SHABNAMversusSTATE OF U. P.

                    [2015) 9 S.C.R. 943


                        SHABNAM                              A
                            V.

                     STATE OF U. P.
          (Criminal Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015)
                                                             B
                      MAY 15, 2015
         [H. L. DATTU, CJI., S. A. BOBDE AND
                  ARUN MISHRA,JJ.]

      Sentence/Sentencing- Death penalty- For the murder C
of seven persons of her own family including a 10 months
old child - Propriety of- Held: Life Sentence is the rule and
death sentence is the exception to be awarded in 'rarest of
rare cases' - Death sentence is to be awarded only when life
imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate D
punishment- The aggravating circumstances in the present
case vii. victims of the crime, motive for commission of
murder, manner of execution, magnitude of crime and
remorseless attitude of the accused, outweigh the mitigating
circumstances i.e. young age of the accused and dependence E
of the minor child on them - The case falls in the rarest of
rare case and hence, both the appellants accused have been
rightly sentenced to death by courts below - Penal Code,
1860 - s. 302.
                                                              F
      Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder by app6!/ant-
accused - Of seven persons of her own family including a
ten months old child - Conviction and death sentence by
courts below - On appeal conviction as well as sentence
upheld.                                                       G

     Dismissing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. The most significant aspect of sentencing
policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award      H
                            943
944       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death
  sentence is an exception only to be awarded in "rarest
  of rare cases." Death sentence must be imposed only
  when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether
  inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant
B circumstances of the crime, and provided the option to
  impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be
  conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature
  and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant
  circumstances. The circumstances which should or
C should not be taken into account, and the circumstances
  which should be taken into account along with other
  circumstances, as well as the circumstances which may,
  by themselves, be sufficient, in the exercise of the
  discretion regarding sentence cannot be exhaustively
0
  enumerated. [Para 23] (958-B-F]

         Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, (1973) 1 SCC
         20: 1973 (2) SCR 541; Bachan Singh v. State
         of Punjab, (1980) 2 sec 684: 1980 (2) sec
E        684; Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3
         SCC 470: 1983 (3) SCR 413; Ramnaresh v.
         State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257: 2012
         (3) SCR 630 - relied on.
F        2. While determining the questions relateable to
  sentencing policy, the Court has to follow certain
  principles and those principles are the loadstar besides
  the consideration of aggravating and mitigating
  circumstances in imposition or otherwise of the death
G sentence. The Court has to apply the test to determine,
  if it was the 'rarest of rare' case; that in the opinion of the
  Court, imposition of any other punishment, i.e., life
  imprisonment would be completely inadequate and
H would not meet the ends of justice; that life imprisonment
              SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P.                      945


is the rule and death sentence is an exception; that the A
option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life
cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the
nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant
circumstances; and that the method (planned or
otherwise) and the manner (extent of brutality and B
inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime was committed and
the circumstances leading to commission of such
heinous crime. [Para 23) (961-C-H]

     3. The Courts are required to independently C
consider facts of each case and determine a sentence
which is the·most appropriate and proportional to the
culpability of the accused. It is not sufficient for the Court
to decide the quantum of sentence only with reference
to one of the classes under any one of the head of D
circumstances while completely ignoring classes under
the other. That is to say, what is required to be considered
is notjustthe circumstances by placing them in separate
compartments, but their cumulative effect. The Court
ought to be sufficiently cautious and adherent of the E
same so as to better administer the criminal justice
system and provide an effective and meaningful
reasoning by the Court as contemplated under Section
354 (3) Cr.P.C. [Para 24] (962-A-D]
                                                               F
      Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir v. State of WB., (2014) 7
      SCC 443; Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2015)
      1 SCC 67; Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1 :
      2007 (2) SCR 651; Ajit Singh Hamamsingh Gujral
      v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 14SCC401: 2011           G
      (13) SCR 1000; Atbir v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi),
      (201 O) 9 sec 1: 201 o(9) SCR 993; Jagdish v.
      State of M.P 2009 (4) Scale 580; Saibanna v. State •·
      of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 165: 2005 (3)
                                                               H
946       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A         SCR 760; State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram,
         (2003) 8 sec 224: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 861;
         Suresh v. State of UP, (2001) 3 SCC 673: 2001
         (2) SCR 263 - relied on.
 B       4. Having regard, however, to the conditions in
   India, in evaluating a crime and apportioning the most
   appropriate punishment, one of the most important
   functions court performs while making a selection
   between life imprisonment and death is to maintain a link
 C between contemporary community values and the penal
   system. Criminal jurisprudence indicates that society's
   perceptions of a crime with respect to appropriate
   penalties are not conclusive. Concurrently, it also stands
   that the said standards have always been progressive
 D and acquire meaning as public opinion becomes
   enlightened by a humane justice. The scope of
   determining the standards is never precise and rarely
   static. The Courts must thus draw its meaning from the
   evolving standards of public morality and
 E consciousness that mark the progress of a maturing
   society. [Para 28] [964-H; 965-8-D]

