Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Kunchala Sasi Krishna on 31 January, 2025
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.190 OF 2022 & R.T.NO.1 OF
2022
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
The appellant herein is the accused in Sessions Case
No.85/S/2021 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-
cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur
(hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Sessions Judge’).
2. The appellant/accused was tried for the
offences punishable under Sections 354D and 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC‘) and Sections 3
(2) (va) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act, 2015’). Vide the impugned
judgment dated 29.04.2022 in the aforesaid Sessions
Case, the Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused
guilty of the aforesaid charges, accordingly convicted him
and sentenced -to death penalty by way of hanging by
neck till he is dead and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
2
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one
month, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,
subject to confirmation by this Court under Section 366
CrPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for 15 days, for the offence
punishable under Section 354D IPC; to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15
days for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act,
2015; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to
suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the
offence under Section 3 (2) (va) of the Act, 2015.
3. The substance of charges as against the
accused is that on 15.08.2021 at about 9.40 am, in front
of Sri Srinivasa Vilas Hotel, Kakani Road, Paramayakunta
of Guntur town, the accused assaulted by stalking Nallapu
Ramya (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) viz.
interacted/contacted her repeatedly despite her clear
3
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
indication of disinterest and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 354D IPC; that on the same
date, time and place and during the course of same
transaction, the accused committed murder by
intentionally causing death of the deceased by means of
stabbing her on her stomach, chest and back
indiscriminately with a knife and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; that on the
same date, time and place and during the course of same
transaction, the accused, not being a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, committed the
abovesaid offence under Section 354D IPC knowing that
the deceased is a member of Scheduled Caste-Mala and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3
(2) (va) of the Act, 2015; and lastly, that on the same date,
time and place and during the course of same transaction,
the accused committed the abovesaid offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC knowing that the deceased is a
Scheduled Caste-Mala community and thereby committed
4
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
an offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act,
2015.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is father of the deceased. P.W.2 is mother
of the deceased. P.W.3 is sister of the deceased.
According to P.W.3, she knew the accused as she had seen
him in instagram app shown to her by the deceased. P.W.3
and the deceased were residing in the house of their
grandmother L.W.4-N.Pushpa Leela and were studying in
St.Mary’s Group of Institutions. The deceased was
studying III year B.Tech. in St. Mary’s Engineering College.
Their parents were residing in Chilumuru village of
Kolluru mandal by doing cultivation. P.Ws.1 and 2 used
to visit them once in two or three days. On 14.08.2021,
during night, the deceased showed profile photo of the
accused in instagram app and informed P.W.3 that the
accused, being resident of Mutluru village and Vaddera
community person, was troubling her and was insisting
her to love him and he was also threatening that if she
does not love him, he would kill her. On that, P.W.3
5
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
informed the deceased that they would inform the same to
their father on the next day and the accused could not do
anything, and asked the deceased to keep his number in
block list. On 15.8.2021 at about 9.40 AM, the deceased
went out to bring tiffin. P.W.4, who was working as
Cashier in Sri Lakshmi Sai Tea Corner Shop,
Paramayakunta, Guntur, heard a galata at a distance of
10 to 15 meters from the tea shop, on 15.8.2021 between
9.30 AM and 10.00 AM. He went there and found the
accused stabbing the deceased with a knife on her throat,
breast and stomach, and on that, the deceased fell down
on ground, and the accused absconded on his motor cycle
kept on the other side of the road. Thereafter, on
information, P.W.3 went there and got boarded the
deceased in auto with the help of persons gathered there
and shifted her to GGH, Guntur, where the Doctor
declared her as brought dead. P.W.3 informed the same
to her father P.W.1.
(b) On 15.8.2021 at about 5.00 PM, on receipt of
Ex.P1-report from P.W.1, P.W.27-Inspector of Police, Old
6
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
Guntur police station registered a case in crime No.446 of
2021 for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC
and 3 (2) (va) of the Act, 2015 and submitted Ex.P23-
original FIR to the Magistrate concerned and copies to all
concerned.
(c) On 15.08.2021, P.W.28-Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Dhisa women police station, Guntur urban took up
investigation as per the proceedings of the Superintendent
of Police, Guntur Urban under Ex.P12. He arrested the
accused on the same day at 8.30 PM at the fields of
Mulakaluru village of Narasaraopet mandal. While
arresting the accused, the accused attempted to take away
his life, by slashing his throat and also left hand with knife
available with him. P.W.28 seized M.O.8-knife from the
accused. Thereafter, P.W.28 gave instructions to P.W.26
to give report in Narasaraopet rural police station against
the accused, pursuant to which a case in crime No.270 of
2021 was registered under Section 309 IPC. In pursuance
of the confessional statement of the accused, P.W.28
seized M.O.6-mobile phone of the deceased, M.O.8-knife,
7
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
M.O.9-Pulsar bike of the accused and M.Os.10 and 11-
blood stained clothes of the accused, under Ex.P5 in the
presence of P.W.17 and another.
(d) On 16.8.2021 at about 6.00 AM, P.W.28 visited
scene of offence situated at road margin of Kakani road,
Opposite to Srinivasa Vilas Hotel, Paramayakunta,
prepared Ex.P24-rough sketch of the scene of offence and
seized material objects viz. M.O.15-one pair of hawai
chappal of the deceased; M.O.13-blood stained earth and
M.O.14-control earth, under Ex.P6 in the presence of
P.W.17 and another. He also collected CC TV footage of 6 th
number camera C.D. from Srinivasa Vilas Hotel in the
presence of mediators under Ex.P6, vide M.O.19-C.D. of
CC TV footage. He also examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and L.W.4-
N.Pushpaleela and recorded their statements under
Section 161 CrPC. On 16.8.2021, he conducted inquest
over the dead body of the deceased between 7.30 AM and
9.30 AM in the presence of inquestdars under Ex.P7. On
17.8.2021, P.W.28 visited the scene of offence and seized
M.O.17-one hard disk under Ex.P8 in the presence of
8
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
mediaators P.W.7 and another. On the same day, P.W.28
examined P.Ws.6 to 9 and recorded their statements under
Section 161 CrPC.
