The Table Indicates Mitigating Circumstances Which the Court Has Considered in Those Cases Where It Has Awarded Life Imprisonment

A LIST OF CASES OF RAPE AND MURDER IN THE SUPREME COURT, WHERE THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE DEATH PENALTY The table indicates mitigating circumstances which the court has considered in those cases where it has awarded life imprisonment. It does not indicate mitigating circumstances considered where the Court has imposed the Death Sentence. In the cases where the death sentence has been awarded, the aggravating circumstances have been indicated.

S. Age of Age of Name of the Sentence No. the the Mitigating Circumstance Aggravating Circumstance Case/Citation awarded Victim Accused 1. Jumman Khan v. State of U.P. 6 Death (1991) 1 SCC 752 2. Lakshman Naik v. State Accused was the uncle of the deceased. of Orissa 7 Death Deceased was 7 years of age, helpless. Brutal (1994) 3 SCC 381 rape, calculated and cold blooded. 3. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. Gruesome and brutal rape and murder. Faith State of West Bengal 18 27 Death of society shaken, as a security guard was in (1994) 2 SCC 220 a position of trust. 4. Accused was close to the family deceased. Kamta Tiwari v. State of Appellant betrayed the faith imposed by the Madhya Pradesh 7 Death No mitigating circumstances victim. Disposed the body in a well. (1996) 6 SCC 250 Deceased was 7 years old. 5. Ronny v. State of A1-35 Possibility of reform and rehabilitation Life Maharashtra 45 A2-35 cannot be ruled out. No evidence about imprisonment (1998) 3 SCC 625 A3-25 exact role of each of the three accused. 6. Adult State of Tamil Nadu v. female Looks at victim, a young, pregnant Suresh Death (most housewife. (1998) 2 SCC 372 likely) 7. Kumudi Lal v. State of Life Not rarest of rare. Initial consent of the Uttar Pradesh 14 imprisonment victim. (1999) 4 SCC 108 8. Murder wasn’t pre-meditated, death caused Akhtar v. Stat of U.P. Young Life due to asphyxia. Therefore, not rarest of (1999) 6 SCC 60 girl Imprisonment rare.

9. Counsel for the accused couldn’t make out Molai v. State of M.P., Death 16 any mitigating factor, the death sentence is (1999)9 SCC 581 Sentence the only appropriate punishment. 10. State of Maharashtra v. Since the accused was acquitted by the HC, Life Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 4 the option of life sentence is not Imprisonment unquestionably foreclosed. 11. 1Bantu v. State of M.P. Life 1(2001) 9 SCC 615 6 22 Not rarest of rare. Imprisonment . 12. 1 Confession statement of the accused would 2 revealed that there was no intention to kill . Raju v. State of Haryana Life the child. No premeditation. Nothing on 11 (2001) 9 SCC 50 imprisonment record to indicate that the accused had previous criminal record or to say that he would be danger to the society. 13. 1 Cannot be said that accused is a dangerous Mohd. Chaman v. State Life 3 1 1/2 30 person. Not rarest of rare. After balancing (2001) 2 SCC 28 imprisonment . exercise, must take humanist approach. 14. 1State of Maharashtra v. Acquittal by the High Court, therefore not Life 4Bharat Fakira 3 inclined to interfere. Lesser option is not imprisonment . (2002) 1 SCC 622 unquestionably foreclosed. 15. 1Amit v. State of Young man, student, no record of previous Life 5Maharashtra 11-12 20 crime and no evidence that he will be a imprisonment . (2003) 8 SCC 93 danger to the society. 16. 1 No involvement in previous crime, migrant Surender Pal v. State of 6 Life labour from UP, impecunious and cannot Gujarat Minor 36 . imprisonment be said that he would be a menace to the (2005) 3 SCC 127 society. 17. 1State of Maharashtra v. Life 7Mansingh Not rarest of rare on the facts of the case. imprisonment . (2005) 3 SCC 131 18. 1State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deceased was 6 years old, rarest of rare. 8Satish 6 Death Punishment must be proportionate to crime. . (2005) 3 SCC 114 3

19. 1 Young age of accused (24). No report Rahul v. State of 9 Life furnished by probationary officer or jail Maharashtra 4 1/2 24 . imprisonment authorities. No previous criminal record. (2005) 10 SCC 322 Will not be a menace to the society. 20. 2 No premeditation, momentary lapse, rape Amrit Singh v. State of 0 Life may be brutal but death occurred due to Punjab 7-8 31 . imprisonment excessive bleeding and not strangulation. (2006) 12 SCC 79 Not rarest of rare. 21. 2Shivu v. High Court of Gruesome nature of the crime. Previous 1Karnataka 18 20, 22 Death attempt to rape. . (2007) 4 SCC 713 22. 2 Confessional statement of the accused Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. 2 Life before the Magistrate. Accused statement State of Assam(2007) 11 7-8 . imprisonment u/s 313 demonstrates remorse and no SCC 467 intention to kill the child. 23. 2 Two Mohan Anna Chavan v. 3 minors, State of Maharashtra, Death . less than (2008) 7 SCC 561 Sentence 10 years

of age 24. 2 Deceased was 9 years old. Accused was her 4Shivaji v. State of neighbour and the deceased reposed faith in . Maharashtra 9 Death him. Accused assaulted her with a sharp (2008) 15 SCC 269 edged weapon. Death Sentence won’t be set aside because the evidence is circumstantial. 25. 2 Deceased was 6 years old. Accused was her 5Bantu v. State of U.P. neighbour. Supreme Court did not highlight 5 Death . (2008) 11 SCC 113 any aggravating circumstance. Falls in rarest of rare, since crime is so depraved. 26. 2 Ankush Maruti Shinde & Mass 6 Court relied on HC’s balancing of Ors. V. State of murder, . Death aggravating and mitigating circumstances, Maharastra younges which held that aggravating outweighed and (2009) 6 SCC 667 t is 15 shocked collective conscience. (Collective 4

sentencing exercise)