          5. The aggravating circumstances indicate the
  . extreme brutal, calculated and diabolical nature of the
F crime, which suggests that there is little likelihood of
    reform of these accused and of their abstaining from
    f1Jture crime. All these features stench of the apathetic
    attitude of the appellant-accused-daughter towards her·
    family and mirrors the extent of her depravity in
G schemingly committing the cold-blooded murder of her
    own parents, brother, sister-in-law and ten-month old
    nephew. This itself triggers intense indignation in the
    com111unity. It is the combined concoction of all
H aggravating circumstances, that is, victims of the crime,
             SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P.                     947


motive for commission of murder, manner of execution, A
magnitude of crime and remorseless attitude of the
appellants-accused that stands before this Court. [Para
32] [967 -E-H]

      6. The mitigating circumstances regarding young      ·B
age of the appellants-accused at the time of commission
of crime do not bear any significance in terms of the
outweighing aggravating circumstances of their wanton
act. Though the appellant-accused was pregnant at the
time of commission of offence and the accused-couple       C
now has a dependent minor child, such compassionate
grounds are present in most cases and are not relevant
in considering commutation of death sentence. The
principle that when the offence is gruesome and was
committed in a·calculated and diabolical manner, the age   D
of the accused may not be a relevant factor. It is,
however, shocking that at the pink of their youth, the
couple indulged in such debased act of multiple murders
driven by infatuation and exhibited no remorse. [Para
33] [968-A-D]                                              E

     7. The crime is committed in the most cruel and
inhuman manner which is extremely brutal, grotesquej
diabolical and revolting. Therefore, the extreme
culpability of both the appellants-accused makes therri    F
the most deserving for death penalty. [Para 34] [968-G-
H]

                   Case Law Reference
1973 (2) SCR 541
                                                           G
                              relied on     Para 23
1980 (2) sec 684              relied on     Para 23
1983 (3) SCR 413              relied on     Para 23
2012 (3) SCR 630              relied on     Para 23
2014 (7) sec 443              relied on     Para 25        H
948         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A     2015 (1) sec 67                  relied on       Para 26
      2007 (2) SCR 651                 relied on       Para 27
      2011 (13) SCR 1000               relied on       Para 27
      2010 (9) SCR 993                 relied on       Para 27
 B    2009 (4) Scale 580               relied on       Para 27
      2005 (3) SCR 760                 relied on       Para 27
      2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 861          relied on       Para 27
      2001 (2) SCR 263                 relied on       Para 27
c         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
      Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015

           From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2013 of the
      High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CC No. 5245 of 2010
D     in CR No. 8 of2010.
                                    WITH
      Crl A Nos. 804-805 of 2015

           Dushyant Parashar (AC) for the Appellant.
E
          Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Garvesh Kabra, Abhishek
      Chaudhary, Utkarsh Jaiswal for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 F
           H. L. DATTU, CJI.
           1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

        2. These appeals are directed against the common
G judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at
  Allahabad in the two connected appeals- Capital Cases Nos.
  5003 and 5245 of2010 along with Capital Reference No. 8 of
  2010, dated 26.04.2013. By the impugned judgment and order,
  the High Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction, dated
H 14.07.2010and order of sentence, datsd 15.07.2010, passed
     SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]                  949


by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 293 of A
2008, whereby and whereunderthe learned Sessions Judge
has conv.icted the appellants-accused for offence under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, "the IPC") and sentenced them to death.
                                                                     B   .
      3. At the outset, it would be pertinent to notice that learned
amicus curiae, Shri Dushyant Parashar, appearing for the two
appellants-accused has limited his submissions only to the
question of sentence. Therefore, the scope of these appeals
stand restricted to the determination of appropriate sentence C
for the offence committed by the appellants-accused.

      Facts:

       4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is: on the intervening
                                                                    0
night of 14/15.04.2008, eight persons of the family were present
at the residence of Master Shaukat Ali (deceased father),
besides himself; his wife Smt. Hashmi (deceased mother),
their daughter Shabnam (the appellant-accused), their younger
son Rashid (deceased younger brother), their minor niece E
Rabia (deceased cousin), theireldersonAneeshAhmad and
his wife Anjum (deceased couple) along with their 10 month
old son Arsh. At about 02: 15 A. M. on the fateful night, upon
hearing the cries of appellant-accused Shabnam, their.
neighbor Lateef Ullah Khan (PW-1) along with other neighbours F
reached the house. PW-1 entered the house and found
Shabnam lying unconscious near the dead body of her
deceased father, whose neck was cut and also discovered
the dead body of deceased younger brother with slit throat.
Further, in another room, PW-1 discovered the dead bodies G
of the deceased wife, deceased couple and deceased cousin
lying in a pool of blood, with their respective necks cut. The
dead body of 10 month-old infant, Arsh, was also found between
the dead bodies of his parents. Immediately thereafter, PW-1 •
raised an alarm gathering the neighbours and informed the H
950         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015) 9 S.C.R.


