Brutality Alone Not Enough, SC commutes death sentence of man who raped, killed 10 year old
The Supreme Court on July 16, 2025 upheld the conviction of a man for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl in 2018 but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without remission. The Court held that brutality of the offence cannot be the sole ground for imposing capital punishment, and the convict’s potential for reformation must also be assessed.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta partly allowed the appeal filed by Jai Prakash, modifying the Uttarakhand High Court’s judgment with respect to sentencing.
The incident took place on July 28, 2018, when the body of the victim was found in the hut where the appellant lived with his family, within the under-construction premises of Shivalik Engineering College, Dehradun. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sahaspur based on her father’s complaint.
As per witness testimonies, the appellant had invited several children to his hut that afternoon, giving each ₹10 to buy chocolates. He let the others go, but the victim did not return. The child was later found dead in the same hut.
By its judgment dated August 26 and 28, 2019, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(AB), 377, and 302 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The Court noted the accused was in his 30s and himself the father of two children, one of whom was around the same age as the victim. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented. The case rested on three primary circumstances: the recovery of the body from the appellant’s hut, last-seen theory, and DNA evidence.
The Court found no reason to disbelieve the witness accounts. “We find the witnesses to be inspiring in confidence and the children’s deposition to be in a natural form,” the bench noted. It was established that the appellant was last seen with the victim inside his hut shortly before the incident.
Further, the Court noted that no one else was present in the hut at the time. The DNA evidence, obtained from the appellant’s clothing matched with that of the victim. “There is no infirmity in the chain of seizure or forensic examination. Taking a cumulative view of all circumstances, the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt,” the bench held.
Accordingly, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction by the courts below.
However, it disagreed with the imposition of the death sentence. The Court emphasised that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and referred to the decision in Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra (2010), which held that courts may give primacy to life imprisonment over the death penalty in such cases.
The bench observed that while the crime was undeniably grave, the courts below had relied solely on its brutality to justify the death sentence.
“No other circumstance came to be discussed in concluding that this case falls under the ‘rarest of rare’ category. Such an approach cannot be sustained,” the Court said.
Referring to Gudda v. State of MP (2013) and Manoj v. State of MP (2023), the Court reiterated that sentencing must follow a two-step process: identifying and weighing both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and then determining whether life imprisonment is clearly inadequate.
The Court held that neither the trial court nor the High Court had assessed mitigating factors, despite acknowledging their relevance. “Though the High Court outlined the requirement to consider such circumstances, it failed to actually apply them in its analysis,” the bench held.
In support, the bench cited Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police (2023), where the death sentence was commuted due to lack of inquiry into the convict’s background or prospects for reform.
In Jai Prakash’s case, the Court had called for reports from the probation officer, jail authorities, and psychological evaluators. These revealed that the appellant came from an impoverished background, began working at the age of twelve, did not attend school due to economic hardship, had good conduct in jail, and suffered from no psychiatric disorders.
“Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the threshold under the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant,” the Court concluded.
Case Title: Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand
Judgment Date: July 16, 2025
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta