-
by Admin
06 December 2025 11:43 AM
“Mitigating Factors Cannot Be Ignored, Even In Heinous Crimes”, Supreme Court of India on 16th July 2025 delivered a significant judgment, where it upheld the conviction of an accused for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, holding that sentencing courts failed to properly examine mitigating circumstances. A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta strongly reaffirmed the principle that “the brutality of a crime cannot, by itself, warrant the extreme penalty of death.”
Supreme Court Intervenes On Sentencing Aspect, Applies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine With Nuance
On 16th July 2025, the Supreme Court ruled on the appeal of Jai Prakash, convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl under Sections 302, 376AB, 377, 201 IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. While affirming the conviction based on consistent ocular evidence, medical findings, and DNA match, the Court commuted the sentence of death to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without remission. The Court highlighted the failure of the Trial Court and High Court to undertake a comprehensive inquiry into the convict’s background, as mandated by established jurisprudence, including Bachan Singh (1980) and Manoj (2023).
Child Lured and Murdered, Convict’s Guilt Established Through Direct and Scientific Evidence
The appellant, Jai Prakash, was convicted for raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl on 28th July 2018. The prosecution established that the appellant lured the victim, along with other children, to his hut, distributed small amounts of money to the others, and detained the victim. Her body was later recovered from the convict’s hut, concealed under cement bags.
Relying on eye-witness accounts from child witnesses and adults (PW-11, PW-12, PW-13), forensic DNA evidence linking the appellant to the crime scene and the victim, and post-mortem confirmation of brutal sexual assault followed by manual strangulation, both the Trial Court (August 2019) and the High Court (January 2020) held the appellant guilty and sentenced him to death.
“Last Seen, DNA, Recovery – Proof of Guilt; But Sentencing Requires More Than Outrage”
The Supreme Court examined two distinct issues:
Whether the conviction was sustainable based on evidence.
Whether the death penalty was warranted in the absence of a comprehensive sentencing inquiry.
On conviction, the Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and High Court, holding:
“There is no break in the chain of circumstantial evidence; the appellant was last seen with the victim, the child was found dead in his locked hut, and forensic analysis leaves no doubt about the identity of the offender.”
However, on sentencing, the Court identified a serious flaw, noting that the lower courts applied the “rarest of rare” principle by merely relying on the heinousness of the crime.
Citing Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra (2010) and Gudda v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013), the Supreme Court reiterated:
“The death penalty must follow a calibrated assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors, considering the potential for reformation; this was completely missing in the present case.”
Detailed Judicial Reasoning: Supreme Court Relies on Bachan Singh, Swami Shraddhanand, Manoj, and Sundar Judgments
The Bench underscored that under the landmark ruling in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, courts must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It further invoked Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353, which mandated trial courts to call for probation, psychological, and jail conduct reports before sentencing.
The Court expressed disapproval of the sentencing approach adopted by the High Court:
“Though the High Court referred to the need for considering mitigating circumstances, in effect, it confined its reasoning only to the brutality of the crime. This mechanical application of the death penalty violates constitutional standards under Article 21.”
Mitigating Circumstances Considered by Supreme Court:
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions, the following mitigating factors came on record:
The appellant belonged to an extremely poor family and worked as a labourer since the age of 12;
He had no previous criminal history;
He exhibited good conduct in jail and participated in educational programs;
Psychological reports showed no personality disorders or mental illnesses;
His background reflected socio-economic deprivation rather than inherent criminality.
In this context, the Court reiterated the principle laid down in Sundar v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 310):
“No person should be condemned to death without first examining their background, mental health, potential for reform, and the impact of incarceration.”
Conviction Affirmed, Sentence Commuted to Life Without Remission
The Supreme Court concluded that while the appellant deserved no leniency on conviction, the death sentence was unjustified. The Court ordered:
“The appellant shall undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without any remission. Justice demands his complete removal from society, but the irreversible nature of the death penalty, without proper sentencing inquiry, would be unconstitutional.”
Supreme Court Balances Justice, Deterrence and Reformative Possibility
This judgment is yet another reiteration of the Supreme Court’s constitutional commitment to calibrated sentencing. While affirming severe punishment for grave crimes, the Court has clarified that death cannot be awarded by default, especially in the absence of a structured sentencing process.
In doing so, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the judiciary must not be driven by outrage alone but by constitutional discipline in sentencing.
Date of decision: 16/07/2025