·A  investigating authorities of the incident. Accordingly, Case
    Crime No. 880 of 2008 was recorded on the basis of
    information received from PW-1, and an FIR was registered
    under Section 302 of the IPC against unknown persons for the
    murder of seven members of the family, in Police Station
· B Hasanpur at 03:05 A.M. on 15.04.2008. Neither PW-1 nor
    Hash mat Hussain (PW-2), i.e. the neighbour residing opposite
    to the house of the deceased persons, had conversed with
    the appellant-accused Shabnam before approaching the
    investigative authorities.
 c
            5. The investigative agency reached the spot, prepared
      the inquest report and dispatched the dead bodies for post-
      mortem. Further, blood-stained pillows, mattress, quilt, rope
      of cot, etc. found near the respective dead bodies were duly
 D    sealed, marked, taken into possession and sent for further
      analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Moradabad (for
      short, "the FSL"). Dr. Deewan Ram (PW-24) conducted the
      post-mortem on the dead bodies of diseased father, infant and
      the younger brother and Dr. R. P. Sharma (PW-27) conducted
 E    the post-mortem on the remaining deceased persons. Upon
      further investigation, both the appellants-accused, namely
      Saleem and Shabnam, were arrested. Recoveries of the
      n:iurder weapon- axe and a blood-stained shirt were made at
 F    the instance of Saleem. Further, a l'-:Jokia mobile phone, one
      empty wrapper of 10 bio-pose tablets, blood stained cloths,
      mobile SIM of Saleem, etc. were recovered from Shabnam's
      possession. Additionally, the call records and details for
      conversations between the appellants-accused were also
 G    obtained.

          6. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused
   persons were involved in a love affair and an illicit physical
   .relationship. While appellant-accused Shabnam is the
 H educated daughter of the deceased family, working as a
      SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]              951


Shikshamitra (teacher), the appellant-accused Saleem is an· A
unemployed youth residing in the same village. It is established
that the appellant-accused Shabnam was pregnant at the time
of commission of the instant gruesome murders. The
prosecution has put forth the motive for commission of the
offence to eliminate the appellant-accused Shabnam's family B
who were vehemently opposed to their relationship and secure
the entire property of the family creating financial security for
themselves.

     7. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet C
was drawn and the appellants-accused were charged with the
offence under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC, further
Shabnam was charged separately under Section 302 of the
IPC. The appellant-accused had denied their guilt and thus,
the case was committed to trial.                              D

     8. The prosecution has examined 29 witnesses,
documentary evidence (Exhibit Ka-1 to Ka-101 ), FSL Reports
(Exhibit Ka-102 to Ka-112) and recorded statements of the
appellant-accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of E
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

       9. The post-mortem reports have indicated the cause of
death of deceased father, mother, younger brother, cousin and
the couple as shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem F
injuries, namely multiple incised wounds caused by a sharp
edge weapon and a cut on the front of neck. Further, inner-
linings of the stomach of deceased persons were recorded
as red and swollen, concluding that intoxicating substances
were ingested before death. The cause of death for deceased G
infant was recorded as asphyxia and ante-mortem injuries
caused by means of throttling and strangulation with hand.

     10. It is a case qf circumstantial evidence, there being
no eye-witness to the incident. The testimony of neighbours,    H
952        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A  namely PW-1 and PW-2, has corroboratively supported the
   prosecution story and established that the main door to the
   house was locked from the inside when they had rushed
   towards the house after hearing the cries of appellant-accused
   Shabnam. They have stated that when they broke into the
 B house, they did not notice any bedcovers on or around the
   roof of the house as alleged by the appellant-accused
   Shabnam in her statement recorded under Section 313 of the
   Code, instead that her bedding was prepared near her
   mother's bed.
 c
         11. Further, Mahendra Singh, Block Head of the village
  (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad, tea-seller (PW-6) have testified
  regarding confession of appellant-accused Saleem before
  them and corroborated the factum and manner of the
D commission of the offence as follows: the appellants-accused
  had planned to kill her family and on the fateful day the former
  brought and handed over 10 intoxicating tablets to the latter,
  which she administered to her family members in tea. The
  family members being unconscious, Saleem reached her
E house with the murder weapon and as Shabnam held the heads
  of her family members, Saleem kept cutting their necks one-
  by-one. Upon commission of crime, Saleem threw away the ·
  murder weapon in a pond. They have al.so testified to the fact
F that appellant-accused Shabnam has herself throttled the
  infant. Rais Ahmad, witness at the pharmacy (PW-8) has stated
  that Saleem, on the fateful morning, had attempted to purchase
  sleeping pills from the pharmacy, but only finally managed to
  acquire the same from one Pappu. His statement has been
G incontrovertibly supported by Mobil Hussain, the pharmacist
  (PW-11).

