IMPORTANT POINT
Death sentence can be awarded only rarest of rare cases.

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2010, Crl.M.A.No.06 of 2010 and C/W Confirmation No.23 of 2009, the original accused has preferred the present appeals.

2. That the learned trial Court held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 as well as for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 448 of the IPC. That the learned trial Court, while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, imposed the death sentence. The learned trial Court also sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ S.I. The learned trial Court also sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 326 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months’ S.I. The learned trial Court also sentenced the accused for one year R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and S.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC. The learned trial Court also ordered that all the sentences to run concurrently.

3. That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, while convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326 and 448 of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in confirming the death sentence while convicting the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 326 and 448 of the IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that, as such, by the order dated 19.08.2014, this Court directed to issue notice only on the question of sentence. Therefore, as such, in the present appeals, now the only question which is required to be considered by this Court is the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, while convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326 and 448 of the IPC.

4.1 Even otherwise, on a close reading of the evidence on record as well as the judgments of the learned trial Court and the High Court, we are satisfied that both the Courts had sufficient reasons to conclude that the appellant was guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. On a close reading of the evidence on record, we are fully satisfied that, in the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused for the offences for which the accused has been convicted and sentenced. To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 27 witnesses, including the injured eyewitnesses who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. That at about 1.15 a.m. (in the midnight) of 20.09.2009, the accused killed/committed murder of three minor children and also seriously caused injury to Jia Lal (PW3), Kamlesh Kumari (PW4) and also to Gulshan (the 4th minor child). In any case, as observed above, this Court issued the limited notice in the present appeals on the question of sentence only, vide order dated 19.08.2014 and, therefore, the only question posed before this Court in the present appeals now is whether in the present circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court was justified in imposing the death sentence while convicting the accused under Section 302 of the IPC, as confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order?

4.2 Shri A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of th