JAI PRAKASHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

                 [2025] 8 S.C.R. 243 : 2025 INSC 861

                               Jai Prakash
                                     v.
                           State of Uttarakhand
                 (Criminal Appeal No(s). 331-332 of 2022)
                                  16 July 2025
      [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Allegation against the appellant herein that he committed a forceful
       rape and strangulated a 10 year old girl child. The punishment
       handed down to the appellant by the Courts below was of death
       penalty. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial
       Court, as affirmed by the High Court, are sustainable in law or not.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 377, 302 – Protection of Children
       from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5, 6 – Allegation against
       the appellant that he lured innocent children to his dwelling,
       took his pick from them and let others go – He allegedly
       exploited a girl child and killed her – The punishment handed
       down to the appellant by the Courts below was of death
       penalty – Correctness:
       Held: 1. There are no grounds for interference as far as conviction
       is concerned and the sentence of appellant is reduced to life
       imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life.
       [Paras 13 and 22]
       2. There is no dispute about the identity or the cause of death of
       X – PW4-doctor, conducted the post-mortem of X – In his deposition,
       he stated that the injuries on the body indicate sexual assault – All
       injuries were caused prior to the death – The causation of death
       was ascertained as strangulation by hand, after the commission
       of forceful rape – Body of X was discovered from the hut of
       appellant – It was proven beyond doubt that the appellant was last
       seen with X inside his hut on the date of incident, and this was
       immediately prior to the occurrence of the incident – Furthermore,
       the DNA obtained from Ext.9 (underwear of the appellant) matches
       with samples of both X and the appellant – Taking a cumulative

* Author
244                                                               [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       view of all the above circumstances, the prosecution has
       proven its case against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt.
       [Paras 9-12]
       3. Examining the death sentence handed down to the appellant,
       the Courts below have failed to make any detailed reference to
       the aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the
       appellant – Moreover, the High Court, which was the Reference
       Court for confirmation of death sentence, though expounded on
       the requirement of law to consider aggravating and mitigating
       circumstances, failed to consider any of these circumstances – only
       dealt with the brutality of the incident – Coming to the mitigating
       circumstances relating to the appellant, the condition of the family
       of the appellant is “very pathetic” and they earned their livelihood
       by doing labor work – The appellant could not attend school due to
       the socio-economic condition of the family and started working at an
       early age – He does not suffer from any psychiatric disturbance –
       Taking into account the above mitigating circumstances and the
       threshold of “rarest of rare” category, this Court deems it appropriate
       to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the
       natural life of the appellant instead of the punishment of the death
       penalty. [Paras 14, 18, 20, 21, 22]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra [2009] 12
       SCR 1093 : (2010) 14 SCC 641; Gudda v. State of M.P. [2013]
       11 SCR 293 : (2013) 16 SCC 596; Manoj v. State of M.P. [2022]
       9 SCR 452 : (2023) 2 SCC 353; Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State
       by Inspector of Police [2023] 5 SCR 1016 : 2023 SCC Online
       SC 310 – relied on.
       Nipun Saxena v. Union of India [2018] 14 SCR 755 : (2019) 2
       SCC 703 – referred.

                                   List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
       Act, 2012.

                                List of Keywords
       Rape; Strangulation; Minor child; Recovery of body; Last seen
       theory; DNA evidence; Death penalty; Aggravating and mitigating
       circumstances; Rarest of rare; Confirmation of death sentence.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        245

                    Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand


                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
     331-332 of 2022
     From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2020 of the High
     Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CRLJA No. 64 and CRLR No.
     02 of 2019

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv., Ms. Minakshi Vij.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Ms. Rachna
     Gandhi.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Sanjay Karol, J.

1.   A simple afternoon of play and frolic with family members yielded
     catastrophic results for a 10-year-old female child. The most innocent
     desire of either a candy or a toy was exploited in the worst manner
     possible by the appellant. He lured innocent children to his dwelling,
     took his pick from among them and let the others go. He allegedly
     assaulted and exploited her, killed her and then, if the prosecution
     is to be believed, lied to the parents of the victim saying that he was
     not aware of her whereabouts. The Courts below have concurrently
     found the appellant to be guilty of offences against the victim and
     also of taking her life. This Court is now called upon to examine the
     correctness of these conclusions.
2.   The present Appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated
     7th January 2020, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
     Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No.64 of 2019 & Criminal Reference
     No.02 of 2019, whereby the Judgment and sentencing Order dated
     26th/28th August 2019 passed by Fast Track Court, Special Judge
     (POCSO)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in
     Special Sessions Trial Number 119/2018, convicting the appellant
246                                                            [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                                        Supreme Court Reports


       under Sections 376, 377, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and
       Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
       20122 came to be affirmed. The punishment handed down to the
       appellant by the Courts below was of death penalty, for the murder
       of the victim, whose name3 stands redacted in view of the judgment
       of this Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India4.