(e) On 16.08.2021 at 9.30 AM, P.W.22-Assistant
Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur
Medical College, Guntur conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased and issued Ex.P19-post mortem
examination report. According to the Doctor, cause of
death of the deceased is due to penetrating injury of the
arch of aorta (a main artery from the heart) and the time of
death was approximately 24 hours prior to the post
mortem examination. After receipt of relevant documents
and completion of investigation, P.W.28 filed the charge
sheet.
5. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 28 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P29, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 19 were
got marked, on behalf of the prosecution. After completion
of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined
under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of
9
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
prosecution witnesses. Plea of accused is one of denial.
On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence has
been adduced. The learned Sessions Judge, after
appreciating of the evidence on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused as stated supra. Challenging the
same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the
accused.
6. Since one of the sentences passed by the
learned Sessions Judge is death sentence, the learned
Sessions Judge submitted the proceedings to this Court in
accordance with Section 366 CrPC, for confirmation.
Therefore, Referred Trial No.1 of 2022 is taken on file.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant contended that there is inordinate delay in
lodging report by P.W.1 in police station with regard to the
alleged incident. According to him, the alleged incident is
said to have taken place between 9.30 AM and 10.00 AM
and the FIR was lodged by P.W.1 at about 5.00 PM on the
same day i.e. there is inordinate delay of 7 hours in
10
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
lodging the report and the same would be fatal to the
prosecution case.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that P.Ws.1 to 3 are not eye-witnesses to the incident, and
after the incident, P.W.3 went to the scene of offence and
took the deceased along with other passers-by to hospital,
and during that time, the deceased was not conscious and
was not able to say anything. If really the deceased
referred name of the accused, nothing would have stopped
P.W.1 to take name of the accused at the time of lodging
the First Information Report. He submits that there are
number of discrepancies and contradictions in the
evidence of material prosecution witnesses, and basing on
the said evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused of
the aforesaid offences. The learned counsel submitted that
the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the
evidence on record in proper perspective and erred in
convicting and sentencing the accused and hence, the
accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, he prays to
11
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge.
He further submitted that the present case would not
fall within the purview of rarest of rare cases for the reason
that both the accused and the deceased were known to
each other through Instagram app, and the act, which is
allegedly done in a fit of rage, would not come within the
purview of rarest of rare cases. The learned counsel
further submitted that as on the date of the incident, the
accused was aged about 19 years and there was no
criminal history of the accused at the earlier point of time.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that the
evidence of P.Ws.4 and 14, who are eye-witnesses to the
incident, is consistent that it is the accused who caused
the death of the deceased, and their evidence has not been
shattered in their cross-examination by the defence. It is
his submission that apart from evidence of P.Ws.4 and 14,
there is evidence of P.Ws.6, 8, 12 and 13, who are
circumstantial witnesses, who saw the accused with a
12
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
knife absconding from the scene of offence on a motor
bike. According to him, the aforesaid evidence is sufficient
to come to the conclusion that it is the accused who
caused death of the deceased.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further
submitted that apart from the same, police seized hard
disk from Srinivasa Vilas Hotel and conducted
investigation in a fair way by obtaining certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the
C.C.TV footage clearly shows that it is the accused who
caused death of the deceased, and the same would further
strengthen the case of prosecution. According to him, in a
case of this nature, some minor discrepancies are bound
to occur and as long as the same would not go to the root
of the case, much significance cannot be given to them. In
the case on hand, the inconsistencies or contradictions, if
any, would not go to the root of the case and the evidence
of material prosecution witnesses is consistent and
trustworthy on material aspects. He submits that the act
done by the accused is a brutal act in a broad day light
13
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
and it falls within the purview of rarest of rare cases.
According to him, the Judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge is well-reasoned and calls for no interference by this
Court.
9. Now, the point that arises for determination is
whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of
the appellant/accused for the offences with which he was
convicted and sentenced and whether the conviction and
sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are liable
to be set aside or modified?
10. This Court perused the record. P.Ws.1 to 3 are
closely related to the deceased, though they are not eye-
witnesses to the incident. P.W.1 is father of the deceased.
P.W.2 is mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is sister of the
deceased. On information from P.W.10, P.W.3 rushed to
the scene of offence and found the deceased lying in a pool
of blood and she was a little conscious and informed P.W.3
with eye and lip movement and told her ‘Sasi krishna, Sasi
krishna’. On the earlier day i.e. 14.8.2021, the deceased
showed P.W.3, profile photo of the accused and informed
14
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
that the accused being resident of Mutluru village and
Vaddera community person, was troubling her and
insisting to live him and he was also threatening that if
she does not love him, he would kill her.
11. P.Ws.4 and 14 are eye-witnesses to the
incident. P.W.4 was working as Cashier in Sri Lakshmi
Sai Tea Corner shop, Paramayakunta, Guntur. He
deposed that he knew the deceased as she used to come to
the shop; that on the fateful day i.e. 15.8.2021, the shop
was opened by 5.00 AM, and in between 9.30 AM and
10.00 AM, he heard a galata at a distance of 10 to 15
meters from the shop; on that, he went there and found
that the accused was stabbing the deceased with a knife;
that the accused stabbed on her throat, breast and
stomach, and the deceased fell on ground; that the
accused absconded on his motor cycle kept on the other
side of the road. It is his further evidence that within 10
minutes, P.W.3 came there and got boarded the deceased
in the auto with the help of gathered persons at the scene
15
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
and then shifted to GGH, Guntur. P.W.4 identified the
accused in the open Court.
