LAW FOR ALL

commuting the death sentence= considering the age of the accused, the possibility of reforming him cannot be ruled out. He cannot be termed as social menace. Further, the case does not fall under the “rarest of rare” category. We, therefore, are unable to uphold the death sentence. 48. For the reasons aforesaid we are commuting the death sentence of accused-Lalit Kumar Yadav alias Kuri to that of life imprisonment but affirm the rest part of the conviction and sentence = This Court in Ramnaresh and others v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257, applying the various principles to the facts of the said case and taking into consideration the age of the accused, possibility of the death of the deceased occurring accidently and the possibility of the accused reforming themselves held that the accused cannot be termed as social menace and commuted the sentence of death to that of life imprisonment (21 years). 42. In the present case, on the question of quantum of sentence the argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the accused was young at the time of commission of offence i.e. 21 years of age, that he had no intention to kill the deceased and there is no past criminal antecedent. 43. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state contended that it was a heinous crime and the case of the appellant is similar like the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee (supra). 44. We have noticed the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee (supra). In the said case accused was a security guard and was responsible for providing security to the residents of the flats. Instead of that he used to tease a young girl child of one of the lady residents. On the complaint of the lady resident, he was transferred. To avenge the same he went up to the flat of the lady and committed rape on her daughter and then murdered her brutally. That was a case where the protector of residents becomes the offender. 45. The case of the appellant is not similar. The Trial Court and the High Court wrongly held that the case of the appellant is similar to that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee. 46. In the present case, the circumstantial evidence comes to only one conclusion that appellant attempted to commit rape and because of resistance he committed the murder of the deceased. The appellant was aged about 21 years at the time of offence. Initially when the matter for confirmation of death sentence was heard by the two learned Judges of the High Court there was a divided opinion, one Judge confirmed the death sentence while the other acquitted the appellant. It is the other Bench which affirmed the death sentence. It is not the case of the Prosecution that the appellant cannot be reformed. In fact the possibility of his reformation cannot be ruled out. There is no criminal antecedent of the appellant. The Court has to consider different parameters as laid down in Bachan Singh (supra) followed by Machhi Singh (supra) and balance the mitigating circumstances against the need for imposition of capital punishment. 47. While we apply the various principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that considering the age of the accused, the possibility of reforming him cannot be ruled out. He cannot be termed as social menace. Further, the case does not fall under the “rarest of rare” category. We, therefore, are unable to uphold the death sentence. 48. For the reasons aforesaid we are commuting the death sentence of accused-Lalit Kumar Yadav alias Kuri to that of life imprisonment but affirm the rest part of the conviction and sentence. The appeal is partly allowed only with regard to the quantum of sentence.= LALIT KUMAR YADAV @ KURI … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH … RESPONDENTS = 2014 (April. Part)http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41472