          12. The statements of other witnesses have confirmed
   the illicit relationship between the appellants-accused which
 H was against the wishes of latter's family and that the two lover
   would meet at night.
      SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI)             953


      13. In their defence, the appellants-accused have denied A
the charges against them and pleaded false implication. They
have, in fact, sought to implicate each other in their defence.
Appellant-accused Shabnam, in her Section 313 statement
has stated that Saleem had entered the house with a knife
through the roof and killed all her family members while she B
was asleep alone on the roof. To the contrary, Saleem, has
stated that he reached the house only at the request of
Shabnam where she had confessed commission of crime to
him.
                                                               c
      14. The Trial Court, after meticulous marshalling of facts
and thorough scrutiny of available evidence, has observed that
the evidence on record including post-mortem reports and
witness statements has established a continuous and
consistent link in the chain of events and thoroughly supported D
the prosecution story. The Trial Court has concluded that the
appellants-accused deranged by the opposition to their illicit
relationship had hatched a gruesome murder plan which they
had executed by first rendering the family unconscious by
administering sleeping pills through tea at the hands of E
Shabnam, and thereafterslicing their throats by an axe while
they lay in a comatose state. Therefore, the Trial Court has
concluded that the link in chain of events having been
established and corroborated unquestionably confirms the guilt F
of appellants-accused for the brutal murder of seven persons
and thereby, convicted them for offence under Sections 302
read with 34 of the IPC.

      15. In the order of sentence, the Trial Court has observed
that the crime committed by appellants-accused is enormous G
in proportion. They are convicted of multiple successive
murders of seven persons of co-accused Shabnam's family
including her innocent ten month old nephew, old helpless
mother, old father, one young couple- her brother and sister- H
954         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A   in-law, one young boy and a sixteen years old cousin. The Trial
    Court considered the motive behind ruthless murders, pre-
  . planned execution, manner of commission of crime, the
    personality of deceased persons who were respectable and
    loved members of the community, the stand ofthe deceased
 B persons who were only against the marriage of their educated
    daughter, appellant-accused Shabnam with the uneducated
    unemployed co-accused Saleem and the remorseless conduct
    of the appellants-accused after the murder as aggravating
    circumstances and in conclusion, has recorded that the instant
 C case falls in the category of "rarest of the rare" requiring a
    punishment not less than death penalty for the offence
    committed by the appellants-accused. Therefore, the Trial
    Court has sentenced the two appellants to death.

 D     16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the
  appellants-accused had approached the High Court in Capital
  Cases Nos. 5003 and 5245 of 2010. The High Court has
  disposed of the said appeal along with the Capital Reference
  No. 8 of 2010 by a common judgment and order, dated
E 26.04.2013.

           17. The High Court has examined the evidence on record
      strand by strand in light of the observations made by the Trial
      Court and the submissions put forth by learned counsel
F     appearing for the parties and confirmed the judgment of
      conviction passed by the Trial Court. The High Court has
      concluded that the scale of aggravating and mitigating
      circumstances is heavily tilted towards the aggravating
      circumstances in the present case and observed as under:
G
           "... we find that in the present case, the aggravating
           circumstances would include the diabolical and
           calculated nature of the crime which was committed
           after methodical planning. Biopose sedative
H          tablets appear to have been obtained by the
      SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]            955


     appellant Shabnam with the help of Saleem; and           A
     were mixed in some food substance which was
     given to all the 6 grown up family members, all of
     whom were murdered with an axe in their sleep.
     Their bodies were found in their beds, with no
     injuries on the arms or hands of any deceased. All       8
     the injuries were on the neck, face or trunk regions
     which supports the hypothesis that the murders
     were committed when the deceased had been
     strongly sedated. The visceras of all these 6 grown
     up deceased indicated the presence of diazepam           c
     tranquilizer. The axe which was got discovered by
     the appellant Saleem contained human blood. No
     mercy was even showed to the 10 month old child
     Arsh who was strangulated, and thus the only other
                                                              D
     person from the household who could have inherited
     the property was also eliminated.             . .. The
     subsequent conduct of the accused Shabnam in
     removing all signs of the crime, by changing her
     clothes, removing any signs, and finger prints etc.      E
     and then raising an alarm for help and thereafter
     pretending to be unconscious for creating an
     impression that some outsiders had committed this
     crime, all indicate the cold blooded planning
     before, during and after the commission of the           F
     crime."
                                    (emphasis supplied)