12. P.W.14 was doing vegetable business at the
margin of Sri Srinivasa Vilas Hotel, Paramayakunta,
Kakani road, Guntur. It is his evidence that on 15.8.2021
at about 9.45 AM, while he was present in his vegetable
shop, one boy kept his two wheeler by the side of push
cart of one Anji, and the said boy and one girl were
quarrelling; that the boy was wearing black T shirt and
blue jeans pant; that they thought that they were wife and
husband; that they went towards Sri Srinivas Vilas Hotel
and then the said boy started stabbing the girl with a
knife; that the said girl tried to guard with her hands, and
due to the injuries, she fell down on ground; that the said
boy again stabbed on her neck and breast, and then he
crossed the road, picked up his motor cycle and
absconded. The witness identified the accused as the said
boy in the Court. It is his further evidence that after
information, her sister came there and shifted the
deceased to GGH, Guntur with the help of people gathered
16
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
there, and later she came to know about the details of the
deceased. He also deposed that the learned Magistrate
recorded Ex.P2-his statement.
13. P.Ws.7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 are circumstantial
witnesses, who saw the accused going away from the scene
of offence with bloodstained knife on a motor cycle, after
the incident.
14. P.W.6 is the owner of Srinivasa Vilas Hotel at
Paramayakunta, Kakani Road, Guntur. He deposed that
altogether, 12 CC cameras are installed to his hotel, and
6th number camera installed at paint shop belonging to
him situated by the side of the hotel, and that the said
camera recorded the incident of murder of the deceased on
15.8.2021, and on 16.8.2021, police watched the CC
footage of 6th number camera. His evidence to the said
effect remained unchallenged. M.O.7 is the Hard disk
containing CC storage of videograph and M.O.19 is the CD
of CC TV footage of the said 6th number camera. M.O.7,
which was seized from P.W.6, was sent to the Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri for analysis and
17
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
report by P.W.28. According to Ex.P25-RFSL report,
dated 20.08.2021, M.O.7 was in working condition and
one video file with regard to date 15.8.2021 (channel 6)
was found which depicts an incident pertaining to this
case extracted CCTV video file having file name stated in
the said report dated 15.08.2021 with duration 135.93
minutes between 9:22:52 and 11:38:48 and furnished in a
DVD marked as annexed. The analyst gave finding that a
male person and female person entered into the field of
view at 9:52:46 hrs and the male person attacked female
person during 9:53:04 hrs to 9.53:20 hrs on 15.8.2021
and the said CC TV video recording frame by frame using
Amped Five Software and found to be continuous without
editing/morphing. The defence did not dispute Ex.P25-
report. Therefore, from the aforesaid evidence, it can be
held that M.O.7 hard disk was intact and without any
morphing.
15. On the aspect of production of a Certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
learned counsel appearing for defacto complainant relied
18
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
on a decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushan
Rao Gorantyal and others1, wherein it is held thus:
(paragraph 72)
“The reference is thus answered by stating that:
(a) Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us hereinabove, is
the law declared by this Court on Section 65B of the
Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno (supra),
being per incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly.
Also, the judgment in SLP (Crl.) No.9431 of 211 reported
in Shafhi Mohammad (supra) and the judgment dated
03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay
down the law correctly and are therefore overruled.
(b) The clarification referred to above is that the
required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary
if the original document itself is produced. This can be
done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer
tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the
witness box and proving that the concerned device, on
which the original information is first stored, is owned
and/or operated by him. In cases where the ‘computer’
happens to be a part of a “computer system” or
“computer network” and it becomes impossible to
physically bring such system or network to the Court,
then the only means of providing information contained
in such electronic record can be in accordance with
Section 65 B (1), together with the requisite certificate
under Section 65B (4). The last sentence in Anvar P.V.
1
Judgment dated 14.7.2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-20826 of 2017
19
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
(supra) which reads as “…if an electronic record as such
is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the
Evidence Act…” is thus clarified; it is to be read without
the words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, …”.
With this clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of
Anwar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited.”
16. From the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
decision, it is clear that the Certificate under Section 65B
(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is unnecessary if the
original document itself is produced, and the same can be
done by the owner of the computer by stepping into
witness box and proving that the concerned device on
which the original information is first stored, is owned and
operated by him. In the case on hand, P.W.6 is the owner
of Srinivasa Vilas Hotel at Paramayakunta, Kakani Road,
Guntur and from his evidence, it is clear that altogether,
12 CC cameras were installed to his hotel, and 6th number
camera was installed at paint shop belonging to him
situated by the side of the hotel, and that the said camera
recorded the incident of murder of the deceased on
15.8.2021, and on 16.8.2021, police watched the CC
footage of 6th number camera. M.O.7 is the Hard disk
20
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
containing CC storage of videograph and M.O.19 is the CD
of CC TV footage of the said 6th number camera. During
the course of investigation, investigating officer P.W.28
seized M.Os.7 and 19. M.O.7 was sent to the Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri and according to
Ex.P25-RFSL report, dated 20.08.2021, M.O.7 was in
working condition and one video file with regard to date
15.8.2021 (channel 6) was found which depicts an
incident pertaining to this case extracted CCTV video file
having file name stated in the said report dated
15.08.2021 with duration 135.93 minutes between
9:22:52 and 11:38:48 and furnished in a DVD marked as
annexed. It is also evident from the evidence of the
analyst that a male person and female person entered into
the field of view at 9:52:46 hrs and the male person
attacked female person during 9:53:04 hrs to 9.53:20 hrs
on 15.8.2021 and the said CC TV video recording frame by
frame using Amped Five Software and found to be
continuous without editing/morphing. Therefore, from
the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 28 and the recitals in Ex.P25-
21
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
RFSL report and M.Os.7 and 19 and Ex.P16-Certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it can
be safely concluded that the electronic evidence in M.Os.7
and 19 can be used to corroborate the evidence of material
prosecution witnesses.