       Prosecution Case
3.     The case set out by the prosecution against the appellant, as emerging
       from the record and also as set out by the Courts below, is as under :
       3.1 On 28th July 2018, at around 12:30 p.m., while playing outside
           her house, with cousins and friends, X the child of PW1
           went missing. Concerned, PW1 - Sant Pratap (father of the
           victim) started looking for his daughter. On enquiry, from other
           children present, he got to know that the appellant took all the
           children to his hut and gave them Rs.10/- each to go to the
           shop. Somwati - PW13, his sister-in-law also corroborated the
           version of the children. When he asked the appellant regarding
           the whereabouts of her daughter, he was apparently told that
           she had taken the gift of 10 rupees note and left the place.
           Eventually, after a few hours of exasperated searching, which
           included Kulbhushan - PW2 sending one Mohd. Alam - PW3,
           to search the hut of the appellant, the victim was found dead
           underneath empty cement bags. PW1, therefore, lodged an FIR
           at P.S. Sahaspur, District – Dehradun. It was stated therein that
           he resided with his family in a hut, in the under-construction
           premises of Shivalik Engineering College, narrating the facts
           as above, asking for action to be taken against the appellant.
       3.2 After registration of the abovementioned FIR, the Investigating
           Officer commenced the investigation. The inquest report was
           prepared, and the body of X was sent for post-mortem to Dr.
           Chirag Bahugana - PW4. The cause of death came to be
           determined as ‘manual throttling by hand causes asphyxia.’ After


1    hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’
2    hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO’
3    hereinafter referred to as ‘X’
4    (2019) 2 SCC 703
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         247

                        Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand


             completion of the investigation, charges were framed against
             the appellant under Sections 302, 201, 376 and 377 IPC and
             Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

      Reasoning of the Courts below
4.    The Trial Court, after careful consideration of the evidence-on-record,
      vide judgment and order dated 26th/28th August 2019, convicted the
      appellant under Sections 376(AB), 377, 302 of the IPC and Section
      5/6 of POCSO. The Court arrived at the following findings :
      4.1 Master Rakesh - PW11, Rani @ Radha Rani - PW12, and PW13 -
          Somwati have proven that X was last seen with the appellant;
      4.2 PW1, PW2, PW3, SI Lakshmi Joshi - PW5, Rani W/o Sant
          Partap - PW8 and PW12 have proven the recovery of the
          body of X from the hut of the appellant. Their testimonies have
          withstood cross-examination;
      4.3 The DNA evidence obtained from X, matches with the samples
          of the appellant. Dr. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Scientific Officer,
          Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun - PW17, has proven
          the report, Ex.Ka-43, to that effect;
      4.4 In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution has proven
          its case beyond reasonable doubt;
      4.5 The cruelty of the crime is displayed by strangulation by hand
          of a defenseless child. The case at hand is ‘rarest of rare’ and,
          therefore, the punishment of death penalty is just and proper;
      4.6 The order of sentencing highlighted the grave nature of the
          crime. It was observed that the rarest of the rare test comes
          into play when a person, by way of his crime which is heinous
          or brutal, challenges the harmonious and peaceful co-existence
          of the society, with reference to Sunderajan v. State5. It was
          held that the accused was in his 30s and himself is the father of
          two children with one of these children being similar in age to X.
          Since, as per his age, he was mature enough to understand the
          implications of his acts, no benefit could be given on this count.
          In the sum total of facts and circumstances of this case, the
          extreme penalty of death by hanging was found to be justified.


5    (2013) 3 SCC 215
248                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