      18. Further, the High Court has refused to accept the
submission that the appell~nt-accused Shabnam was under· G
great mental stress due to the opposition from her family to
the releotionship between her and the other co-accused and
the same is a fit mitigating circumstance. The High Court has
noticed that there was no evidence of any threat or any incident
of attack on the lives or person of the two appellants-accused H
956         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A by the deceased persons and that the elimination of all seven
  members of Shabnam's family, including the ten month old child
  was a grossly disproportionate and uncalled for reaction to
  any apprehensions that the appellants-accused may have
  received regarding their proposed alliance. The High Court
B has further noticed that features of the criminal mind of
  appellants-accused can be inferred from the pre-planned
  finesse with which the crime is committed, manner of
  commission of crime and remorseless attitude of the
  appellants-accused persons both- before and after the crime.
C The High Court has thus concluded that the aforesaid conduct
  of the appellants-accused persons renders them beyond
  reformation and observed as under:
            "Shabnam's pregnancy and subsequent delivery of
D           child, no ground for reducing sentence. It was also
            contended that Shabnam was carrying a child in
            her womb whom she has delivered in jail and who
            would be orphaned if the appellants are executed.
            In mo~.~(ft,urder cases the accu~~? have minor
 E          children; or aged parents or a spollse who would
            be bereaved if the convict is executed. This
            according to the Supreme Court in Sevaka
            Perumal v State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 Cri.L.J. 845
            (SC) cannot provide a iegitimate reason for not
F           awarding the death penalty, if the case is one,
            where looking to the heinous nature of the crime
            and the criminal a death penalty is the only
            appropriate sentence."

G          Thus, in light of the aforesaid considerations, the High
      Court has thought it fit to classify the present case as "rarest of
      rare" and award death penalty to the appellate-accu!>ed
      persons.

H           19. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence,
      the accused-appellants are before us in this appeal.
      SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]                    957


      Submissions                                                     A

         20. The learned amicus for the appellants would restrict
  his arguments only to the question of sentence. He would submit
  that instant case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence
  and the prosecution case garners support from no eye- B
  witnesses and therefore, the same could not have been relied
. upon by the Trial Court to sentence the appellants-accused to
  irreversible consequence of death. He would further submit
  thatthe mitigating circumstances of the appellants-accused,
  that is, them being young at thetime of incidence, the mental C
  stress undergone by them due to opposition of their alliance
  from the deceased family and the factum of appellant-accused
  Shabnam being pregnant at the time of the offence ought to
  be considered in context of the offence committed by the two
  appellants-accused and lenient approach be adopted in D
  determining and awarding appropriate sentence to them.

     21. Learned ·counsel for the State would oppose the
request of learned amicus in respect of adoption of lenient
approach in sentencing the appellants-accused persons and             E
supporting the reasons recorded in the judgment(s) and
order(s) passed by the Courts below, submit that the present
case is a ·fit case to be classified as "rarest of rare" and hence,
the appellants-accused deserve nothing but death penalty for
the dastardly crime committed by them.                                F

     22. We have given our anxious consideration to the
evidence on record in its entirety and the submissions put forth
by both the learned counsel. We have carefully perused the
judgments and orders of the Courts below.                             G

      Discussion

      23. We would not lumber the discussion by tracing the
entire death penalty jurisprudence as it has evolved in India,        H
but only limit the exercise to cull out the determinants which
958       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 9 S.C.R.



A    would weigh large in our mind to award appropriate sentence
     while balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
     We are be mindful of the principles laid down by this Court in
     Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, (1973) 1 SCC 20, Bachan
     Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi
B Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 as followed by
     this Court upto the present. The aforesaid decisions indicate
     that the most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian
  · "criminal jurisprudence regarding award of death penalty is that
     life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only
C to be awarded in "rarest of rare cases." Death sentence must
     be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an
     altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant
     circumstances of the crime, and provided the option to impose
     sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
0
     exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of
    the crime and all the relevant circumstances. The
     circumstances which should or should not be taken into account,
     and the circumstances which should be taken into account
E along with other circumstances, as well as the circumstances
    which may, by, themselves, be sufficient, in the exercise of the
    discretion ~'regarding sentence cannot be exhaustively
    enumerated. The guidelines and principles for classification
     of circumstances and determination of the culpability indicia
F as laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases have been
    succinctly summarized in Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh,
     (2012) 4 sec 257. The said are extracted as under:

         "Aggravating Circumstances:
G        1. The offences relating to the commission of heinous
         crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping etc.
         by the accused with a prior record of conviction for capital
         felony or offences committed by the person having a
         substantial history of serious assaults and criminal
H
         convictions.
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]                 959


2. The offence was committed while the offender was A
engaged in the commission of another serious offence.

3. The offence was committed with the intention to create
a fear psychosis in the public at large and was committed
in a public place by a weapon or device which clearly·        s
could be hazardous to the life of more than one person.

4. The offence of murder was committed for ransom or
like offences to receive money or monetary benefits.

5. Hired killings.                                            c
6. The offence was committed outrageously for want only
while involving inhumane treatment and torture to the
victim.
                                                              D
7. The offence was committed by a person while in lawful
custody.

