On July 16, the Supreme Court revised a previous judgment, commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, to be served for the entire natural life of the appellant involved in a serious case concerning a minor.
Though acknowledging the severity of the crime, the Court held that the lower courts focused only on the harsh nature of the act, without weighing other essential legal considerations like mitigating circumstances. A bench led by Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta found that both the trial court and the High Court did not assess whether the case truly met the “rarest of rare” threshold required for capital punishment.
Referring to earlier rulings such as Gudda v. State of M.P. (2013) and Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023), the apex court emphasized a two-step process: first, courts must analyze aggravating and mitigating factors; second, they must determine if life imprisonment is inadequate.
The top court reviewed psychological reports and background information, revealing that the appellant came from a financially weak family, began working at a young age, and showed no behavioral issues while in custody. These findings helped the Court decide that life imprisonment without remission was more appropriate than the death penalty.
However, the conviction itself was upheld, as the evidence presented was found to be beyond reasonable doubt.