5.     The appellant preferred an Appeal before the High Court of
       Uttarakhand at Nainital, which came to be numbered as Criminal
       Jail Appeal No.64 of 2019. A reference for confirmation of the death
       sentence was also submitted to the High Court, which came to be
       numbered as Criminal Reference No.02 of 2019, in consonance
       with Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vide
       the impugned Judgment, the High Court confirmed the conviction
       and death sentence awarded to the appellant, inter alia, recording
       that the appellant himself admitted to being in his room on the date
       of the offence and since the body of X was also found in his room,
       later point to his having committed the crime. That apart, the DNA
       of the appellant matched with the DNA which was found on the
       undergarments of X, thereby directly pointing to his involvement and
       guilt. The argument that PW-11 and PW12, who are child witnesses,
       have been tutored, was rejected on account of the fact that there is
       other evidence corroborating their statements against the appellant.
       Regarding DNA, evidence reference has been made to the report
       prepared by PW17, the relevant extract whereof is as under:
            “Conclusion:-
            The DNA test performed on the exhibits provided as
            sufficient to conclude that,
            1.   The DNA obtained from Exhibits-4 and 5 (hair
                 recovered from deceased and underwear of accused)
                 are from a single male human source and matching
                 with the DNA obtained from the Exhibit-24 (blood
                 sample of accused).
            2.   The DNA obtained from the Exhibit-9 (underwear of
                 deceased) is matching with the DNA obtained from
                 the Exhibits – 23 and 24 (blood sample of deceased
                 and blood sample of accused).
            3.   The DNA obtained from the Exhibits –
                 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 and 22 (throat swab, throat
                 slide, internal vaginal swab, internal vaginal slide,
                 internal vaginal swab, internal vaginal slide and nails
                 clipping of victim) are from a single female human
                 source and matching with the DNA obtained from
                 Exhibit-23 (blood sample of deceased).”
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          249

                        Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand


      On the aspect of sentencing, the concurring judgment makes
      reference to a judgment of this Court Ram Naresh v. State of
      Chattisgarh6 which has attempted to list out aggravating and
      mitigating circumstances. In the end, it was observed that there
      was no doubt as to the culpability of the appellant and in actuality,
      the conclusion reached by the Court was from a point of absolute
      certainty that this case qualified as the rarest of rare.

      Issue for consideration
6.    The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether
      the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, as affirmed
      by the High Court, are sustainable in law or not.

      Our View
7.    We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and
      counsel for the Respondent-State. The case of the prosecution, relies
      on the following circumstances against the appellant:
      (a)     Recovery of the body of X from the appellant’s hut.
      (b)     Last seen theory.
      (c)     DNA evidence, linking the appellant to X.
8.    17 witnesses came to be examined by the prosecution. A tabular
      chart capturing their role in the investigation and their relationship
      with X is as below:

        PW              Name                   Role              Relation
                                                                   to X
         1.     Sant Pratap        Complainant / Spot witness Father of X
         2.     Kulbhushan         Spot witness                 Employer
         3.     Mohd. Naiyar       Spot witness / Recovered           -
                                   dead body
         4.     Dr. Chirag         Conducted post-mortem            Doctor
                Bahugana




6    (2012) 4 SCC 257
250                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports



         5.   S.I. Lakshmi       Initiated panchanama of             -
              Joshi              deceased / Recovery of
                                 dead body
         6.   Yogesh             Resided with the appellant          -
         7.   Constable          Recorded GD entry of the            -
              Harishankar        crime in question
         8.   Rani               Spot witness                    Mother of
                                                                    X
         9.   Prasun Shukla Verified age of X                   Principal of
                                                                  School
        10.   SI Raj Vikram      Sent items for FSL                  -
              Singh Panwar
        11.   Master             Child witness (last seen)        Cousin
              Rakesh
        12.   Rani               Child witness (last seen)        Cousin
        13.   Somwati            Spot witness                    Aunt of X
        14.   Constable          Sent case property for FSL          -
              Rajeev Kumar       testing
        15.   Dr. R.C. Arya      Conducted medical                   -
                                 examination of the
                                 appellant
        16.   SI N.S.            Investigating officer               -
              Rathore
        17.   Dr. Manoj          FSL examination of                  -
              Kumar              recovered articles
              Aggarwal

9.     There is no dispute about the identity or the cause of death of X.
       Dr. Chirag Bahugana - PW4, conducted the post-mortem of X. In his
       deposition, he stated that the injuries on the body indicate sexual
       assault. All injuries were caused prior to the death. The causation of
       death was ascertained as strangulation by hand, after the commission
       of forceful rape. The age of X also cannot be doubted, on the basis
       of the evidence of PW9, the Headmaster of the School, in which X
       was enrolled for studies. He verified that the date of birth of X was
       20th October 2008, which makes her 10 years old on the date of
       the incident.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         251