8. The murder or the offence was committed, to prevent
a person lawfully carrying out his duty like arrest or custody E
in a place of lawful confinement of himself or another.
For instance, murder is of a person who had acted in
lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 Code of
Criminal Procedure.
                                                               F
9. When the crime is enormous in proportion likE:: r.1aking
an attempt of murder of the entire family or members of
a particular community.

10. When the victim is innocent, helpless or a person
relies upon th~ trust of relationship and social norms, like G
a child, helpless woman, a daughter or a niece staying
with a father/uncle and is inflicted with the crime by such
a trusted person.
                                                              H
960    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A     11. When murder is committed for a motive which
      evidences total depravity and meanness.

      12. When there is a cold blooded murder without
      provocation.
B
      13. The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks or
      shocks not o~ly the judicial conscience but even the
      conscience of the society.

      Mitigating Circumstances:
c
      1. The manner and circumstances in and under which
      the offence was committed, for example, extreme mental
      or emotional disturbance or extreme provocation in
      contradistinction to all these situations in normal course.
D
      2. The age of the accused is a relevant consideration
      but not a determinative factor by itself.

      3. The chances of the accused of not indulging in
E     commission of the crime again and the probability of the
      accused being reformed and rehabilitated.

      4. The condition of the accused shows that he was
      mentally defective and the defect impaired his capacity
      to appreciate the circumstances of his criminal conduct.
F
      5. The circumstances which, in normal course of life,
      would render such a behavior possible and could have
      the effect of giving rise to ,mental imbalance in that given
      situation like persistent harassment or, in fact, leading to
G     such a peak of human behavior that, .in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he
      was morally justified in committing the offence.

      6. Where the Court upon proper appreciation of evidence
H     is of the view that the crime was not committed in a pre-
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]                    961


ordained manner and that the death resulted in the course       A
of commission of another crime and that there was a
possibility of it being construed as consequences to the
commission of the primary crime.

7. Where it is absolutely unsafe to rely upon the testimony     B
of a sole eye-witness though prosecution has brought
home the guilt of the accused.

While determining the questions relateable to sentencing
policy, the Court has to follow ~ertain principles and those    c
principles are the loadstar besides the above
considerations in imposition or otherwise of the death
sentence.

Principles:
                                                                D
1. The Court has to apply the test to determine, if it was
the 'rarest of rare' case for imposition of a death sentence.

2. In the opinion of the Court, imposition of any other
punishment, i.e., life imprisonment would be completely         E
inadequate and would not meet the ends of justice.

3. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an
exception.
                                                                F
4. The option to impose sentence of imprisonment for
life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the
nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant
circumstances.

5. The method (planned or otherwise) and the manner G
(extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime
was committed and the circumstances leading to
commission of such heinous crime."

                                                                H
962        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015) 9 S.C.R.


A         24. ltis now settled law that where maximum punishment
   that could be awarded under a provision is death penalty, the
   Courts are required to independently consider facts of each
   case and determine a sentence which is the most appropriate
   and" proportional to the culpability of the accused. It is not
 B sufficient for the Court to decide the quantum of sentence only
   with reference to one of the classes under any one of the head
   of circumstances while completely ignoring classes under the
   other. That is to say, what is required to be considered is not
   just the circumstances by placing them in separate
 C compartments, but their cumulative effect. The Court ought to
   be sufficiently cautious and adherent of the same so as to better
   administer the criminal justice system and provide an effective
   and meaningful reasoning by the Court as contemplated under
   Section 354(3) of the Code while.sentencing.
 0
           25. The aforesaid principles also find reference in
      observations of this Court in Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir v. State
      ofWB.,(2014) 7 sec 443:

 E         "173. Sentencing is a delicate task requiring an
           interdisciplinary approach and calls for special skills
           and talents. A proper sentence is the amalgam of
           many factors, such as, the nature of offence,
           circumstances-extenuating or aggravating-of the
 F         offence, prior criminal record of the offender, age
           and background of the offender with reference to
           education, home life, s·obriety, social adjustment,
           emotional and mental condition, the prospects for
           his rehabilitation, etc. The above passage can be
 G         found in Ratan/al & Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes, 26th
           Edn. at p. 185 on the topic "Of Punishments"."

