B. KUMAR@ JAYAKUMAR@ LEFT. KR.@ S. KUMARversusINSP. OF POLICE TH. C.B.C.L.D.

•                      [2014] 11 S.C.R. 573


     B. KUMAR@ JAYAKUMAR@ LEFT. KR.@ S. KUMAR
                             v.
                                                                   A

               INSP.OF POLICE TH. C.B.C.l.D.
           (Criminal Appeal Nos. 980-981 of 2013)
                       OCTOBER 27, 2014
                                                                   B
              [H.L.DATTU, CJI., S.A. BOBDE AND
                ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)

          Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 342, 376, 394, 397
    and 449 - Rape of PW1 and murder of her brother, 'M' - C
    Attempt to murder PW1 and her relative PW2 - Robbery of
    jewellery - Conviction of appellant- Propriety- Held: Proper,
     as it was based upon cogent and reliable evidence -
     Appellant was greatly attracted to PW1 and came to her house
     driven by lust - He committed the murder of 'M' on the spur D
     of the moment, since the latter saw him committing rape and
     further tried to make a phone call to someone outside -
     Similarly, appellant attacked PW2, who had seen him
     attacking 'M' and then attacked PW1 with a view to intimidate
    he~                                                            E
         Sentence I Sentencing - Conviction of appellant for
    murder, attempt to murder and rape - Victims were minor
    children - Imposition of death penalty - Propriety - Held:
    Conduct of appellant was barbaric and inhumane - However,
                                                                    F
    his main motive was not to commit murder but to satisfy his
    lust - Element of recklessness in appellant's actions not ·
    sufficient to attract the extreme penalty of death - Keeping in
    view the mitigating factors including appellant's conduct after
    commission of the crime, his case does not fall into the G
    category of rarest of the rare - Appellant convicted for the
    remainder of his life for the offence of murder - Code of
    Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.354(3) - Penology.

                                573                                H
        574      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2014] 11 S.C.R.      •


    A         Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

             HELD:1. From the evidence, it is clear that the
        appellant came to the house of PW1 driven by lust with
        the intention of satisfying his desires at the cost of the
        chastity of PW1. He was armed with an aruval (a sharp
    8
1
        edged weapon), which in all probability he intended to .
        use to intimidate anyone who opposed him, since he was
        probably aware that there were no adults in the house.
        There is no doubt that he committed the murder of the
        deceased 'M' on the spur of the moment, since he was
    C   enraged and infuriated when the boy had untied himself,
        seeing him committing rape and further that he tried to
        make a phone call to someone outside. It is also clear that
        it was in the same state of mind that he attacked P.W.2,
        who had seen him attacking the deceased 'M'. Similarly,
    D   he then attacked PW1 with a view to intimidate her. The
        conviction recorded by both, the Sessions Court and the
        High Court, is based upon cogent and reliable evidence.
        Thus, the appellant has been found guilty beyond all
        reasonable doubt. [Paras 17, 18 and 22) [581-G-H; 582-
    E   B, D; 585-H; 586-A]

          2.1. The conduct of the appellant against the three
      minor children was barbaric and inhumane. However, the
      main motive of the appellant was not to commit murder but ·
    F to satisfy his lust. There was undoubtedly an element of
      recklessness in the appellant's actions, but that may not
      be sufficient in the circumstances of this case to attract the ·
      extreme penalty of death. [Pa_ra 19) [583-B, D-E]

          2.2. As a matter of law, it is imperative for a Criminal .
    G Court to consider vide Section 354(3) Cr.P.C., the 'special
      reasons' for imposing the death· sentence. Two
      fundamental objectives of penology apply even in
      grotesque cases: (a) deterrence and (b) reformation.
      Other factors such as seriousness of the crime, the
    H criminal history of the appellant and also his propensity
•    B. KUMAR @ JAYAKUMAR @ LEFT. KR. @ S. KUMAR 575
               v. INSPOF POLICE TH. C.B.C.l.D.

    to remorselessly commit similar dastardly crimes in the       A
    future, must be considered. In the present case, having
    assessed the mitigating factors including the appellant's
    conduct after the commission of the crime, it is clear that
    this case does not fall into the category of rarest of the
    rare. Consequently, the conviction and other sentences        B
    except the death sentence are hereby upheld. The
    appellant thus stands convicted for the ~emainder of his
    lite for the offence of murder. [Paras 21, 23] [584-E; 586-
    B-D]

         Bishnu Dea Shaw vs. State of West Bengal (1979) 3        C
    SCC 714: 1979 (3) SCR 355 and Rajendra Prasad vs. State
    of U.P. (1979) 3 SCC 646: 1979 (3) SCR 78- held stood
    overruled.

        Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684         D
    and Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra
    (2013) 13 sec 1 - relied on.

        Raju vs. State of Haryana (2001) 9 SCC 50: 2001 (3)
     SCR 409; Sunil Damodar Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra
                                                                  E
    (2014) 1 SCC 129: 2013 (9) SCR 295; and Md. Mannan @
    Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317: 2011 (5)
     SCR 518 and Dalbir Singh vs. State of Punjab (1979) 3
    SCC 745: 1979 (3) SCR 1059 - referred to.

                        Case Law Reference:                       F
       2001 (3) SCR 409       referred to            Para 19
       2013 (9) SCR295        referred to            Para19
       2011 (5) SCR518        referred to            Para 20
                                                                  G
       1979 (3) SCR 355       held stood overruled Para 21
       1979 (3) SCR78         held stood overruled Para 21
       1979 (3) SCR 1059      referred to            Para 21
       (1980) 2 sec 684       relied on              Para 21      H
    576      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 11 S.C.R . •


A     (2013) 13 sec 1         relied on                Para 21
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    Nos. 980-981 of 2013.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 02.08.2011 of the High
B Court of Madras in R.T. No. 4 of 201 O and Criminal Appeal No.
  161of2011.

          P.C. Aggrawala, Revathy Raghavan for the Appellant.

C       Subramonium Prasad, AAG, M. Yogesh Kanna for the
    Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         S.A. BOBDE, J. 1. These criminal appeals have been filed
    by the appellanVaccused against the final common judgment
    and order dated 02.08.2011 in Trial Case No. 4 of 2010 and
    Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011 passed by the High Court of
    Madras.

       2. A sentence of death having been imposed upon the
E appellant, learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, referred the
  matter for confirmation to the High Court under Section 366 of
  the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
  the 'Cr.P.C.'). The appellant preferred an appeal against
  conviction and sentences imposed upon him by the learned
F Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. The High Court having
  dismissed the appeals the appellant stands convicted and
  sentenced to death, for house-trespass under Section 449; for
  wrongful confinement under Section 342; for rape under Section
  376(1 ); for murder under Section 302; for attempt to murder
G under Section 307; for causing hurt during robbery under
  Section 394 and for robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause
  death under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter
  referred to as "l.P.C."].

          3. The appellant has been charged and convicted for
H
•   B. KUMAR @ JAYAKUMAR @ LEFT. KR. @ S. KUMAR v. 577
        INSPOF POLICE TH. C.B.C.l.D. [S.A. BOBDE, J.]
    committing the rape of the prosecutrix and slitting her throat and   A
    decamping with jewellery; further for the murder of her brother,
    Manikandan, who saw him committing the rape and for slitting
    the throat of P.W.-2 Sangeetha, who saw him kill the boy.

          4. According to the prosecution, the appellant, who had
                                                                      8
    worked as a mason in the house of the parents of P.W.-1
    Prosecutrix, gained access into the house on 04.10.2002.
    P.W.-11 Ramalingam and his wife P.W.-12 Maragatham had
    left the house in the morning. P.W.-1, the Prosecutrix, her
    relative P.W.-2 Sangeetha and the deceased Manikandan, her
    brother, were alone in the house. When the appellant rang the C
    door bell and the deceased enquired, the appellant told him that
    he has left his iron bowl used for masonry work and wanted to
    take it back. Though the deceased told him that he could take
    it back after his father's return, the Prosecutrix intervened and
    said that he had been working in their house as mason and D
    hence by so saying, she opened the door. The appellant was
    carrying an aruval which is a sharp edged curved weapon in
    his waist. The appellant upon entry, bolted the door
    immediately. When Manikandan, P.W.-1 Prosecutrix and P.W.-
    2 Sangeetha screamed, the appellant took his aruval from his E
    waist and threatened the inmates not to shout by keeping the
    aruval on the neck of the deceased. He then gagged and tied
    the hands of P.W.-2 Sangeetha and Manikandan and confined
    them to the pooja room by tying them to the window with a
     saree. The appellant raised the volume of television and then F
    went to the bedroom where P.W.-1 Prosecutrix was hiding. He
     pulled the mattress from the cot to the ground and tied her
     hands and legs and gagged her. He then removed her clothes
     and raped her.

