STATE NCT OF DELHIversusAJIT SETH @ AJJI

                 [2010] 10 S.C.R. 343


                  STATE NCT OF DELHI                            A
                              V.
                    AJIT SETH @ AJJI
            (Criminal appeal No. 1059 of 2004)
                     AUGUST 17, 2010
                                                                B
      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI
                  KR.PRASAD, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:
                                                                c
     ss. 302 and 364 - Two children aged 3 and 7, burnt to
death by friend of their mother - Conviction by trial court with
death sentence - High Court commuted the sentence and
directed that accused should not be released unless he had
served at least 20 years of imprisonment - Appeal by State D
- HELD: The Court endorses the finding of the trial court that
crime committed by the accused was indeed barbaric and
called for no mercy - But in view of the facts that pending
appeal the accused has already completed his sentence of
20 years and has been released, it would be a complete
travesty of justice to allow the appeal and to award a capital E
sentence at this stage - This is indeed a sorry case and
indicates the hardship and inequity that can ensue to an
accused, the prosecution and the victims in the case of a
delayed trial or delay in disposal of an appeal -
Administration of Criminal Justice - Delay in trial/appeal.      F
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1059 of 2004.

    From the Judgment and order dated 01.10.2001 of the G
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of
1999 and Murder Reference No. 1 of 99.

    Mohan Jain, ASG J.S. Attri and Brijender Chahar, SWA

                             343                                H
    344       SUPkt:ME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   Qadri, Saina Bakshi, Niraj Jha, Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra
    for the Appellant.

        R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Amit Wadhwa and P.P.
    Singh for the Respondent.
B         The following Order of the Court was delivered

                                 ORDER

         This is indeed a sorry case aiid indicates thehardship and
C   inequity that can ensue to an accused, theprosecution and the
    victims in the case of a delayed trialor the delay in the disposal
    of an appeal.

        Two young children, Sunny Arora aged about sevenyears
    and his sister Shikha Arora, aged about three and half years,
D   were burnt to death by the respondent Ajit Seth as he was
    under the impression that they were carrying tales of his illicit
    connection with their mother lndu, co-accused, to their father.

         The Trial Court, relying on the dying declarations made by
E   the deceased children, convicted the respondent for offences
    punishable under Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC but
    acquitted lndu, and on the question of sentence observed as
    under:

          "25. To sum up, the special reasons for imposing the death
F   sentence are that the murders were pre-meditated; the manner
    of commission of murders was brutal and diabolical and shocks
    the judicial conscience as the two innocent children were
    roasted alive; accused was in a position of domination and trust
    vis.-a-vis. the two deceased children the accused killed the two
G   children for the selfish motive of posse-:sing his women which
    exhibits his depraved mentality and meanness.

          26. In view of my discussion above the accused Ajit Seth
          is sentenced as below:
H
     STATE NCT OF DELHI v. AJIT SETH @ AJJI                     345


            (a) U/s. 302 IPC the accused is sentenced to death.         A
            However, the sentence shall not e executed till its
            confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court u/s 366
            Cr.P.C.

            (b) U/s. 364 IPC the accused is sentenced to R.I.           8
            for 1O years. He is also fined Rs.1000/- In default
            of payment of fine he shall further undergo R.I. for
            one month. The period of detention undergone by
            the accused during the investigation of trial of this
            case shall be set off against the sentence awarded          C
            to him u/s. 364 IPC.

    The proceedings are hereby submitted to the Hon'ble High
    Court of Delhi for confirmation of the death sentence
    passed u/s. 302 IPC and the accused is committed to the
    jail custody under a separate warrant."                             D

    The matter was therefore remitted to the High Court under
Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. for the confirmation of the death
sentence and an appeal was also filed by the accused
respondent in the High Court.                                           E
     The High Court by its judgment dated 1st October 2001
held that though the crime committed by the respondent was
indeed heinous and barbaric but it still did not fall in the category
of the "rarest of rare cases". The death reference was
accordingly disallowed and the appeal of the respondent was             F
dismissed with the following observations:

     "We convert the death sentence of the appellant into life
     imprisonment with a direction that the appellant shall
     undergo the sentence of imprisonment for life and he shall         G
     not be released from the prison unless he has served at
     least 2.0 years of imprisonment including the period already
     undergone by him. Rest of the sentence will remain the
     same."

     It is the conceded position that the appellant has, of now,        H
    346       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A undergone more than 20 years of the sentence and has also
  been released in April 2010. We see that the SLP had been
  filed in the year 2002 and leave was granted two years later.
  In the light of the fact that the appellant has already completed
  his sentence of 20 years and has been released it would be a
B complete travesty of justice to allow this Appeal and to award
  a capital sentence at this stage. We endorse the finding of the
  Trial Court that the crime committed by the respondent was
  indeed barbaric and called for no mercy but in the face of the
  facts given above, to send the respondent to the gallows at this
c stage too would be completely unjustified.
           The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

    R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.