           26. Mofil Khan v. State ofJharkhand, (2015) 1 SCC
           67 is a case where the appellants-accused had
 H         committed brutal and cold blooded murders of eight
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]           963


persons of their own family successively due to        A
discord over property. This Court while awarding
death penalty to the accused persons noted that
the scope of reformation of the perpetrators of the
crime has been obliterated given the manner of
execution of cold blooded murder of the kin and        B
their conduct after commission of the crime. This
Court observed as follows:

"46. The Crime Test, Criminal Test and the "Rarest
of the Rare" Test are certain tests evolved by this    c
Court. The Tests basically examine whether the
society abhors such crimes and whether such
crimes shock the conscience of the society and
attract intense and extreme indignation of the
community. The cases exhibiting premeditation          D
and meticulous execution of the plan to murder
by levelling a calculated attack on the victim to
annihilate him, have been held to be fit cases for
imposing death penalty. Where innocent minor
children, unarmed persons, helpless women and          E
old and infirm persons have been killed in a brutal
manner by persons in dominating position, and
where after ghastly murder displaying depraved
mentality, the accused have shown no remorse,
                                                       F
death penalty has been imposed. Where it is
established that the accused is a hardened
criminal and has committed murder in a diabolic
manner and where it is felt that reformation and
rehabilitation of such a person is impossible and      G
if let free, he would be a menace to the society,
this Court has not hesitated to confirm death
sentence. Many a time, in cases of brutal murder,
exhibiting depravity and callousness, this Court has
acknowledged the need to send a deterrent              H
964         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A          message to those who may embark on such crimes
           in future. In some cases involving brutal murders,
           society's cry for justice has been taken note of by
           this Court, amongst other relevant factors."
                                           (emphasis supplied)
 B
            27. In Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1, a married
   · couple had murdered the wife's father, mother, sister,
     stepbrother and his whole family including three young ones
 C of 45 days, 2% years and 4 years with the motive of resisting
     her father from giving property to her stepbrother and his family.
     Therein, this Court has held that since the murders were
     committed in a cruel, pre-planned and diabolic manner while
     the victims were sleeping, without any provocation from the
 0 victim's side, it could be concluded the accused persons did
     not possess any basic humanity and lacked the psyche or
     mind-set amenable to any reformation and therefore, the case
     fell within the category of the rarest of rare cases for imposition
     of death penalty. Further, in similar cases where the accused
 E persons had committed murders of their own kith and kin in a
     pre-planned brutal manner, without any remorse or for self-
     defense, this Court has thought it frt to uphold their death penalty
     observing that the manner of commission of crime being
     grotesque and diabolical, the accused persons deserved
 F nothing but death penalty.                                '

   (Ajitsingh Hamamsingh Gujral v. State of Maharashtra, (2011)
   14 sec 401, Atbirv. Govt. (NCTofDelhi), (2010) 9 sec 1,
   Jagdish v. State of M.P, (2009) 12 Scale 580, Saibanna v.
 G State of Kamataka, (2005) 4 SCC 165, State of Rajasthan v.
   Kheraj Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 224 and Suresh v. State of U.P,
   r2001J 3 sec 673.J

        28. Having regard, however, to the conditions in India, to
 H the variety of social upbringing of ~ts citizens, to the disparity
      SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]                 965


in the level of morality·and education in the country, to the A
vastne.ss of its area, to the diversity of its population and to the
paramount need for maintaining law and order in the country
at the present juncture, in evaluating a crime and apportioning
the most appropriate punishment, one of the most important
functions Court performs while making a selection between B
 life imprisonment and death is to maintain a link between
 contemporary community values and the penal system.
 Criminal jurisprudence indicates that society's perceptions of
 a crime with respect to appropriate penalties are not
 conclusive. Concurrently, it also stands that the said standards C
 have always been progressive and acquire meaning as public
 opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice. The scope
 of determining the standards is never precise and rarely static.
 The Courts must thus draw its meaning from the evolving
                                                                     0
·standards of public morality and consciousness that mark the
 progress of a maturing society.

      29. Familial relations play a vital role in describing and
highlighting the qualities of our society. The Indian legal system
today does not differentiate between a son and a daughter- E
they have equal rights and duties. Indian culture has been
witness to for centuries, that daughters dutifully.bear the burden
of being the caregivers for her parents, even more than a son.
Our experience has reflected that an adult daughter places
greater emphasis on their relationships with their parents, and F
when those relationships go awry, it takes a worse toll on the
adult daughters than the adult sons. The modern era, led by
the dawn of education, no longer recognizes the stereotype
that a parent would want a son so that they have someone to G
look after them and support them in their old age. Now, in an
educated and civilized society, a daughter plays a multifaceted
and indispensible role in the family, especially towards her
parents. She is a caregiver and a supporter, a gentle hand
and responsible voice, an embodiment of the cherished values H
966        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A     of our society and in whom a parent places blind faith and
      trust.

        30. Of all the crimes that shock the souls of men, none
  has ever been held in greater abhorrence than parricide, which
 sis by all odds the most complete and terrible inversion, not
  alone of human nature but of brute instinct. Such a deed would
  be sufficiently appalling were the perpetrator and the victims
  are uneducated and backward, but it gains a ghastly illumination
  from the descent, moral upbringing, and elegant respectful
C living of the educated family where the father and daughter
  are both teachers. Here is a case where the daughter, appellant-
  accused Shabnam, who has been brought up in an educated
  and independent environment by her family and was
  respectfully employed as a Shikshamitra (teacher) at the
D school, influenced by the love and lust of her paramour has
  committed this brutal parricide exterminatin9 seven lives
  including that of an innocent child. Not only did she forget her
  love for and duty towards her family, but also perpetrated the
  multiple homicide in her own house so as to fulfill her desire to
E be with the co-accused Salim and grab the property leaving
  no heir but herself. The appellant-co-accused Salim hatched
  the intricate plari with her, slayed the six deceased persons
  with an axe, escaped the crime scene, hid the murder weapon
F and supported the false story of occurrence. Both the
  appellants~accused wrench the heart of our society where
  family is an institution of love and trust, which they have
  disrespected and corrupted for the sake of their love affair.

         31. The appellants-accused have put an end to seven
 G innocent lives while they lay asleep defenseless and
   unsuspecting, in safety of their own house, absolutely unaware
   of the gory scheme of their daughter and her paramour. The
   appellants-accused driven by the opposition to their alliance
 H from the deceased family and alive to the conception of their
..,..         SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]                967


     illegitimate child, had hatched the depraved plan to first A
     administer them sedatives mixed in tea prepared by appellant-
     accused Shabnam, who the family would not raise suspicion
     at, and thereafter, bleeding them to death by slitting the vital
     blood vessels in their throats. The appellants-accused couple
     did not even spare the ten month old infant, who could not have B
     protested to their liaison, and ruthlessly throttled him to death
     so as to leave no survivors for claiming share in the family's
   . property in the future. As soon as the family members were
     rendered dead, while appellant-accused Saleem fled from the
     spot disposing of the murder weapon and other evidence of C
     crime, the appellant-accused Shabnam feigned
     unconsciousness and laid by the side of deceased father's
     mutilated body, to callously insinuate that the crime had been
     committed by an outsider while she was asleep on the roof-
                                                                       0
     top. The appellant-accused lovers have consistently denied
     their guilt throughout the trial and, on the prosecution case
     being proved, stooped down to implicate each other in the
     commission of offence so as to exonerate themselves from
     the consequences of their obnoxious act.                          E
              32. The aggravating circumstances indicate the extreme
        brutal, calculated and diabolical nature of the crime, which
        suggests that there is little likelihood of reform of these accused
        and of their abstaining from future crime. All these features F
        stench of the apathetic attitude of the appellant-accused
        daughter towards her family and mirrors the extent of her
        depravity in schemingly committing the cold blooded murder
        of her own parents, brother, sister-in law and ten-month old
        nephew. This itself triggers intense indignation in the G
        community. It is the combined concoction of all aggravating
        circumstances, that is, victims of the crime, motive for
        commission of murder, manner of execution, magnitude of
        crime and remorseless attitude of the appellants-accused that
        stands before us in this case.                                      H
968       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015]98.C.R. •·


A       33. The mitigating circumstances regarding young age
  of the appellants-accused at the time of commission of crime
  do not bear any significance in terms of outweighing the
  aggravating circumstances of their wanton act. Further, it has
  also been pointed out before us that the appellant-accused
B Shabnam was pregnant at the time of commission of offence
  and the couple now has a dependent minor child. While the
  said circumstances stand as such, it is pertinent to notice that
  this Court has consistently held that such compassionate
  grounds are present in most cases and are not relevant in
C considering commutation of death sentence. The principle that
  when the offence is gruesome and was committed in a
  calculated and diabolical manner, the age of the accused may
  not be a relevant factor, was further affirmed by this Court in
  Mofi/ Khan case( supra). It is however shocking that at the pink
0
  of their youth, the couple indulged in such debased act of
  multiple murders driven by infatuation and exhibited no
  remorse.

       34. Death penalty is not proportional if the law's most
E severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or
  blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by
  reason of youth and immaturity. This however does not seem
  to be the case herein. The appellant-accused persons'
F preparedness, active involvement, scheming execution and
  subsequent conduct reeks of calculated and motivated
  murders. The act of slaughtering a ten month old child by
  strangulation in no chance reflects immature action but
  evidence for the lack of remorse, kindness and humanity. The
G crime is committed in the most cruel and inhuman manner which
  is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and revolting.
  Therefore, as the instant case requires us to award a
  punishment that is graduated and proportioned to the crime,
  we have reached the inescapable conclusion that the extreme
H culpability of both the appellants-accused makes them the most
  deserving for death penalty.
       SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI]               969


      35. In the result, we concur with and confirm the reasons A
recorded by the Trial Court and approved by the High Court
while awarding and confirming the death sentence of the
appellants-accused, respectively. In our considered view, the
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the courts below do not
suffer from any error whatsoever which would call for our B
interference in the sentence awarded to the appellant-accused
persons.

     36. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. The
Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten      C
Th9usand Only) to the learned amicus curiae in each case.

Kalpana K. Tripathy                          Appeals dismissed.