killed six
innocent persons in a pre-planned manner. The convict meticulously
planned the time. He first kidnapped three persons by way of deception and
took them to the canal and after drugging them with sleeping tablets, pushed
them in the canal at midnight to ensure that the crime is not detected. That,
thereafter he killed another three persons in the second stage/instalment.
Therefore, considering the law laid down by this Court in Mukesh v. State
(NCT of Delhi), the case would fall in the category of the “rarest of rare
case” warranting death sentence/capital punishment. The aggravating
circumstances are in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
Therefore, striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the aggravating circumstance
would tilt the balance in favour of capital punishment. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no alternative
punishment suitable, except the death sentence. The crime is committed with
extremist brutality and the collective conscience of the society would be
11 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
shocked. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the capital punishment/death
sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High
Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, we
confirm the death sentence of the accused imposed by the learned Sessions
Court and confirmed by the High Court while convicting the appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.”
30. In “Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana versus State of West Bengal“
reported in (1994) 2 SCC 220 it has been held as follows:
“15. In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given case must
depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the 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 courts 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.”
31. In “Deen Dayal Tiwari versus State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 237 the aggravating and mitigating factors have been
delineated which reads as under:
“19. Aggravating Factors
19.1 Brutal multiple murders: The Appellant has been found guilty of
murdering five persons–his own wife and four minor daughters. This
crime, by its very nature, is undeniably grave and horrific.
19.2 Position of trust and vulnerability of victims: The deceased were
defenseless, particularly the four minor daughters, placing a moral onus on
the Appellant to protect them. Instead, they were brutally killed in their own
home.
19.3 Impact on societal conscience: Undeniably, such a crime of mul-
tiple homicides within a family can shock the collective conscience of the
society.
20. Mitigating Factors
20.1 Absence of previous criminal antecedents: The record does not
disclose any prior conviction or past criminal history on the part of the Ap-
pellant.
20.2 Reports suggesting scope for reformation: In compliance with our
directions, the State has placed on record the report of the Superintendent
of District Jail, Ayodhya. It indicates that the Appellant’s behavior in cus-
tody has been “satisfactory” and “normal,” noting that he has been per-
forming assigned duties (such as cleaning/sweeper tasks) without any ad-
verse conduct. While prison conduct alone is not determinative, it is a factor
supportive of the possibility of reformation.
20.3 Socio-economic and personal circumstances: Nothing on record
suggests that the Appellant is incapable of rehabilitation. He does not ap-
pear to be a hardened criminal who poses an enduring menace to society.
20.4 Possibility of commutation- In several cases involving multiple
homicides, this Court has nonetheless commuted the death penalty to life
imprisonment, acknowledging the potential for reformation or considering
other mitigating factors. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Mas-
ter, (2010) 12 SCC 324, the accused wiped out almost an entire family, six
persons on the ground of saving “honour.” Despite the heinous nature of
the crime, this Court commuted the death sentence to rigorous imprison-
ment for life along with a fine. Similarly, in Prakash Dhawal Khairnar
(Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 35, the Appellant therein had
annihilated his brother’s entire family, but this Court held that although the12 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019
crime was heinous, it could not be classified as ‘rarest of rare.’ It was em-
phasized that there existed a possibility of reforming the offender.”
32. The mitigating circumstances which has been projected by the
learned counsel for the appellant are that the appellant is a young person and
does not have any past antecedent. The incident was not pre-planned but
had occurred at the heat of the moment and it cannot be said to be falling
under the category of rarest of rare cases to impose capital punishment.
33. Mr. Vinit Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the
aggravating circumstances are far outweighs the mitigating circumstances
since the appellant had committed rape and murder of a 3-year old child
which itself is an act of immense human depravity and therefore, no
leniency should be shown to the appellant so far as the sentence imposed
upon him is concerned.
34. The mitigating circumstances as highlighted by the learned counsel
for the appellant would indicate that the appellant is a young person and has
remained in custody for a considerable length of time and there has been no
complaint whatsoever with respect to the conduct of the appellant. None of
the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution has stated about any
previous conduct of the appellant which would indicate about his penchant
for committing such type of offences and the appellant also does not seem
to have any criminal antecedents. It is no doubt true that the appellant had
committed rape and murder of a 3-year old child but regard being had to
the mitigating circumstances, as noted above, it would be in the interest of
justice that the sentence of the appellant is modified. Accordingly, the
sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified from capital punishment
to imprisonment for life. The reference is answered accordingly and
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 249 of 2019 is dismissed with the modification
in the sentence imposed upon the appellant.
35. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(SANJAY PRASAD, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated:18/07 /2025
S.B.
13 D. Ref. No. 01 of 2019 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 249 of 2019