1. Child lured, sexually assaulted, and murdered — Conviction under Sections 302, 376, 377 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act — Appeal against conviction and death sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1079
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Jai Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 331-332 of 2022
Decided On : 16-07-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Death sentence – Brutality of a crime cannot be only criterion for determining whether a case falls under “rarest of the rare” category.
Death sentence – Brutality of a crime cannot be only criterion for determining whether a case falls under “rarest of the rare” category.
Subject
Criminal Law - Capital Punishment
Act Referred
Headnote
.Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5/6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 377 and 302 – Rape and murder of girl child – Death sentence – DNA evidence obtained from victim matches with samples of appellant – Prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt – Last seen theory stood proved – Evidence of child witnesses inspiring confidence – A helpless child was at first, mercilessly raped after being lured into appellant’s hut on pretext of buying sweets with offered money – Cruelty of crime is displayed by strangulation by hand of a defenseless child – However, Courts below have failed to make any detailed reference to aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding appellant – High Court, which was Reference Court for confirmation of death sentence, though expounded on requirement of law to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, failed to consider any of these circumstances, only dealing with brutality of incident – Brutality of a crime cannot be only criterion for determining whether a case falls under “rarest of the rare” category – Taking into account mitigating circumstances and threshold of “rarest of rare” category, it is appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to natural life of appellant instead of punishment of death penalty – Appeals partly allowed. (Paras 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 18, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeals arise from final judgment and order dated 7th January 2020, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 64 of 2019 & Criminal Reference No. 02 of 2019, whereby Judgment and sentencing Order dated 26th/28th August 2019 passed by Trial Court, convicting appellant under Sections 376, 377, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came to be affirmed. Punishment handed down to the appellant by Courts below was of death penalty, for murder of the victim.
Findings of Court:
Psychological report of the appellant was prepared on 19th April 2022. It is stated therein that the appellant could not attend school due to the socio-economic condition of the family and had started working at the age of twelve. He has good relations with other inmates. He does not suffer from any psychiatric disturbance.
Result : Appeals are partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjit Tomas, Sr. Adv. Ms. Minakshi Vij, AOR Mr. Alok Bhat Adv, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjit Tomas, Sr. Adv. Ms. Minakshi Vij, AOR Mr. Alok Bhat Adv, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Sustainability of conviction based on circumstantial evidence — Validity of death sentence under the rarest of rare doctrine. (Para 6 )
3. Conviction upheld based on recovery of body, last-seen theory, and DNA evidence — Death penalty improper due to failure to consider mitigating circumstances. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Death penalty requires a two-step process: balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances and ensuring life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 )
5. Conviction affirmed — Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. What is the two-step process for awarding the death penalty?
The court must first determine if the case falls under the rarest of rare category by identifying and considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Second, it must consider whether the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed because the sentencing aim of reformation is unachievable. (Para 17 )
7. Can the brutality of a crime alone justify the death penalty?
No, the brutality of a crime cannot be the sole criterion for the rarest of rare category. Courts must maintain a reasonable proportion between the brutality of the crime and the punishment, ensuring the sentence is not disproportionately severe or arbitrary. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. How does the court treat capital sentencing in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence?
As a rule of prudence, courts may choose to give primacy to life imprisonment over the death penalty in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence to meet procedural justice requirements. (Para 14 )
9. What evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in cases of sexual assault and murder?
A combination of the recovery of the body from the accused's premises, the last-seen theory supported by credible witnesses, and DNA evidence linking the accused to the victim can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. A simple afternoon of play and frolic with family members yielded catastrophic results for a 10-year-old female child. The most innocent desire of either a candy or a toy was exploited in the worst manner possible by the appellant. He lured innocent children to his dwelling, took his pick from among them and let the others go. He allegedly assaulted and exploited her, killed her and then, if the prosecution is to be believed, lied to the parents of the victim saying that he was not aware of her whereabouts. The Courts below have concurrently found the appellant to be guilty of offences against the victim and also of taking her life. This Court is now called upon to examine the correctness of these conclusions.
2. The present Appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 7th January 2020, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No.64 of 2019 & Criminal Reference No.02 of 2019, whereby the Judgment and sentencing Order dated 26th/28th August 2019 passed by Fast Track Court, Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Special Sessions Trial Number 119/2018, convicting the appellant under Sections 376, 377, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] and Section 5 /6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20122[hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO’] came to be affirmed. The punishment handed down to the appellant by the Courts below was of death penalty, for the murder of the victim, whose name3[hereinafter referred to as ‘X’] stands redacted in view of the judgment of this Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703.
Prosecution Case
3. The case set out by the prosecution against the appellant, as emerging from the record and also as set out by the Courts below, is as under :
3.1 On 28th July 2018, at around 12:30 p.m., while playing outside her house, with cousins and friends, X the child of PW1 went missing. Concerned, PW1 - Sant Pratap (father of the victim) started looking for his daughter. On enquiry, from other children present, he got to know that the appellant took all the children to his hut and gave them Rs.10/- each to go to the shop. Somwati - PW13, his sister-in-law also corroborated the version of the children. When he asked the appellant regarding the whereabouts of her daughter, he was apparently told that she had taken the gift of 10 rupees note and left the place. Eventually, after a few hours of exasperated searching, which included Kulbhushan - PW2 sending one Mohd. Alam - PW3, to search the hut of the appellant, the victim was found dead underneath empty cement bags. PW1, therefore, lodged an FIR at P.S. Sahaspur, District – Dehradun. It was stated therein that he resided with his family in a hut, in the under- construction premises of Shivalik Engineering College, narrating the facts as above, asking for action to be taken against the appellant.
3.2 After registration of the abovementioned FIR, the Investigating Officer commenced the investigation. The inquest report was prepared, and the body of X was sent for post-mortem to Dr. Chirag Bahugana - PW4. The cause of death came to be determined as ‘manual throttling by hand causes asphyxia.’ After completion of the investigation, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 201, 376 and 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Reasoning of the Courts below
4. The Trial Court, after careful consideration of the evidence- on-record, vide judgment and order dated 26th/28th August 2019, convicted the appellant under Sections 376(AB), 377, 302 of the IPC and Section 5 /6 of POCSO. The Court arrived at the following findings :
4.1 Master Rakesh - PW11, Rani @ Radha Rani - PW12, and PW13 - Somwati have proven that X was last seen with the appellant;
4.2 PW1, PW2, PW3, SI Lakshmi Joshi - PW5, Rani W/o Sant Partap - PW8 and PW12 have proven the recovery of the body of X from the hut of the appellant. T
