Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirming the death sentence awarded to Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh for the murder of Smt. Ruby by pouring acid on her. The appellant was also convicted under Sections 326(A) and 460 IPC for injuring other family members. The brief facts are that the appellant coveted the deceased, who was married to another man. After her husband suspected an affair, the deceased came to live with her maternal uncle. The appellant threatened her father and on the night of 21 July 2013, sneaked into the deceased's room, warned her, and threw acid on her, causing 90% burns leading to death. He also threw acid on her grandmother Chandrakala, nephew Raju, and brother Janu, causing injuries. The appellant was arrested later and a beer bottle used for carrying acid was recovered with his fingerprints. The dying declaration of the deceased and the testimony of injured witnesses were consistent. The court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence unimpeachable. However, on the question of sentence, the court considered whether there were special reasons for death penalty. The state argued that the appellant was out on bail in another murder case when he committed this crime. The court noted that the earlier incident was unrelated and occurred almost ten years prior. The court observed that the intention seemed to be to injure, not kill, and there was no cold-blooded plan. Applying the 'rarest of rare' test from Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, the court found no particular depravity or brutality warranting death sentence. Accordingly, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and the appeals were allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Rarest of Rare Doctrine - Section 302 IPC - The court examined whether the case warranted death sentence under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine. The appellant was convicted for murder by acid attack. The court held that there was no particular depravity or brutality to classify the case as 'rarest of rare'. The intention appeared to be to injure, not kill, and the earlier conviction for murder was unrelated. Death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. (Paras 8-12) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Probative Value - The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by an Executive Magistrate and was found to be reliable. The court held that it can be given highest probative value and offers a strong foundation for conviction. (Paras 5-7) C) Criminal Law - Compensation to Victims - Section 357 CrPC - The High Court enhanced compensation: Rs. 3 lac to Janu (disfigured) and Rs. 1.5 lac each to Chandrakala and Raju (not disfigured). The Supreme Court did not interfere with this order. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death sentence imposed on the appellant is justified in the absence of special reasons and whether the case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the death sentence imposed by the High Court, and instead sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction under Sections 302, 326(A), and 460 IPC was upheld. The compensation awarded by the High Court to the victims was not disturbed.
Law Points
- Death sentence is exception
- life imprisonment is rule
- 'Rarest of rare' doctrine
- Special reasons for death penalty
- Mitigating circumstances
- Dying declaration as sole basis for conviction
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 326(A) IPC
- Section 460 IPC
- Section 366 CrPC