17. P.Ws.15 and 16 are friends of the accused.
Their statements under Section 164 CrPC were recorded
by the Magistrate under Exs.P3 and P4. According to their
evidence, P.W.16 was doing fish selling business. On
05.08.2021, P.W.16-Manikanta requested his friend
P.W.15 to order a knife for cutting fish through online, and
he received the knife from P.W.15 on 09.08.2021 and kept
the same in a tray. One day, the accused came to house of
P.W.16 and requested him to give a knife stating that he
had some work with it. But, P.W.16 refused to give the
same. On 14.8.2021, at about 7.00 PM, when P.Ws.15, 16
and the accused were in the house of P.W.16, the accused
snatched the knife from the hands of P.W.15 and left the
stating that he had a small work. On 15.08.2021, P.W.16
came to know that the accused murdered the deceased
22
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
and realized that the accused took away the knife M.O.8
for murdering the deceased.
18. P.W.17 is one of the panch witnesses for
conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased on
16.8.2021 under Ex.P7-inquest report. He is also one of
the mediators who were present when police observed the
scene of offence and prepared Ex.P6-scene observation
report; for seizure of M.Os.1 to 5, M.Os.6, 8 to 11, M.Os.12
to 15, M.O.7-CC TV footage collected from owner of Sri
Srinivasa Vilas Hotel under Ex.P8; M.O.16-mobile phone
under Ex.P9.
19. P.W.21 is the Nodal Officer, Jio Info Comm
Limited, A.P. Circle, Vijayawada who furnished Exs.P18
and P17-call data to the Additional Superintendent of
Police, Guntur with regard to Jio mobile numbers
6304520984 and 9392363702 and Ex.P16-Certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
20. P.W.22-Assistant Professor, Department of
Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur
conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of
23
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
the deceased on 16.8.2021 and observed the following
ante-mortem injuries.
“8 stab injuries present over chest and abdomen;
(1) Redish coloured stab injury with clean cut margins,
measuring about 3 x 2 cm x 2.5 cm deep, present
obliquely over 2 cm above and left side to the sternal
notch, injury penetrated into deeper tissue and muscles
and finally punctured the left side internal jugular vein;
(2) Reddish coloured stab injury clean cut margins,
measuring about 3 x 2 cm x 4.5 cm deep, present over
upper part of midline of the chest at manubrium
sternum area, obliquely 5.5 cm below the injury No.1
with penetrating into the manubrium sternum, then
penetrate into arch of the aorta up to 2 cm depth, so
that the heart is collapsed condition and chambers of
the heart is empty of blood;
(3) Reddish coloured stab injury with clean cut margins,
measuring 3 x 1 cm x 2 cm deep present over right side
costal margin of the chest, 10 cm obliquely away from
the umbilicus, penetrated and fractured 11 th rib at its
middle 3rd, the surrounding soft tissue is contused.
(4) Reddish coloured stab injury with clean cut margins,
measuring about 4 x 2 cm x 2 cm subcutaneous deep,
present at right side loin, at the level of umbilicus, 8
cms below the injury No.3 and 10 cm right lateral part
of the umbilicus; this penetrates into subcutaneous fat
of the abdomen;
(5) Reddish coloured stab injury with clean cut
margins, measuring about 3 x 1 cm x 2 cm deep
subcutaneous deep present at just obliquely, left side
lateral and 4 cm above the umbilicus.
(6) Reddish coloured stab injury with clean cut
margins measuring about 3 x 1 cm x 2 cm deep
subcutaneous deep present 6 cm below the umbilicus,
just right side of the midline.
24
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
(7) Reddish coloured stab injury with clean cut
margins, measuring about 5 x 3 cm x 2 cm deep
subcutaneous deep, present over lateral aspect of left
shoulder at upper end of the left arm;
(8) Reddish coloured stab injury with clean cut
margins, measuring about 2 x 1 cm x 1 cm deep
subcutaneous deep, present 5 cm below the injury
No.7.”
21. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 14
would go to show that their evidence is consistent with
regard to the attack by the accused on the deceased.
Nothing has been elicited in their evidence to discredit
their testimony. Their presence is natural and probable at
the scene of offence at the relevant point of time of the
incident. They have no grouse or enmity against the
accused to implicate him falsely in a case of this nature.
Therefore, their evidence can be placed in the category of
‘wholly reliable’. Their evidence is corroborated by the
electronic evidence viz. M.Os.7 and 19-Hard disk and CD
of CC TV footage recorded in the CC cameras installed in
Srinivasa Vilas Hotel at Paramayakunta, Kakani Road,
Guntur of P.W.6, which is substantiated from the evidence
of P.Ws.6 and 28 and the recitals in Ex.P25-RFSL report
25
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
and M.Os.7 and 19 and Ex.P16-Certificate under Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is also quite
evident from the evidence of material prosecution
witnesses that the accused had taken the extreme step of
causing death of the deceased for the reason that the
deceased and the accused, became friends on Instagram
app, and when the accused proposed the deceased, she
was avoiding the accused and his calls and thereafter the
deceased blocked the mobile number of the accused. The
evidence of P.Ws.4 and 14, coupled with evidence of
circumstantial witnesses P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13,
coupled with M.Os.7 and 19 and Ex.P25, it can safely be
inferred that the accused is the assailant of the deceased
and caused gruesome murder of the deceased in a broad
day light and in a busy market. Basing on the evidence of
record, there is no conclusion that can be inferred by this
Court except to say that it is the accused who caused
death of the deceased. Further, there is also ample
evidence on record to establish that the accused
interacted/contacted the deceased repeatedly despite her
26
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
clear indication of disinterest, attracting the offence
punishable under Section 354D IPC. There is also no
dispute that the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste
community and the accused committed the aforesaid
offences knowing fully well that the deceased belongs to
Scheduled Caste community. The learned Sessions Judge,
upon appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly
convicted the appellant/ accused and there are no
grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge.