          5. By this time, the deceased managed to loosen the knot       G
    and came to the bedroom and saw the appellant committing
    rape on the Prosecutrix. He ran to the hall to make a call. On
    seeing this, the appellant angrily dragged Manikandan to the
    toilet and cut his neck with aruval, ultimately causing his death.
    In the meantime, P.W.-2 Sangeetha, who had also managed              H
    578      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014) 11 S.C.R.


A to untie the knot, came and saw the accused cutting the neck
                                                                     •
  of Manikandan with aruva/ in the toilet. She went inside the
  pooja room and hid herself. But she had been noticed by the
  appellant, who went to the pooja room and cut her neck with
  the aruval, and thereafter she swooned. The appellant then went
B to the bedroom and demanded the jewellery of the prosecutrix.
  She gave her ear-stud and chain and on further demand, she
  gave· the bureau key and the appellant took away the other
  jewels from the bureau.

       6. The prosecutrix and P.W.-2 Sangeetha went out and
C signaled for help. One Kannan (P.W.-13) and Raja (P.W.-7)
  stopped their scooter and noticed injuries inflicted upon P.Ws.-
  1 and 2 and they took them to the Sirkali Government Hospital
  in an auto-rickshaw.

D        7. They were examined by P.W.- 5 Dr. C. Elangovan, who
    confirmed a cut injury on the throat of P.W.- 1 Prosecutrix,
    measuring 1O x 4 ems, exposing underlying thyroid cartilage
    and blood vessels. He referred the prosecutrix for further
    treatment. He issued a wound certificate.
E
          8. Dr. C. Elangovan also examined P.W.-2 Sangeetha and
    found a cut injury measuring 7 x 3 ems exposing underlying
    thyroid cartilage and blood vessels.· He also referred her for
    further treatment.

F        9. A Crime No. 886 of 2002 was registered. P.W.- 22 Sub
    Inspector Murugavelu prepared and dispatched the First
    Information Report to the Court.

       10. A thorough investigation was conducted. Finger prints
G and photographs were also collected during the course of
  investigation.

         11. A postmortem on the body of the deceased
    Manikandan was conducted. P.W.-5 Dr. C. Elangovan found
    the following injuries on the body of Manikandan:
H
•    B. KUMAR @ JAYAKUMAR @ LEFT. KR @ S. KUMAR 579
       v. INSP.OF POLICE TH. C.B.C.l.D. [S.A. BOBDE, J.]
        "INJURIES                                                 A

        An incised wound in front of the middle of the neck 4 cm
        above Jugular notch, extending from right Sterno
        cleidomastoid region to left sternoclediomastoid muscle
        region 10 ems in length, 3 cm breadth and depth 2 cm. B
        Left Sternoclediomastoid muscle was cut partially. Trachea
        was cut completely at the level 2 cm below cricoid
        cartilage. Right side internal Jugular vein and right common
        carotid artery cut completely. Oesophagus intact and
        exposed.
                                                                  c
        On opening Thorax - No fracture ribs. Hyoid bone intact.
        No foreign body in Larynx or trachea. Heart chambers
        empty. Heart C/S pale. Great vessels empty. Lungs C/S
        pale. On opening of Abdomen - Peritoneum intact.
        Stomach contained approximately 200 ml of partially D
        digested food material. Stomach mucosa pale. Small
        intestine empty, mucosa pale. Liver, Kidney, Spleen C/S
        pale. No lacerations Urinary bladder empty. On opening
        head - No fracture of skuU bones. Brain membranes intact.
        No haemorrhage. Brain matter pale. Spinal column No. E
        fractures."

