1REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 802-803 OF 2015(@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.6520-6521 of 2013)

Shabnam Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. Respondent(s)

W I T H

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 804-805 OF 2015(@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 6528-6529 of 2013)

Saleem Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

H.L. DATTU, CJI.

1. Leave granted in all the Special LeavePetitions.2. These appeals are directed against thecommon judgment and order passed by the High Court

2of Judicature at Allahabad in the two connectedappeals- Capital Cases Nos. 5003 and 5245 of 2010along with Capital Reference No. 8 of 2010, dated26.04.2013. By the impugned judgment and order, theHigh Court has confirmed the judgment ofconviction, dated 14.07.2010 and order of sentence,dated 15.07.2010, passed by the learned SessionsJudge in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2008, wherebyand whereunder the learned Sessions Judge hasconvicted the appellants-accused for offence underSection 302 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) andsentenced them to death.

3. At the outset, it would be pertinent tonotice that learned amicus curiae, Shri DushyantParashar, appearing for the two appellants-accusedhas limited his submissions only to the question ofsentence. Therefore, the scope of these appealsstand restricted to the determination ofappropriate sentence for the offence committed bythe appellants-accused.

3Facts:4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is: onthe intervening night of 14/15.04.2008, eightpersons of the family were present at the residenceof Master Shaukat Ali (deceased father), besideshimself; his wife Smt. Hashmi (deceased mother),their daughter Shabnam (the appellant-accused),their younger son Rashid (deceased youngerbrother), their minor niece Rabia (deceasedcousin), their elder son Aneesh Ahmad and his wifeAnjum (deceased couple) along with their 10 monthold son Arsh. At about 02:15 A.M. on the fatefulnight, upon hearing the cries of appellant-accusedShabnam, their neighbor Lateef Ullah Khan (PW-1)along with other neighbours reached the house. PW-1entered the house and found Shabnam lyingunconscious near the dead body of her deceasedfather, whose neck was cut and also discovered thedead body of deceased younger brother with slitthroat. Further, in another room, PW-1 discoveredthe dead bodies of the deceased wife, deceasedcouple and deceased cousin lying in a pool ofblood, with their respective necks cut. The dead

4body of 10 month-old infant, Arsh, was also foundbetween the dead bodies of his parents. Immediatelythereafter, PW-1 raised an alarm gathering theneighbours and informed the investigatingauthorities of the incident. Accordingly, CaseCrime No. 880 of 2008 was recorded on the basis ofinformation received from PW-1, and an FIR wasregistered under Section 302 of the IPC againstunknown persons for the murder of seven members ofthe family, in Police Station Hasanpur at 03:05A.M. on 15.04.2008. Neither PW-1 nor HashmatHussain (PW-2), i.e. the neighbour residingopposite to the house of the deceased persons, hadconversed with the appellant-accused Shabnam beforeapproaching the investigative authorities.

5. The investigative agency reached the spot,prepared the inquest report and dispatched the deadbodies for post-mortem. Further, blood-stainedpillows, mattress, quilt, rope of cot, etc. foundnear the respective dead bodies were duly sealed,marked, taken into possession and sent for furtheranalysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory,

5Moradabad (for short, the FSL). Dr. Deewan Ram(PW-24) conducted the post-mortem on the deadbodies of diseased father, infant and the youngerbrother and Dr. R.P. Sharma (PW-27) conducted thepost-mortem on the remaining deceased persons. Uponfurther investigation, both the appellants-accused,namely Saleem and Shabnam, were arrested.Recoveries of the murder weapon- axe and ablood-stained shirt were made at the instance ofSaleem. Further, a Nokia mobile phone, one emptywrapper of 10 bio-pose tablets, blood stainedcloths, mobile SIM of Saleem, etc. were recoveredfrom Shabnams possession. Additionally, the callrecords and details for conversations between theappellants-accused were also obtained.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that theaccused persons were involved in a love affair andan illicit physical relationship. Whileappellant-accused Shabnam is the educated daughterof the deceased family, working as a Shikshamitra(teacher), the appellant-accused Saleem is anunemployed youth residing in the same village. It

6is established that the appellant-accused Shabnamwas pregnant at the time of commission of theinstant gruesome murders. The prosecution has putforth the motive for commission of the offence toeliminate the appellant-accused Shabnams familywho were vehemently opposed to their relationshipand secure the entire property of the familycreating financial security for themselves. 7. Upon completion of the investigation, thechargesheet was drawn and the appellants-accusedwere charged with the offence under Sections 302read with 34 of the IPC, further Shabnam wascharged separately under Section 302 of the IPC.The appellant-accused had denied their guilt andthus, the case was committed to trial.