27. 2Santosh Kumar Singh v. Appellant young man of 24. Possibility of Adult Life 7State 24 reform cannot be ruled out. Is a now woman imprisonment . (2010) 9 SCC 747 married man with a girl child. 28. This Court commuted the death sentence Sebastian v. State of Life to life imprisonment in terms of Swami 2 24 Kerala (2010) 1 SCC 58 imprisonment Shraddhananda judgment due to young age of the appellant. 29. 2 Deceased was 7 years old. Gruesome nature 8 of the rape and murder. Preplanned Mohd. Mannan v. State . 7 43 Death kidnapping, rape and murder. Shocked of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317 collective conscience, and falls under “rarest of rare”. 30. 2Haresh Mohandas v. No reason to believe that accused cannot Life 9State of Maharashtra 10 be reformed or rehabilated. Does not fall imprisonment . (2011) 12 SCC 56 under rarest of rare. 31. 3Ramesh Bhai v. State of Imprisonment Married person with two daughters. No 0Gujarat 9 28 for rest of the criminal antecedent and not a threat to the . (2011) 2 SCC 764 natural life. society. 32. Looking at age of the accused, his impecunious circumstance (a daily wage Purna Chandra Kusal v. Life 5 30 labourer), case of circumstantial evidence, State of Orisaa imprisonment court should be cautious in granting the death sentence. 33. 3 State of U.P. v. Sanjay Not rarest of rare. Option of awarding life 1 Life Kumar 18 imprisonment not unquestionably . imprisonment (2012) 8 SCC 537 foreclosed.

34. 3 Age of the victim was 3 years. Brutality of the Rajendra Vasnik v. State 2 rape and murder. Accused was living under a of Maharashtra 3 31 Death . false identity and abused a relationship of (2012) 4 SCC 37 trust. 5

35. 3Ram Naresh & Ors. v. Age of accused, possibility of death having Adult Life 3State of U.P. occurred accidentally, can’t rule out female Imprisonment . (2012) 4 SCC 257 possibility of reform. Not rarest of rare. 36. 3 Young person aged 28, possibility of reform 4Amit v. State of U.P., Life not ruled out. No criminal record, and 3 28 . (2012) 4 SCC 107 Imprisonment nothing to suggest he will continue to commit these crimes in the future 37. 3 30 years Neel Kumar v. State of 5 imprisonment Did not fall within rarest of rare. Rape and Haryana 4 . without murder of daughter by father. (2012) 5 SCC 766 remission 38. 3 Mere pendency of criminal cases and not Shankar Kisanrao v. State 6 Life conviction cannot be an aggravating of Maharashtra 11 52 . imprisonment circumstances. Reform and rehabilitation (2013) 5 SCC 546 test satisfied. 39. 3 Since incident occurred in 2012, and 7State of U.P. v. Munesh, Life 11 acquittal of the HC was set aside, life . (2012) 9 SCC 742 Imprisonment imprisonment was considered appropriate.

40. Chhote Lal v. State of Imprisonment Madhya Pradesh 10 for rest of Applied the test laid down in Mulla. (2013) 9 SCC 795 natural life. 41. 3 Despite the circumstances, life 8State of Rajasthan v. imprisonment granted since it had been 9 Life . Jamil Khan Below 5 21-31 years since the HC commuted the sentence imprisonment (2013) 10 SCC 721 to life and it would be unfair to change it at this stage. 42. 3 Not rarest of rare. No “special reasons”, State of Rajasthan v. 9 Life which considers both crime and criminal, Balveer . imprisonment were recorded. Character of accused not of (2013) 16 SCC 321 extreme depravity. 43. 4Ram Deo Prasad v. State 18 years Faulty investigation, improper according of 0of Bihar 4 imprisonment statement u/s 313 and accused did not have . AIR 2014 SC (Suppl.) 113 without sufficient resources to engage a lawyer of 6

remission his choice. 44. 4 Vasanta Sampath v. State Age of the victim is 4 years. No remorse 1 of Maharashtra 4 47 Death shown by the accused. He was a history . (2015) 1 SCC 253 sheeter. Preying upon defenceless children.

45. 4 TC and HC did not discuss “special

2 reasons” required by s. 354(3), good B. Kumar v. Inspector of . Adult Life behaviour on part of the appellant shows Police woman Imprisonment that reform can’t be ruled out, therefore (2015) 2 SCC 346 case doesn’t fall in rarest of rare. No pre-

meditation and no motive for murder. 46. 4 3Purushottham Dashrath Age and dependants of the accused cannot . Borate & Anr. v. State of Adult be paramount mitigating circumstances; lack Death Maharashtra female of criminal antecedents cannot be considered (2015) 6 SCC 652 given heinous nature of the crime.

47. 4 30 years Anil v. State of Not rarest of rare. No previous criminal 4 imprisonment Maharashtra 10 35 history. Possibility of reformation not ruled . without (2014) 4 SCC 69 out. remission 48. 4 30 years 5Selvam v. State imprisonment 9 . AIR 2014 SC 1911 without remission 49. 4 35 years Raj Kumar v. State of Not rarest of rare. For death sentence, there 7 imprisonment Madhya Pradesh 14 32 should be aggravating circumstances and . without (2014) 5 SCC 353 absence of mitigating factors. remission.