        The doctor opined that the deceased appeared to have
        died of haemorrhage and shock due to injury to great
        vessels of the neck, 6 to 12 hours prior to postmortem.
                                                                  F
         12. The Trial Court considered the entire evidence and
    convicted the appellant for the offences of rape of the
    prosecutrix, murder of the boy Manikandan, atter:npt to murder
    the girl Sangeetha and the prosecutrix,and also for robbery of
    jewels. The Trial Court found that the appellant who had been G
    working in the house of the prosecutrix cis a mason, entered
    the house on the ruse of wanting to take an iron bowl which he
    had left behind. The prosecutrix, P.W.-2 Sangeetha and the
    deceased boy Manikandan tried to raise an alarm because the
    appellant, upon entering their home, immediately bolted the H
    580     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R..


A door from inside. He threatened the inmates with the aruval and
  asked them to keep quiet. Having tied Sangeetha and the boy
   Manikandan in the pooja room, he went to the bedroom and
  committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The deceased boy
  Manikandan, who had somehow untied himself, saw him do so
B and was about to make a phone call when the appellant caught
  the boy angrily and slit his throat with the aruval. Since he saw
  that P.W.-2 Sangeetha had seen him committing murder, he
  went to the pooja room and slit her throat. Then he demanded
  jewellery from the prosecutrix arid left. He was apprehended
c after about six years. In the meantime it has been found that
  he entered into a marriage tie. P.W.-26 Devan, deposed that
  he had arranged the marriage of the appellant with one Sushila
  and after the birth of a female child, the accused, on the pretext
  of going to Salem, abandoned her.
D       13. The jewellery was recovered from a Pawn Shop. The
  owner of the shop testified that the appellant pledged M.Os. 2,
  4 and 5 robbed jewels for which he gave a sum of Rs. 2,000/
  - and the accused put a signature on the pawn receipt. Another
  Pawn Shop owner P.W.-25 Chandran testified that the jewels
E M.Os 3 and 6 were pawned with him for a sum of Rs. 375/-
  and a pawn receipt was executed. Signatures on the pledge
  receipt were sent for examination and comparison to the
  Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chennai which opined that both
  the signatures are of the same person i.e. the appellant.
F
        14. The Trial Court thus convicted the appellant as stated
  above for rape, murder, attempt to murder and robbery. Since
  the Trial Court imposed the death sentence, the matter was
  referred to the High Court for confirmation. The appellant also
G filed an appeal against the conviction under the other offences.
  The High Court considered the entire evidence and having
  heard the appellant confirmed the findings and sentence of the
  Trial Court by a detailed judgment. In particular, the High Court
  also considered the question of the propriety of the death
  sentence and confirmed the same.
H
• . KUMAR@ JAYAKUMAR@ LEFT. KR.@ S. KUMAR v. 581
     INSP.OF POLICE TH. C.B.C.l.D. [S.A. BOBDE, J.]
       15. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the            A
  appellant Shri P.C. Aggarwala, and learned counsel for the
  State Shri Subramonium Prasad at great length. Having
  examined the entire evidence, we are satisfied that there is no
  error whatsoever in the conviction of the appellant for all the
  offences he has been charged with. There is clear and                B
  unimpeachable evidence of the prosecutrix herself, as regards
  the offence of rape, though it was argued that penetration was
  not proved. We find no merit whatsoever in the said
  submission. In view of the other evidence suggesting the rape,
  such as injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix,            C
  moreover, there is nothing to cast any doubt at the version of
  the prosecutrix as regards the offence of rape. The injuries on
  her throat caused by a sharp edged weapon have been
  examined by the doctor. Her evidence in this regard is also
  unimpeachable. She has also deposed about the removal of
  jewellery which was subsequently found to have been pawned           D
  by the appellant in two pawn shops and was thereafter
   recovered. The evidence of P.W.-2 Sangeetha corroborated the
  deposition of the prosecutrix, both as regards the injury caused
  to the prosecutrix and decamping with the jewellery.
                                                                       E
       16. Similarly, there is no reason to doubt the evidence
  produced by the prosecution as regards the assault on
  Sangeetha with an aruval and slitting of her throat. Sangeetha,
  who is an injured witness had no reason to lie. Her presence
  in the house has also been explained. She is the daughter of         F
  the elder brother of the father of the prosecutrix and was staying
  with the family at the relevant time.

