Key Points: - The judgment discusses that life imprisonment is the normal rule and death penalty is an exception, to be given only in rarest of rare cases with special reasons, after balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. (!) (!) - It outlines the three core tests for sentencing in capital cases: crime test (aggravating circumstances of the offense), criminal test (mitigating circumstances related to the offender and chance of rehabilitation), and the rarest of rare test (societal conscience). (!) (!) - It confirms that Section 235(2) CrPC requires pre-sentence hearing and that the court must state reasons, with "special reasons" required for death sentences. (!) (!) - It rejects the theory of residual doubt for circumstantial cases at the sentencing stage, while emphasizing careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors. (!) (!) - It emphasizes that sentencing must be conducted under the procedure established by law, and higher courts may review for errors of law or process but not reweigh concurrent factual findings except in exceptional circumstances. (!) (!)

What is the standard for awarding death penalty in cases involving rape and murder of a child in light of constitutional and statutory sentencing requirements?

What are the factors (crime test, criminal test, rarest of rare) considered to determine whether death sentence should be maintained or converted to life imprisonment?

What procedural safeguards and considerations (pre-sentence hearing, special reasons, and procedure established by law) govern capital punishment in murder offenses?