SENTENCE:
22. Insofar as sentence is concerned, the learned
Sessions Judge imposed death penalty i.e. hanging by the
neck till he is dead, for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC. It is settled law that unless a case falls
under rarest of rare cases, the capital punishment cannot
be imposed. On this aspect it is pertinent to refer to a
decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex
27
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab2, wherein it is
held thus: (paragraphs 206 and 209).
“206. Dr Chitale has suggested these mitigating factors:
“Mitigating circumstances.–In the exercise of its
discretion in the above cases, the court shall take into
account the following circumstances:
(1) That the offence was committed under the influence
of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
(2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or
old, he shall not be sentenced to death.
(3) The probability that the accused would not commit
criminal acts of violence as would constitute a
continuing threat to society.
(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and
rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the
accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4)
above.
(5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the
accused believed that he was morally justified in
committing the offence.
(6) That the accused acted under the duress or
domination of another person.
(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he
was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired
his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his
conduct.”
209. There are numerous other circumstances justifying
the passing of the lighter sentence; as there are
countervailing circumstances of aggravation. “We cannot
obviously feed into a judicial computer all such
situations since they are astrological imponderables in
2
AIR 1980 SC 898
28
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
an imperfect and undulating society.” Nonetheless, it
cannot be over-emphasised that the scope and concept
of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must
receive a liberal and expansive construction by the
courts in accord with the sentencing policy writ large in
Section 354(3). Judges should never be bloodthirsty.
Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them.
Facts and Figures, albeit incomplete, furnished by the
Union of India, show that in the past, courts have
inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme infrequency
— a fact which attests to the caution and compassion
which they have always brought to bear on the exercise
of their sentencing discretion in so grave a matter. It is,
therefore, imperative to voice the concern that courts,
aided by the broad illustrative guide-lines indicated by
us, will discharge the onerous function with evermore
scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along
the highroad of legislative policy outlined in Section
354(3) viz. that for persons convicted of murder, life
imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an
exception. A real and abiding concern for the dignity of
human life postulates resistance to taking a life through
law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in
the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is
unquestionably foreclosed.”
23. Learned counsel appearing for the accused
relied upon a decision in Machhi Singh & others v. State of
Punjab3, wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 32 to 38)
“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 a
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
3
(1983) 3 SCC 470
29
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
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
30
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
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.
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 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 [(1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC
(Cri) 580 : AIR 1980 SC 898 : 1980 Cri LJ 636] 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
31
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
from Bachan Singh case [(1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC
(Cri) 580 : AIR 1980 SC 898 : 1980 Cri LJ 636] :
“(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.”
24. It is also pertinent to refer to a decision in
Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh4.
(paragraphs 214, 215, 216, 217 and 218).
“214. Capital punishment is prescribed in numerous
IPC offences, including murder, kidnapping for ransom,
rape and injury causing death or leaving a woman in a
vegetative state, rape or gang rape of a child below 12
years’ old, dacoity with murder, among other offences.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580]
(hereafter “Bachan Singh”), this Court had upheld the
imposition of death penalty as an alternate punishment
under Section 302IPC on the strength of the 35th Report4
(2023) 2 SCC 353
32
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022of the Law Commission of India (1967), the judgment in
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. [Jagmohan Singh v.
State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 169]
(which had also noted that the 35th Report advocated
for retention) and in several subsequent cases decided
by this Court, in which the death penalty was
recognised to be a deterrent. It laid emphasis on the
then recently added Sections 253(2) and 354(3)CrPC
which provide for bifurcated pre-sentence hearing and
sentencing procedure on conviction of capital offences,
to conclude that this form of punishment continued to
have legislative backing and thereby, represented the
will of the people.
215. It is undeniable that there have been shifts in how
punishment in capital offences are dealt with. This is
apparent when developments are looked at holistically,
or at a macrolevel : the amendments to the CrPC by
Parliament, the 35th and 262nd Law Commission
Reports which stand over 30 years apart, and the
precedents of this Court, across the decades. Initially,
the law imposed a requirement of written reasons for not
imposing death penalty, which was removed in 1955. In
1973, through further amendment to the CrPC and
insertion of Section 354(3) — life imprisonment became
the norm and imposition of death penalty required
“special reasons”; and through Section 253(2) —
sentencing required separate consideration from the
question of conviction. In both phases i.e. post-1955
and post-1973, capital punishment was upheld to be
constitutional by five-Judge Benches of this Court in
Jagmohan Singh [Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973)
1 SCC 20 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 169] and Bachan Singh
[Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 580] , respectively.
216. The 262nd Law Commission Report on Death
Penalty (2015) (hereafter “the 262nd Report”), is a result
of this Court’s references in primarily two cases. Firstly,
in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of
Maharashtra [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v.
State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 112 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] (hereafter “Santosh Bariyar”)
33
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022where, after taking note of the UN General Assembly
Resolution 62/149 [ Adopted on 18-12-2007.] it was
pointed out that credible research was required to shape
an informed discussion and debate, on the contentious
issue of death sentence. Secondly, the judgment in
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
[Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra,
(2013) 5 SCC 546, paras 148-149 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri)
402] tasked the Law Commission to resolve the issue of
whether death penalty is a deterrent punishment, is
retributive justice, or serves an incapacitative goal; and
to study the difference in approach adopted by the
judiciary (rarest of rare) and the executive (what was
termed as unknown) while granting commutation. In
attempting to fulfil this mandate, the Commission
discerned an urgent need for re-examination of its own
earlier recommendations on the death penalty (in its
35th Report, 1967), given the drastic change in social,
economic, and cultural contexts of the country since the
35th Report, and arbitrariness which has remained a
major concern in the adjudication of death penalty cases
since Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] laid down the
foundational principle of “rarest of rare”.
217. Reflective of changed circumstances and evolving
discourse, the Report marks a shift in the approach
towards the death penalty in India, going so far as to
recommend abolition in all offences, except those
relating to terrorism. A large part of the Report focusses
on courts’ discretion and judicial reasoning when it
comes to sentencing. It concludes that death penalty
sentencing in India has been based on an arbitrary
application of the Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State
of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580]
principle, and has become Judge-centric, based on the
personal predilection of Judges — a concern which was
alluded to even by this Court in Swamy Shraddananda
(2) v. State of Karnataka [Swamy Shraddananda (2) v.
State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 113] and analysed extensively again in Santosh
Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State
of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 112 : (2009) 2
SCC (Cri) 1150] , followed by Sangeet v. State of
34
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
Haryana [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452
: (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] , Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v.
State of Maharashtra [Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State
of Maharashtra, (2010) 14 SCC 641 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
867] , and more recently in Chhannu Lal Verma v. State
of Chhattisgarh [Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2019) 12 SCC 438 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri)
402] (hereafter “Chhannu Lal Verma”).
The death penalty framework and how to apply it for
“principled sentencing”
218. This Court in Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State
of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] while
upholding the constitutionality of capital punishment,
categorically ruled that the new CrPC of 1973 marked a
shift as it bifurcated the criminal trial to include a pre-
sentence hearing [under Section 235(2)], and further
mandated the sentencing court to outline the “special
reasons” [under Section 354(3)] or absence of them, by
considering circumstances both of the crime and the
criminal. The Court also noted that while broad
guidelines or indicators may be given, they cannot be
put into water-tight compartments that curb discretion
of any Judge to do justice in a given individual case :
(SCC pp. 739 & 748, paras 163 & 201)
“163. … Now, Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated
trial and specifically gives the accused person a right of
pre-sentence hearing, at which stage, he can bring on
record material or evidence, which may not be strictly
relevant to or connected with the particular crime under
inquiry, but nevertheless, have, consistently with the
policy underlined in Section 354(3), a bearing on the
choice of sentence. The present legislative policy
discernible from Section 235(2) read with Section 354(3)
is that in fixing the degree of punishment or making the
choice of sentence for various offences, including one
under Section 302 of the Penal Code, the court should
not confine its consideration “principally” or merely to
the circumstances connected with the particular crime,
but also give due consideration to the circumstances of
the criminal.
***
35
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
201. … As we read Sections 354(3) and 235(2) and other
related provisions of the 1973 Code, it is quite clear to
us that for making the choice of punishment or for
ascertaining the existence or absence of “special
reasons” in that context, the court must pay due regard
both to the crime and the criminal. What is the relative
weight to be given to the aggravating and mitigating
factors, depends on the facts and circumstances of the
particular case. More often than not, these two aspects
are so intertwined that it is difficult to give a separate
treatment to each of them. This is so because “style is
the man”. In many cases, the extremely cruel or beastly
manner of the commission of murder is itself a
demonstrated index of the depraved character of the
perpetrator. That is why, it is not desirable to consider
the circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of
the criminal in two separate watertight compartments.
In a sense, to kill is to be cruel and therefore all murders
are cruel. But such cruelty may vary in its degree of
culpability. And it is only when the culpability assumes
the proportion of extreme depravity that “special
reasons” can legitimately be said to exist.”
(emphasis in original)”
25. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, the learned
counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the
Court below has not even considered the possibility of
reformation of the accused. He further submitted that the
case on hand does not fall under rarest of rare cases to
impose the capital punishment, and the mitigating
circumstances submitted by the authorities would suffice
that capital punishment is not warranted in the case on
hand as both the accused and the deceased were known to
36
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022each other through Instagram app, and the act, which is
allegedly done in a fit of rage, would not come within the
purview of rarest of rare cases, and that as on the date of the
incident, the accused was aged about 19 years and there was
no criminal history of the accused at the earlier point of time.
26. On the other hand, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that
the offence committed by the accused is gruesome and the
same was committed in a broad day light, and cruelty is
quite evident from the nature of the crime that has been
committed by against the accused which warrants capital
punishment. He further submits that those circumstances
are enough to warrant nothing less than capital
punishment, which is rightly imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge, and there are no mitigating circumstances
to take a lenient view in the case. According to him, it is
in the cases like the present one, where the ‘rarest of rare’
doctrine needs to be invoked as a deterrent, for the reason
that the accused committed gruesome murder of the
37
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022deceased causing so many injuries, which is quite evident
from the medical evidence, in a broad day light.
27. Before hearing the Criminal Appeal, this Court
directed (1) the District Collector, Guntur; (2) the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Guntur and (3) the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Rajahmundry to submit
a report not only with regard to the soundness of mind of
the accused but also with regard to other parameters
which are laid down in the decision in Manoj and others v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (4 supra). Accordingly, reports
were submitted by the authorities concerned.
28. According to the report submitted by the
District Probation Officer, Guntur, the accused was about
19 years of age by the date of the incident and he
discontinued 10th class in Mutluru village, Guntur district.
A perusal of the reports submitted by the authorities
would go to show that there is no past criminal history for
the accused. His parents are illiterates. His father is not
attending any work due to old age and his mother is
selling buffalo milk and earning Rs.250/- per day, for their
38
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022livelihood. His elder brother, who studied B.Tech. (Civil
Engg.), is working for a private firm in Hyderabad and
earning Rs.25,000/- per month. His grandfather
Sambaiah, aged 60 years, is depending on them.
29. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer relevant
paragraphs in the decision in Manoj and others v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (4 supra). (paragraphs 234, 235, 236 and
237)
“Theories of punishment
234. The 262nd Report speaks extensively to the
penological justification of the death penalty. It finds
that there is inconclusive evidence that this form of
punishment has more of a deterrent effect, in
comparison to life imprisonment. Dismissing the
retributive theory of punishment on the ground that it
suffers from lack of guidance on quantifying the
punishment that would be appropriate to impose, it
categorically states that:
“7.1.2. Capital punishment fails to achieve any
constitutionally valid penological goals.
7.1.3. focusing on death penalty as the ultimate
measure of justice to victims, the restorative and
rehabilitative aspects of justice are lost sight of. Reliance
on the death penalty diverts attention from other
problems ailing the criminal justice system such as poor
investigation, crime prevention and rights of victims of
crime.”
235. While the 262nd Report recommends abolition of
the death penalty on this ground, in addition to
sentencing having become Judge-centric or arbitrary, it
has not prompted parliamentary intervention. Whether
39
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
the death penalty deserves a relook [as recommended by
Kurian Joseph, J. (dissenting) in Chhannu Lal Verma
[Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 12
SCC 438 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 402] ], in light of the
262nd Law Commission Report, evolving jurisprudence,
public discourse and international standards of human
rights, is outside the purview of this Court’s jurisdiction
given the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh
[Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 580] , and a question best left for the
legislature to critically consider. In this backdrop, what
this Court can do, is try and bolster the existing
sentencing framework. This is possible only by giving
true meaning to the existing guidelines (without falling
into the trap of “categorising” crimes that automatically
warrant death penalty). To do so, this Court finds it
necessary to lay out certain practical guidelines
(elaborated below) that can facilitate consideration of
mitigating circumstances as recognised in Bachan Singh
[Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 580] , and consequently ensure uniform
application of this framework.
236. The 262nd Report recognised the paradigm shift,
in policy and discourse, towards a reformative and
rehabilitative response to crime, and the development of
jurisprudence such that adjudging a case to be “rarest
of rare” was not sufficient, and special emphasis had to
be placed in considering whether the offender is
amenable to reform. Implicit in this shift is the
understanding that the criminal is not a product of only
their own decisions, but also a product of the State and
society’s failing, which is what entitles the accused to a
chance of reformation. Thus, making life imprisonment
the norm, and death penalty the exception. In Lehna v.
State of Haryana [Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3
SCC 76 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 526] while deciding whether
the facts in that case were appropriate for death penalty,
traced this shift in approach : (SCC pp. 83-84, para 14)
“14. … Section 302IPC prescribes death or life
imprisonment as the penalty for murder. While doing so,
the Code instructs the court as to its application. The
changes which the Code has undergone in the last three
decades clearly indicate that Parliament is taking note of
40
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
contemporary criminological thought and movement. It
is not difficult to discern that in the Code, there is a
definite swing towards life imprisonment. Death
sentence is ordinarily ruled out and can only be imposed
for “special reasons”, as provided in Section 354(3).
There is another provision in the Code which also uses
the significant expression “special reason”. It is Section
361. Section 360 of the 1973 Code re-enacts, in
substance, Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1898 (in short “the old Code”). Section 361 which is a
new provision in the Code makes it mandatory for the
court to record “special reasons” for not applying the
provisions of Section 360. Section 361 thus casts a duty
upon the court to apply the provisions of Section 360
wherever it is possible to do so and to state “special
reasons” if it does not do so. In the context of Section
360, the “special reasons” contemplated by Section 361
must be such as to compel the court to hold that it is
impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after
examining the matter with due regard to the age,
character and antecedents of the offender and the
circumstances in which the offence was committed. This
is some indication by the legislature that reformation and
rehabilitation of offenders and not mere deterrence, are
now among the foremost objects of the administration of
criminal justice in our country. Section 361 and Section
354(3) have both entered the statute book at the same
time and they are part of the emerging picture of
acceptance by the legislature of the new trends in
criminology. It would not, therefore, be wrong to assume
that the personality of the offender as revealed by his
age, character, antecedents and other circumstances and
the tractability of the offender to reform must necessarily
play the most prominent role in determining the sentence
to be awarded. Special reasons must have some relation
to these factors. Criminal justice deals with complex
human problems and diverse human beings. A Judge
has to balance the personality of the offender with the
circumstances, situations and the reactions and choose
the appropriate sentence to be imposed.”
(emphasis supplied)”
41
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid
judgment, with an advent of goal of reformation in the
recent past, the society must stride towards reformation
and rehabilitation.
30. In Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
Police,5 the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: (paragraphs 63,
64 & 76).
“63. In Santa Singh v State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190,
a two judge Bench of this Court highlighted the
requirement of having a separate sentencing hearing in
view of Section 235(2) of the CrPC and noted that the
stage of sentencing was as important a stage in the
process of administering criminal justice as the
adjudication of guilt.
64. The judgment of the majority in the Constitution
Bench decision in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980)
2 SCC 684 reiterated the importance of a sentencing
hearing. The Court noted that:
“151. Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973, marks a
significant shift in the legislative policy underlying
the Code of 1898, as in force immediately before
April 1, 1974, according to which both the
alternative sentences of death or imprisonment for
life provided for murder and for certain other
capital offences under the Penal Code, were normal
sentences. Now according to this changed
legislative policy which is patent on the face of
Section 354(3), the normal punishment for murder
and six other capital offences under the Penal
Code, is imprisonment for life (or imprisonment for
a term of years) and death penalty is an exception.
[…]5
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217
42
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
152. In the context, we may also notice Section
235(2) of the Code of 1973, because it makes not
only explicit, what according to the decision in
Jagmohan’s case was implicit in the scheme of the
Code, but also bifurcates the trial by providing for
two hearings, one at the preconviction stage and
another at the pre-sentence stage.
