1

A LIST OF CASES OF RAPE AND MURDER IN THE SUPREME COURT, WHERE THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE DEATH PENALTY
The table indicates mitigating circumstances which the court has considered in those cases where it has awarded life imprisonment. It does not indicate mitigating circumstances
considered where the Court has imposed the Death Sentence. In the cases where the death sentence has been awarded, the aggravating circumstances have been indicated.

S. Age of Age of
Name of the Sentence
No. the the Mitigating Circumstance Aggravating Circumstance
Case/Citation awarded
Victim Accused
1. Jumman Khan v. State of
U.P. 6 Death
(1991) 1 SCC 752
2. Lakshman Naik v. State Accused was the uncle of the deceased.
of Orissa 7 Death Deceased was 7 years of age, helpless. Brutal
(1994) 3 SCC 381 rape, calculated and cold blooded.
3. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. Gruesome and brutal rape and murder. Faith
State of West Bengal 18 27 Death of society shaken, as a security guard was in
(1994) 2 SCC 220 a position of trust.
4. Accused was close to the family deceased.
Kamta Tiwari v. State of
Appellant betrayed the faith imposed by the
Madhya Pradesh 7 Death No mitigating circumstances
victim. Disposed the body in a well.
(1996) 6 SCC 250
Deceased was 7 years old.
5. Ronny v. State of A1-35 Possibility of reform and rehabilitation
Life
Maharashtra 45 A2-35 cannot be ruled out. No evidence about
imprisonment
(1998) 3 SCC 625 A3-25 exact role of each of the three accused.
6. Adult
State of Tamil Nadu v.
female Looks at victim, a young, pregnant
Suresh Death
(most housewife.
(1998) 2 SCC 372
likely)
7. Kumudi Lal v. State of
Life Not rarest of rare. Initial consent of the
Uttar Pradesh 14
imprisonment victim.
(1999) 4 SCC 108
8.
Murder wasnt pre-meditated, death caused
Akhtar v. Stat of U.P. Young Life
due to asphyxia. Therefore, not rarest of
(1999) 6 SCC 60 girl Imprisonment
rare.

9.
Molai v. State of M.P.,
(1999)9 SCC 581
10. State of Maharashtra v.
Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471
11. 1 Bantu v. State of M.P.
1 (2001) 9 SCC 615
.
12. 1
2 revealed that there was no intention to kill
. Raju v. State of Haryana
(2001) 9 SCC 50
13. 1
Mohd. Chaman v. State
3 1 1/2
(2001) 2 SCC 28
. exercise, must take humanist approach.
14. 1 State of Maharashtra v.
4 Bharat Fakira
. (2002) 1 SCC 622
15. 1 Amit v. State of
5 Maharashtra
. (2003) 8 SCC 93
16. 1
Surender Pal v. State of
6 Life
Gujarat
. imprisonment
(2005) 3 SCC 127
17. 1 State of Maharashtra v.
7 Mansingh
. (2005) 3 SCC 131
18. 1 State of Uttar Pradesh v.
8 Satish
. (2005) 3 SCC 114
2
Counsel for the accused couldnt make out
Death
16 any mitigating factor, the death sentence is
Sentence
the only appropriate punishment.
Since the accused was acquitted by the HC,
Life
4 the option of life sentence is not
Imprisonment
unquestionably foreclosed.
Life
6 22 Not rarest of rare.
Imprisonment
Confession statement of the accused would
Life the child. No premeditation. Nothing on
11
imprisonment record to indicate that the accused had
previous criminal record or to say that he
would be danger to the society.
Cannot be said that accused is a dangerous
Life
30 person. Not rarest of rare. After balancing
imprisonment
Acquittal by the High Court, therefore not
Life
3 inclined to interfere. Lesser option is not
imprisonment
unquestionably foreclosed.
Young man, student, no record of previous
Life
11-12 20 crime and no evidence that he will be a
imprisonment
danger to the society.
No involvement in previous crime, migrant
labour from UP, impecunious and cannot
Minor 36
be said that he would be a menace to the
society.
Life
Not rarest of rare on the facts of the case.
imprisonment
Deceased was 6 years old, rarest of rare.
6 Death
Punishment must be proportionate to crime.
 3