        17. We thus have no hesitation in confirming the concurrent
  findings and facts recorded by the Sessions Court and the High
  Court. We find from the evidence that the appellant came to          G
  the house driven by lust with the intention of satisfying his
  desires at the cost of the chastity of the prosecutrix. He was
  armed with an aruval, which in all probability he intended to use
  to intimidate anyone who opposed him, since he was probably
  aware that there were no adults in the house. Since he had           H
    582     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R. •


A worked as a mason in the house, he had noticed the prosecutrix
  to whom he felt greatly attracted. There is evidence to the fact
  that she looks older than her age. There is no doubt that he
  committed the murder of the deceased Manikandan on the spur
  of the moment, since he was enraged and infuriated when the
8 boy had untied himself, seeing him committing rape and further
  that he tried to make a phone call to someone outside. There
  is thus little doubt, that he attacked the deceased with a view
  to ensure a safe escape from the scene of the crime and further,
  eliminating evidence against himself.

C       18. Having regard to the fact that he was initially content
  with tying up the deceased to keep him out of the way, he was
  infuriated later on at his insurgence. His motive in going to the
  place was not to commit murder, but was to satisfy his lust, as
  suggested by the learned counsel for the State. The appellant
D attacked the deceased boy because he suddenly panicked at
  the thought that he would be caught. It is also clear that it was
  in the same state of mind that he attacked P.W.-2 Sangeetha,
  who had seen him attacking the deceased. Similarly, he then
  attacked the prosecutrix with a view to intimidate her. We have
E no doubt that if it was truly his intention to do so, he could have
  killed all the three, who were much weaker than him, with the
  aruva/ at the outset, but he did not do so. We make these
  observations only by way of assessment of the predominant
  motive of the appellant in injuring his victims and killing one of
F them, Our observations do not detract from the fact that the
  injuries were caused during the course of and as a part of, ·a
  heinous crime of lust. The assault on the P.W.-2 Sangeetha and
  the prosecutrix certainly constitute an attempt to murder as /
  found by the Sessions Court and the High Court. The appellant;
G has thus been rightly convicted for the offences having regard
  to the nature of the injuries, their location and the weaponwith
  which they were caused.

         19. In the light of the above we may now consider whether
    the only penalty that could have been imposed on the appellant
H
•   B. KUMAR @ JAYAKUMAR @ LEFT. KR: @ S. KUMAR v. 583
        INSP.OF POLICE TH. C.B.C.l.D. [S.A. BOBDE, J.]
    for the murder of the deceased Manikandan was the death A
    penalty. We do not intend to delve into the justification or
    propriety of the death penalty being on the statute book, since
    no such question has been raised. The only consideration is
    whether the circumstances of th is case rightly attracted the
    death penalty. The Sessions Court has correctly criticised the B
    manner in which the appellant committed the act of assaulting
     his victims and has described his conduct as barbaric and
     inhumane against the three minor children. The Sessions Court
     has observed that this conduct was against all the three minor
     children. There is little discussion in the judgment of the C
     Sessions Court about the main motive and the reason for the
     appellant going to the house of the prosecutrix as the
     discussion mainly centers on the cruel way in which the
     appellant attacked his victill}S. We do not for a moment intend
     to suggest that there was anything justified in any of the
                                                                      D
     appellant's actions, only that, as observed earlier, the main
     motive was not to commit murder but to satisfy his lust. There
     is undoubtedly an element of recklessness in the appellant's
     actions, but that in our view may not be sufficient in the
     circumstances of this case to attract the extreme penalty of
      death. In the case of Raju Vs. State of Haryana' this Court E
     dealt with a case of rape and murder, and considered the
     question whether it would constitute a rarest of the rare case.
      In that case, the accused caused injury to the deceased only
     \;Vhen she threatened to disclose the incident. The Court held
    . that the accused had no intention to commit the murder and thus F
    ,in those circumstances, the case would not meet the standard
      of rarest of the rare. Furthermore, the Court noted that !her~
      was nothing on record to indicate that the accused would be a
     grave danger to the society at large. Accordingly, the Court
      proceeded to commute the death sentence to imprisonment for G
      life. This view has been upheld recently by this Court in Sunil
    Damodar Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra2.

    1.   (2001) 9 sec 5o.
    2.   (2014) 1 sec 129
                                                                     H
A
    584       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 11 S.C.R.