[…]
163. […] Now, Section 235(2) provides for a
bifurcated trial and specifically gives the accused
person a right of pre-sentence hearing, at which
stage, he can bring on record material or evidence,
which may not be strictly relevant to or connected
with the particular crime under inquiry, but
nevertheless, have, consistently with the policy
underlined in Section 354(3) a bearing on the
choice of sentence. The present legislative policy
discernible from Section 235(2) read with Section
354(3) is that in fixing the degree of punishment or
making the choice of sentence for various offences,
including one under Section 302, Penal Code, the
Court should not confine its consideration
“principally” or merely to the circumstances
connected with particular crime, but also give due
consideration to the circumstances of the criminal.”
(emphasis supplied).
…
76. In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of
Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460, a three judge bench of
this Court took note of the line of cases of this Court
which underline the importance of considering the
probability of reform and rehabilitation of the convicted
accused before sentencing him to death. The court
observed:
“43. At this stage, we must hark back to Bachan
Singh and differentiate between possibility,
probability and impossibility of reform and
rehabilitation. Bachan Singh requires us to
consider the probability of reform and rehabilitation
and not its possibility or its impossibility. […]
45. The law laid down by various decisions of this
Court clearly and unequivocally mandates that the
probability (not possibility or improbability or
43
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022impossibility) that a convict can be reformed and
rehabilitated in society must be seriously and
earnestly considered by the courts before awarding
the death sentence. This is one of the mandates of
the “special reasons” requirement of Section 354(3)
CrPC and ought not to be taken lightly since it
involves snuffing out the life of a person. To
effectuate this mandate, it is the obligation on the
prosecution to prove to the court, through evidence,
that the probability is that the convict cannot be
reformed or rehabilitated. This can be achieved by
bringing on record, inter alia, material about his
conduct in jail, his conduct outside jail if he has
been on bail for some time, medical evidence about
his mental make-up, contact with his family and so
on. Similarly, the convict can produce evidence on
these issues as well.
46. If an inquiry of this nature is to be conducted,
as is mandated by the decisions of this Court, it is
quite obvious that the period between the date of
conviction and the date of awarding sentence would
be quite prolonged to enable the parties to gather
and lead evidence which could assist the trial court
in taking an informed decision on the sentence.
But, there is no hurry in this regard, since in any
case the convict will be in custody for a fairly long
time serving out at least a life sentence.
47. Consideration of the reformation, rehabilitation
and reintegration of the convict into society cannot
be over emphasized. Until Bachan Singh, the
emphasis given by the courts was primarily on the
nature of the crime, its brutality and severity.
Bachan Singh placed the sentencing process into
perspective and introduced the necessity of
considering the reformation or rehabilitation of the
convict. Despite the view expressed by the
Constitution Bench, there have been several
instances, some of which have been pointed out in
Bariyar and in Sangeet v. State of Haryana where
there is a tendency to give primacy to the crime and
consider the criminal in a somewhat secondary
manner. As observed in Sangeet “In the sentencing
process, both the crime and the criminal are equally
44
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022important.” Therefore, we should not forget that the
criminal, however ruthless he might be, is
nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of
dignity notwithstanding his crime. Therefore, it is for
the prosecution and the courts to determine whether
such a person, notwithstanding his crime, can be
reformed and rehabilitated. To obtain and analyses
this information is certainly not an easy task but
must nevertheless be undertaken. The process of
rehabilitation is also not a simple one since it involves
social reintegration of the convict into society. Of
course, notwithstanding any information made
available and its analysis by experts coupled with the
evidence on record, there could be instances where
the social reintegration of the convict may not be
possible. If that should happen, the option of a long
duration of imprisonment is permissible.
(emphasis supplied)”
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the process of
rehabilitation is also not a simple one since it involves
social reintegration of the convict into society. Of course,
notwithstanding any information made available and its
analysis by experts coupled with the evidence on record,
there could be instances where the social reintegration of
the convict may not be possible. If that should happen, the
option of a long duration of imprisonment is permissible.
31. In the case on hand, the accused discontinued X
class. According to the prosecution case, the accused and
the deceased were known to each other. According to
45
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
P.W.3, who is sister of the deceased, the deceased had
shown the accused to her in instagram app, and informed
on 14.08.2021, during night, that that the accused, being
resident of Mutluru village and Vaddera community
person, was troubling her and was insisting her to love
him and he was also threatening that if she does not love
him, he would kill her. When the accused was making
advances for love and marriage, the deceased started
avoiding him and blocked the mobile number of the
accused and Instagram. In view of the said reason, the
accused had taken the extreme step of eliminating the
deceased in a fit of rage. The accused has no chequered
history earlier and has no criminal back ground earlier to
this case.
32. Criminal Justice System is more punitive than
intended. The system is touted to be reformable and
rehabilitative. The objectives of the Indian Criminal
Justice System include penalizing, reforming and
rehabilitating the offender. Reformation is its final goal, as
46
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
the system asserts to be more rehabilitative than
retributive.
33. Everyone of us is born innocent. Some persons,
because of their genetic composition, living experiences
and other circumstances, could result in commission of
the crimes. Social inequities and vulnerabilities of an
accused would lead to the commission of crime. This Court
is of the view that if the accused can be rehabilitated by
providing counseling services to cater to the psychological
needs, social, economic and personal challenges. This
Court is of the view that there is a chance for the appellant
to join the main stream of the society. When such is the
view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent past
and having regard to mitigating circumstances stated
supra, this Court is of the view that death sentence
imposed on the accused is harsh in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
34. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the death
sentence imposed on the accused is modified and the
accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
47
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
for twenty years, without any reprieve or remission, and
also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC. The sentences
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the other
offences are confirmed. All the substantive sentences of
imprisonment shall run concurrently.
35. With the above modification in sentences, the
Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Referred Trial is answered
accordingly.
—————————————–
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
————————————————
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
31.1.2025
DRK
48
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.190 of 2022
& RT 1 of 2022
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
COMMON JUDGMENT
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.190 OF 2022 & R.T.NO.1 OF 2022
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
31.1.2025
DRK
