The judgment emphasizes that the death penalty is not warranted unless the circumstances are exceptionally grave, applying the 'rarest of rare' doctrine while considering rehabilitation potential.

JUDGMENT :

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Reference No. 9 of 2023 has been made by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Court No. 6, Firozabad for confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellant Tarun Goel vide judgment of conviction dated 24.4.2023, holding the appellant guilty of offence (in Sessions Trial No. 877 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2022), under Sections 302 , 307, 394, 411 & 506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and the order of sentence dated 25.4.2023 vide which, the appellant was awarded death sentence, to be hanged till death under Section 302 of IPC with a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further additional imprisonment for one year; under Section 307 of IPC, the appellant was awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further additional imprisonment for one year; under Section 394 of IPC, the appellant was awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further additional imprisonment for one year; under Section 411 of IPC, the appellant was awarded three years imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further additional imprisonment for three months; under Section 506 of IPC, the appellant was awarded seven years imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further additional imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were to run concurently. The appellant has laso filed jail appeal.

2. The Reference and Appeal were admitted. The Trial Court’s record is received and paper books are ready.

3. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri Ashutosh Singh, Sri Shashank Pandey, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned Amicus Curie for the appellant, Sri A.N. Mulla and Sri Kailash Prakash Pathka, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.

5. Facts of the case are that informant- Arpit Jindal (PW-1) s/o Lokesh Kumar Agarwal, resident of Mohalla Arya Nagar, Lane No. 9, Police Station Firozabad North, District Firozabad gave a written complaint to S.H.O. Police Station Firozabad North, District – Firozabad stating that “Today on 1.4.2022 at about 2:15 p.m. I, Arpit Jindal son of Lokesh Kumar Agarwal, my mother- Sobha Jindal wife of Lokesh Kumar Agarwal, my cousin brother Chandan Agarwal son of Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, my cousin sister Astha Agarwal d/o Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, my cousin sister Akansha Mittal wife of Manish Mittal, my maternal aunt Sarita Agarwal wife of Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, my nephew Arnav Goel son of Tarun Goel and my another nephew Anshuman Mittal son of Manish Mittal had gone to D. Bharat Cinema, Firozabad for watching a movie. At about 4:30 p.m. our neighbour Bhatiya called on my mother’s mobile phone that some incident has taken place in your house and we should immediately rush back to our home. We all left the movie in between and while entering our house, saw that our maid servant Renu Sharma wife of Narendra Sharma, resident of Tapa Path (Kaushalya Nagar) was lying in unconcious and injured condition. On entering inside the house, I saw that in the room, my grandmother is lying dead and blood was spread over