                    Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand


10. Coming to the recovery of the body, Mohd. Naiyar - PW-3, had, at
    the first instance, searched the hut of the appellant. In his deposition,
    he stated that the Contractor of the site (PW-2), told him to go and
    search the hut of the appellant for X. Upon his search, he discovered
    the dead body of X concealed under empty cement bags in the corner
    of the hut. He identified his signatures on the panchnama and the
    appellant in Court. His testimony stood the test of cross-examination
    and nothing was brought about to impeach his credit or doubt his
    testimony. PWs 1 and 2, who support his testimony, do state that
    PW3 informed them about the discovery of X’s body, after which,
    the police report came to be lodged. They identified their signatures
    on the recovery memos. SI Raj Vikram Singh, PW10, deposed on
    similar lines, stating that the dead body of X was lying in the hut
    of the appellant. Given the testimonies of these witnesses, this
    circumstance has been rightly held by the Courts below, as against
    the appellant.
11. The next circumstance against the appellant is that of last seen
    theory. Somwati - PW13, deposed that she saw X and her children
    being taken by the appellant, however only her children (two in
    number) had left the hut. She also identified the appellant in Court.
    This witness also stood the test of cross-examination. The children
    who had accompanied X, also lend support to the last-seen theory.
    Master Rakesh - PW10, deposed that the appellant handed them
    Rs.10/- each, but stopped X in his hut, while he left with Rani. Rani -
    PW11, supports this chain of events. Despite being minors, there
    is nothing on record to disbelieve their testimonies, for we find the
    witnesses to be inspiring in confidence and the children’s deposition
    to be in a natural form. It cannot be doubted, therefore, in fact,
    proven beyond doubt that the appellant was last seen with X inside
    his hut on the date of the incident, and this was immediately prior
    to the occurrence of the incident. In fact, they clearly established
    the presence of the appellant inside the hut where no one else
    other than him was present. It is nobody’s case that the other two
    roommates residing with the appellant in the very same hut were
    also present there. None has deposed about their presence either
    inside or outside the hut or anywhere near the scene of occurrence
    of the incident.
12. Coming to the DNA evidence of the case at hand, we must advert
    to the testimony of, Dr. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal - PW17, who
252                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       conducted the FSL examination. Upon such examination, Ext.4 (hair
       found on the dead body of X) matched with Ext.5 (underwear of
       the appellant), both of which matched with the DNA sample of the
       appellant. Furthermore, the DNA obtained from Ext.9 (underwear of
       the appellant) matches with samples of both X and the appellant.
       There is no infirmity which has been brought about in the chain of
       the seizure of these articles and their consequent examination by the
       appellant. Taking a cumulative view of all the above circumstances, in
       our view, the prosecution has proven its case against the appellant,
       beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings
    of conviction concurrent in nature against the appellant. The Courts
    below have correctly placed reliance on the last-seen theory and
    DNA evidence against the appellant. In our view, no ground for
    interference, pointing out any infirmity in the findings of the Courts
    below has been made out by the appellant, warranting interference
    as far as conviction is concerned.
14. We now proceed to examine the sentence that has been handed
    down to the appellant, i.e., death penalty. The case at hand is one,
    based on admittedly circumstantial evidence. This Court in Mohd.
    Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra7, expounded:
            “164. Capital sentencing is not a normal penalty
            discharging the social function of punishment. In this
            particular punishment, there is a heavy burden on the
            Court to meet the procedural justice requirements, both
            emerging from the black letter law as also conventions.
            In terms of rule of prudence and from the point of view
            of principle, a Court may choose to give primacy to life
            imprisonment over death penalty in cases which are solely
            based on circumstantial evidence or where the High Court
            has given a life imprisonment or acquittal.
            165. At this juncture, it will be pertinent to assess the
            nature of the rarest of rare expression. In the light of
            serious objections to disparity in sentencing by this Court
            flowing out of varied interpretations to the rarest of rare


7   (2010) 14 SCC 641
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                              253

                        Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand


            expression, it is clear that the test has to be more than
            what a particular Judge locates as rarest of rare in his
            personal consideration. There has to be an objective
            value to the term “rarest of rare”, otherwise it will fall foul
            of Article 14. In such a scenario, a robust approach to
            arrive at the rarest of rare situations will give primacy to
            what can be called the consensus approach to the test. In
            our tiered court system, an attempt towards deciphering
            a common view as to what can be called to be the rarest
            of rare, vertically across the trial court, the High Court
            and Apex Court and horizontally across a Bench at any
            particular level, will introduce some objectivity to the
            precedent on death penalty which is crumbling down
            under the weight of disparate interpretations. This is
            only a rule of prudence and as such there is no statutory
            provision to this effect.”
                                                    (Emphasis supplied)

15. Keeping the above exposition of law in mind, we are also conscious
    of the brutality of the crime in question. A helpless child was at
    first, mercilessly raped after being lured into the appellant’s hut on
    the pretext of buying sweets with the offered money. Thereafter, to
    hide the evidence of his crime, the child was strangulated by hand,
    in a defenseless condition. That being said, this Court in Gudda
    v. State of M.P.8, while commuting the sentence of the appellant
    therein from death penalty to life imprisonment, where the victims
    of the crime were a pregnant lady and a five-year old child, had
    reiterated that the brutality of a crime cannot be the only criterion
    for determining whether a case falls under the “rarest of the rare”
    category. The Courts below have only commented on the brutality
    of the crime in question, to hand down the death penalty to the
    appellant. No other circumstance came to be discussed by the
    Courts in reaching the conclusion that the case forms part of the
    “rarest of the rare” category. Such an approach in our view cannot
    be sustained.