19. 1 Young age of accused (24). No report

Rahul v. State of
9 Life furnished by probationary officer or jail
Maharashtra 4 1/2 24
. imprisonment authorities. No previous criminal record.
(2005) 10 SCC 322
Will not be a menace to the society.
20. 2 No premeditation, momentary lapse, rape
Amrit Singh v. State of
0 Life may be brutal but death occurred due to
Punjab 7-8 31
. imprisonment excessive bleeding and not strangulation.
(2006) 12 SCC 79
Not rarest of rare.
21. 2 Shivu v. High Court of
Gruesome nature of the crime. Previous
1 Karnataka 18 20, 22 Death
attempt to rape.
. (2007) 4 SCC 713
22. 2 Confessional statement of the accused
Bishnu Prasad Sinha v.
2 Life before the Magistrate. Accused statement
State of Assam(2007) 11 7-8
. imprisonment u/s 313 demonstrates remorse and no
SCC 467
intention to kill the child.
23. 2 Two
Mohan Anna Chavan v.
3 minors,
State of Maharashtra, Death
. less than
(2008) 7 SCC 561 Sentence
10 years
of age
24. 2 Deceased was 9 years old. Accused was her
4 Shivaji v. State of neighbour and the deceased reposed faith in
. Maharashtra 9 Death him. Accused assaulted her with a sharp
(2008) 15 SCC 269 edged weapon. Death Sentence wont be set
aside because the evidence is circumstantial.
25. 2 Deceased was 6 years old. Accused was her
5 Bantu v. State of U.P. neighbour. Supreme Court did not highlight
5 Death
. (2008) 11 SCC 113 any aggravating circumstance. Falls in rarest
of rare, since crime is so depraved.
26. 2
Ankush Maruti Shinde & Mass
6 Court relied on HCs balancing of
Ors. V. State of murder,
. Death aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
Maharastra younges
which held that aggravating outweighed and
(2009) 6 SCC 667 t is 15
shocked collective conscience. (Collective
 4

sentencing exercise)

27. 2 Santosh Kumar Singh v. Appellant young man of 24. Possibility of

Adult Life
7 State 24 reform cannot be ruled out. Is a now
woman imprisonment
. (2010) 9 SCC 747 married man with a girl child.
28. This Court commuted the death sentence
Sebastian v. State of Life to life imprisonment in terms of Swami
2 24
Kerala (2010) 1 SCC 58 imprisonment Shraddhananda judgment due to young age
of the appellant.
29. 2 Deceased was 7 years old. Gruesome nature
8 of the rape and murder. Preplanned
Mohd. Mannan v. State
. 7 43 Death kidnapping, rape and murder. Shocked
of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317
collective conscience, and falls under rarest
of rare.
30. 2 Haresh Mohandas v. No reason to believe that accused cannot
Life
9 State of Maharashtra 10 be reformed or rehabilated. Does not fall
imprisonment
. (2011) 12 SCC 56 under rarest of rare.
31. 3 Ramesh Bhai v. State of Imprisonment Married person with two daughters. No
0 Gujarat 9 28 for rest of the criminal antecedent and not a threat to the
. (2011) 2 SCC 764 natural life. society.
32. Looking at age of the accused, his
impecunious circumstance (a daily wage
Purna Chandra Kusal v. Life
5 30 labourer), case of circumstantial evidence,
State of Orisaa imprisonment
court should be cautious in granting the
death sentence.
33. 3
State of U.P. v. Sanjay Not rarest of rare. Option of awarding life
1 Life
Kumar 18 imprisonment not unquestionably
. imprisonment
(2012) 8 SCC 537 foreclosed.
34. 3 Age of the victim was 3 years. Brutality of the
Rajendra Vasnik v. State
2 rape and murder. Accused was living under a
of Maharashtra 3 31 Death
. false identity and abused a relationship of
(2012) 4 SCC 37
trust.
 5

35. 3 Ram Naresh & Ors. v. Age of accused, possibility of death having
Adult Life
3 State of U.P. occurred accidentally, cant rule out
female Imprisonment
. (2012) 4 SCC 257 possibility of reform. Not rarest of rare.
36. 3 Young person aged 28, possibility of reform
4 Amit v. State of U.P., Life not ruled out. No criminal record, and
3 28
. (2012) 4 SCC 107 Imprisonment nothing to suggest he will continue to
commit these crimes in the future
37. 3 30 years
Neel Kumar v. State of
5 imprisonment Did not fall within rarest of rare. Rape and
Haryana 4
. without murder of daughter by father.
(2012) 5 SCC 766
remission
38. 3 Mere pendency of criminal cases and not
Shankar Kisanrao v. State
6 Life conviction cannot be an aggravating
of Maharashtra 11 52
. imprisonment circumstances. Reform and rehabilitation
(2013) 5 SCC 546
test satisfied.
39. 3
Since incident occurred in 2012, and
7 State of U.P. v. Munesh, Life
11 acquittal of the HC was set aside, life
. (2012) 9 SCC 742 Imprisonment
imprisonment was considered appropriate.
40. Chhote Lal v. State of Imprisonment
Madhya Pradesh 10 for rest of Applied the test laid down in Mulla.
(2013) 9 SCC 795 natural life.
41. 3 Despite the circumstances, life
8 State of Rajasthan v. imprisonment granted since it had been 9
Life
. Jamil Khan Below 5 21-31 years since the HC commuted the sentence
imprisonment
(2013) 10 SCC 721 to life and it would be unfair to change it at
this stage.
42. 3 Not rarest of rare. No special reasons,
State of Rajasthan v.
9 Life which considers both crime and criminal,
Balveer
. imprisonment were recorded. Character of accused not of
(2013) 16 SCC 321
extreme depravity.
43. 4 Ram Deo Prasad v. State 18 years Faulty investigation, improper according of
0 of Bihar 4 imprisonment statement u/s 313 and accused did not have
. AIR 2014 SC (Suppl.) 113 without sufficient resources to engage a lawyer of
 6

remission his choice.

44. 4
Vasanta Sampath v. State Age of the victim is 4 years. No remorse
1
of Maharashtra 4 47 Death shown by the accused. He was a history
.
(2015) 1 SCC 253 sheeter. Preying upon defenceless children.
45. 4 TC and HC did not discuss special
2 reasons required by s. 354(3), good
B. Kumar v. Inspector of
. Adult Life behaviour on part of the appellant shows
Police
woman Imprisonment that reform cant be ruled out, therefore
(2015) 2 SCC 346
case doesnt fall in rarest of rare. No pre-
meditation and no motive for murder.
46. 4
3 Purushottham Dashrath Age and dependants of the accused cannot
. Borate & Anr. v. State of Adult be paramount mitigating circumstances; lack
Death
Maharashtra female of criminal antecedents cannot be considered
(2015) 6 SCC 652 given heinous nature of the crime.

47. 4 30 years
Anil v. State of Not rarest of rare. No previous criminal
4 imprisonment
Maharashtra 10 35 history. Possibility of reformation not ruled
. without
(2014) 4 SCC 69 out.
remission
48. 4 30 years
5 Selvam v. State imprisonment
9
. AIR 2014 SC 1911 without
remission
49. 4 35 years
Raj Kumar v. State of Not rarest of rare. For death sentence, there
7 imprisonment
Madhya Pradesh 14 32 should be aggravating circumstances and
. without
(2014) 5 SCC 353 absence of mitigating factors.
remission.