       20. The High Court has rightly noted the observations of
  this Court in Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of
                                                                        •
  Bihai'. This Court has observed that there is no hard and fast
  rule or parameter to decide this vexed issue, and also that
  crimes are committed in such different and distinct
B circumstances that it is impossible to lay down comprehensive
  guidelines to decide this issue. This Court observed that when
  the crime is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque,
  diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse
  intense and extreme indignation of the community and when
C collective conscience of the community is petrified, one has to
  lean towards the death sentence. But this is not the end. If these
  factors are present, the court has to see as to whether the
  accused is a menace to the society and continues to be so,
  threatening its peaceful and harmon[ous co-existence. The court
  has to further enquire and believe that the condemned accused
D cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and is likely to continue with
  his criminal acts.

        21. Unfortunately, arguments on these aspects were not
  addressed before the Sessions Court or the High Court. As a
E matter of law it is imperative for a Criminal Court to consider
  vide Section 354(3) Cr.P.C., the 'special reasons' for imposing
  the death sentence. It is not sufficient for a Criminal Court to
  give reasons pertaining to the cruel and heinous acts of the
  accused, but the Court must consider the special reasons why
F it is of the opinion that in a particular case before it, the death
  sentence should be imposed. In Bishnu Deo Shaw Vs. State
  of West Benga/4, this Court held that the 'special reasons'
  necessary for imposing death sentence must relate not to the
  crime as such but to the criminal. A similar thought was
G expressed in Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. 5 and also
  in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab6 • Subsequently, the
    3.   (2011) s sec 317.
    4.   (1979) 3 sec 714.
    5.   (1979) 3 sec 646.
H 6.     (1979) 3 sec 745
•   8. KUMAR @ JAYAKUMAR @ LEFT. KR. @ S. KUMAR v. 585
        INSP.OF POLICE TH\ C.8.C.l.D. [S.A. 80BDE, J.]
    Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab'                 A
    explained that the phrase 'special reasons' must be read in
    reference to the crime as well as the criminal, thus overruling
    Rajendra Prasad's case and Bishnu Deo's case.
    Consequently, the majority view in Bachan Singh's case gave
    a wider interpretation to the term 'special reasons' by holding         8
    it to mean an amalgamation of the circumstances connected
    with both, the crime in question as also the criminal. This view
    was upheld by this Court recently, in Yakub Abdul Razak
    Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra". We are constrained to
    make these observations, since, one can hardly imagine a                C
    murder which is not cruel or heinous. In this case the party is
    bound to address the Court on the possibilities of reformation
    or otherwise of the appellant, particularly since for a period of
    six years after the incident and before he was apprehended,
    there is no evidence of the appellant having committed any
    other offence or crime.                                                 0

         22. Accordingly, this Court must also ascertain the
    mitigating and aggravating circumstances pertaining to the
    crime as also the criminal. Hence the C::ourt will evaluate,
    whether the interplay of the above mentioned circumstances              E
    gives rise to the 'special reasons' as expressly contemplated
    under Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C., which creates an onus
    upon the Court in cases of death sentence, to explain why the
    extreme penalty is attracted in that particular case. In all fairness
    it must be observed that the learned counsel for the appellant,         F
    having regard to the circumstances of this case, laid much
    greater emphasis on pointing out the impropriety and illegality
    of the death sentence rather than seeking to avoid the
    conviction. That is why, we have not found it necessary to deal
    with the details of the prosecution case and the evidence on            G
    the basis of which the appellant has been convicted. Suffice it
    to say, that we find the conviction recorded by both, the

    ?.   (1980) 2 sec 684.
    8.   c2013) 13 sec 1.
                                                                            H
   586      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 11 S.C.R.        •


A Sessions Court and the High Court, is based upon cogent and
  reliable evidence. Thus, we are of the opinion that the appellant
  has been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

       23. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that
  the appeals must partly succeed. This Court must remain
8 mindful of the two fundamental objectives of penology which
  apply even in such grotesque cases: (a) deterrence and (b)
  reformation. Other factors such as se•;'lusness of the crime, the
  criminal history of the appellant a •. _ also his propensity to
  remorselessly commit similar dastardly crimes in the future,
C must be considered. In the present case, having assessed the
  aforesaid mitigating factors including the appellant's conduct
  after the commission of the crime, we observe that this case
  does not fall into the category of rarest of the rare. Consequently,
  the conviction and other sentences except the death sentence
D are hereby upheld. The appellant thus stands convicted forthe
  remainder of his life for the offence of murder.

   Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                          Appeals partly allowed.