8   (2013) 16 SCC 596
254                                                             [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


16. In Gudda (supra), it was further observed:
            “32. In a civilised society — a tooth for a tooth and an eye
            for an eye ought not to be the criterion to clothe a case
            with “the rarest of the rare” jacket and the courts must not
            be propelled by such notions in a haste resorting to capital
            punishment. Our criminal jurisprudence cautions the courts
            of law to act with utmost responsibility by analysing the
            finest strands of the matter and it is in that perspective that
            a reasonable proportion has to be maintained between the
            brutality of the crime and the punishment. It falls squarely
            upon the court to award the sentence having due regard to
            the nature of offence such that neither is the punishment
            disproportionately severe nor is it manifestly inadequate,
            as either case would not subserve the cause of justice to
            the society. In jurisprudential terms, an individual›s right
            of not to be subjected to cruel, arbitrary or excessive
            punishment cannot be outweighed by the utilitarian value
            of that punishment.”
17. More recently, in Manoj v. State of M.P.9, this Court had recognized
    the disparity in the application of the “rarest of rare” test for imposition
    of the death penalty and re-emphasized the two-step process to
    determine whether a case belongs to the rarest of rare category:
            “224. This aspect was dealt with extensively in Santosh
            Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State
            of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 112 : (2009) 2
            SCC (Cri) 1150] where the Court articulated the test to be
            a two-step process to determine whether a case deserves
            the death sentence — firstly, that the case belongs to the
            “rarest of rare” category, and secondly, that the option of life
            imprisonment would simply not suffice. For the first step,
            the aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have
            to be identified and considered equally. For the second
            test, the court had to consider whether the alternative of
            life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed as the



9   (2023) 2 SCC 353
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                             255

                       Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand


             sentencing aim of reformation was unachievable, for which
             the State must provide material.”
                                                   (Emphasis supplied)

18. The Courts below have failed to make any detailed reference to the
    aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the appellant.
    Moreover, the High Court, which was the Reference Court for
    confirmation of death sentence, though expounded on the requirement
    of law to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, failed to
    consider any of these circumstances – only dealing with the brutality
    of the incident.
19. In similar circumstances in Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by
    Inspector of Police10, this Court commuted the death sentence
    awarded to the appellant therein, for murder of a seven-year-old
    child while observing:
             “81. No such inquiry has been conducted for enabling
             a consideration of the factors mentioned above in case
             of the petitioner. Neither the trial court, nor the appellate
             courts have looked into any factors to conclusively state
             that the petitioner cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. In
             the present case, the Courts have reiterated the gruesome
             nature of crime to award the death penalty.
             ….
             83. The duty of the court to enquire into mitigating
             circumstances as well as to foreclose the possibility of
             reformation and rehabilitation before imposing the death
             penalty has been highlighted in multiple judgments of this
             Court. Despite this, in the present case, no such enquiry
             was conducted and the grievous nature of the crime was
             the only factor that was considered while awarding the
             death penalty.”
20. Coming to the mitigating circumstances relating to the appellant,
    this Court vide 2nd March 2022, had called for the reports of the
    probation officer, jail administration and psychological evaluation


10   2023 SCC Online SC 310
256                                                            [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       of the appellant. It is borne from the report of the District Probation
       Officer, Ayodhya, dated 12th April 2022, that the condition of the family
       of the appellant is “very pathetic” and they earned their livelihood
       by doing labor work.
21. The psychological report of the appellant was prepared on 19th April
    2022. It is stated therein that the appellant could not attend school
    due to the socio-economic condition of the family and had started
    working at the age of twelve. He has good relations with other inmates.
    He does not suffer from any psychiatric disturbance.
22. In light of the above discussion, taking into account the above
    mitigating circumstances and the threshold of “rarest of rare” category,
    we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission
    extending to the natural life of the appellant instead of the punishment
    of the death penalty.
23. Therefore, the present Appeals are partly allowed. The impugned
    order dated 7th January 2020 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand
    at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No.64 of 2019 & Criminal Reference
    No.02 of 2019, is modified to the above extent.
       Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan