Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Acid Attack Case: Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: January 17, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 28

Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a death sentence be upheld when the crime, though heinous, does not demonstrate exceptional depravity? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a man convicted of murder by acid attack. The court ultimately commuted the death sentence, emphasizing that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. This judgment highlights the importance of considering mitigating factors and the need for a cautious approach when imposing capital punishment. The bench comprised Justices S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao, and R. Subhash Reddy, with the judgment authored by Justice S.A. Bobde.

Case Background

The appellant, Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) for the murder of Smt. Ruby by pouring acid on her. The incident occurred on the night of July 21, 2013, in Porsa. The appellant was also convicted for injuring Smt. Chandrakala (grandmother of the deceased), Raju (nephew of the deceased), and Janu (brother of the deceased) with acid. The Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to death for murder, life imprisonment on three counts, and other penalties. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, upheld the death sentence. The appellant was out on bail in another murder case when he committed this crime.

The deceased, Ruby, was married to Mr. Sanjay Gupta and had two children. The appellant had an affair with Ruby, which led to her husband suspecting her and harassing her. Ruby then went to live with her maternal uncle. The appellant pressured Ruby’s father to bring her back to Porsa and threatened him with dire consequences if he did not comply.

On the night of the incident, the family was sleeping with their doors open due to the summer heat. The appellant entered Ruby’s room and warned her that if she would not live with him, he would not let her live with anyone else. He then threw acid on her. The screams of the deceased woke up her father, Dataram, who saw the appellant running away. The appellant also threw acid on other family members who tried to help Ruby.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The appellant was convicted under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 326A, IPC: Deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
• Section 460, IPC: Deals with all persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, punishable where death or grievous hurt is caused by one of them.

Arguments

The counsel for the State vehemently urged the imposition of the death sentence, primarily because the appellant committed the crime while out on bail in another murder case where his conviction had been upheld. The State argued that this showed a pattern of violent behavior and a disregard for the law.

The defense argued against the death penalty, emphasizing that the circumstances of the present case did not warrant such a severe punishment. They contended that the crime was a result of a personal dispute and not a cold-blooded, premeditated act of violence. The defense also highlighted the lack of any specific depravity or brutality that would classify the case as the ‘rarest of the rare’.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether there are special reasons as to why the appellant should be sentenced to death.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the principle that the death penalty should be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases and that mitigating factors should be given liberal consideration.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, Supreme Court of India: This case further classified instances of ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the death sentence can be justifiably imposed.
• Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This provision deals with sentencing and states that for persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684]* which held that the death penalty should be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases and that mitigating factors should be given liberal consideration.
• The Court also followed Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470]* which classified instances of ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the death sentence can be justifiably imposed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was primarily influenced by the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. The Court emphasized that while the crime was undoubtedly heinous, it did not exhibit the exceptional depravity or brutality that would justify capital punishment. The Court also considered the lack of premeditation to cause death, noting that the intention might have been to severely injure or disfigure, rather than to kill. The Court further considered the mitigating factors, such as the lack of a pattern of violence directly related to the present case, and the fact that the previous murder case was unrelated to the current incident. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the death penalty is an exception, and life imprisonment is the rule.

The Court observed, “It is possible that what was premeditated was an injury and not death.” The Court further stated, “We have not made the above observation in any way to condone the acts of the appellant but merely to hold that there appear to be no special reasons in the present case that warrants an imposition of a death sentence on the Appellant.” The Court also noted, “A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”

Key Takeaways

• The death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases, where the crime exhibits exceptional depravity and brutality.
• Mitigating factors, such as the lack of premeditation to cause death and the absence of a direct pattern of violence, should be given due consideration.
• Life imprisonment is the rule, and the death penalty is an exception.
• The intention behind the crime, whether to kill or merely to injure, is a crucial factor in determining the appropriate sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence imposed by the High Court and directed that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for life.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, where the crime exhibits exceptional depravity and brutality. The judgment reinforces the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty is an exception. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of considering mitigating factors and the need for a cautious approach when imposing capital punishment. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment clarifies and reinforces the existing principles related to the imposition of the death penalty.

Conclusion

In the case of Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. The Court considered the circumstances of the crime, the lack of premeditation to cause death, and the mitigating factors, concluding that the case did not warrant capital punishment. This judgment reinforces the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty is an exception, and it highlights the importance of a cautious approach when imposing capital punishment.

Category

Parent category: Criminal Law

Child categories: Murder, Acid Attack, Sentencing, Death Penalty

Parent category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child category: Section 326A, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child category: Section 460, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether the death penalty should be imposed in a case of murder by acid attack, particularly when the accused was already convicted in another murder case.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing that the death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare cases.

Q: What are the key factors that the Supreme Court considered while commuting the death sentence?
A: The Supreme Court considered factors such as the lack of exceptional depravity or brutality in the crime, the possibility that the intention was to injure rather than kill, and the mitigating factors related to the accused’s personal circumstances.

Q: What does “rarest of rare” mean in the context of the death penalty?
A: “Rarest of rare” refers to the principle that the death penalty should only be imposed in the most exceptional cases, where the crime is extremely heinous and there are no mitigating circumstances.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty is an exception. It also highlights the importance of considering mitigating factors and the need for a cautious approach when imposing capital punishment.