8. The prosecution has examined 29 witnesses,documentary evidence (Exhibit Ka-1 to Ka-101), FSLReports (Exhibit Ka-102 to Ka-112) and recordedstatements of the appellant-accused persons underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short, the Code).9. The post-mortem reports have indicated the

7cause of death of deceased father, mother, youngerbrother, cousin and the couple as shock andhemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries, namelymultiple incised wounds caused by a sharp edgeweapon and a cut on the front of neck. Further,inner-linings of the stomach of deceased personswere recorded as red and swollen, concluding thatintoxicating substances were ingested before death.The cause of death for deceased infant was recordedas asphyxia and ante-mortem injuries caused bymeans of throttling and strangulation with hand. 10. It is a case of circumstantial evidence,there being no eye-witness to the incident. Thetestimony of neighbours, namely PW-1 and PW-2, hascorroboratively supported the prosecution story andestablished that the main door to the house waslocked from the inside when they had rushed towardsthe house after hearing the cries ofappellant-accused Shabnam. They have stated thatwhen they broke into the house, they did not noticeany bedcovers on or around the roof of the house asalleged by the appellant-accused Shabnam in herstatement recorded under Section 313 of the Code,

8instead that her bedding was prepared near hermothers bed.

11. Further, Mahendra Singh, Block Head of thevillage (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad, tea-seller (PW-6)have testified regarding confession ofappellant-accused Saleem before them andcorroborated the factum and manner of thecommission of the offence as follows: theappellants-accused had planned to kill her familyand on the fateful day the former brought andhanded over 10 intoxicating tablets to the latter,which she administered to her family members intea. The family members being unconscious, Saleemreached her house with the murder weapon and asShabnam held the heads of her family members,Saleem kept cutting their necks one-by-one. Uponcommission of crime, Saleem threw away the murderweapon in a pond. They have also testified to thefact that appellant-accused Shabnam has herselfthrottled the infant. Rais Ahmad, witness at thepharmacy (PW-8) has stated that Saleem, on thefateful morning, had attempted to purchase sleeping

9pills from the pharmacy, but only finally managedto acquire the same from one Pappu. His statementhas been incontrovertibly supported by MobilHussain, the pharmacist (PW-11).

12. The statements of other witnesses haveconfirmed the illicit relationship between theappellants-accused which was against the wishes oflatters family and that the two lover would meetat night.

13. In their defence, the appellants-accusedhave denied the charges against them and pleadedfalse implication. They have, in fact, sought toimplicate each other in their defence.Appellant-accused Shabnam, in her Section 313statement has stated that Saleem had entered thehouse with a knife through the roof and killed allher family members while she was asleep alone onthe roof. To the contrary, Saleem, has stated thathe reached the house only at the request of Shabnamwhere she had confessed commission of crime to him.

14. The Trial Court, after meticulous

10

marshalling of facts and thorough scrutiny ofavailable evidence, has observed that the evidenceon record including post-mortem reports and witnessstatements has established a continuous andconsistent link in the chain of events andthoroughly supported the prosecution story. TheTrial Court has concluded that theappellants-accused deranged by the opposition totheir illicit relationship had hatched a gruesomemurder plan which they had executed by firstrendering the family unconscious by administeringsleeping pills through tea at the hands of Shabnam,and thereafter slicing their throats by an axewhile they lay in a comatose state. Therefore, theTrial Court has concluded that the link in chain ofevents having been established and corroboratedunquestionably confirms the guilt ofappellants-accused for the brutal murder of sevenpersons and thereby, convicted them for offenceunder Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC.

15. In the order of sentence, the Trial Courthas observed that the crime committed by

11

appellants-accused is enormous in proportion. Theyare convicted of multiple successive murders ofseven persons of co-accused Shabnams familyincluding her innocent ten month old nephew, oldhelpless mother, old father, one young couple- herbrother and sister-in-law, one young boy and asixteen years old cousin. The Trial Courtconsidered the motive behind ruthless murders,pre-planned execution, manner of commission ofcrime, the personality of deceased persons who wererespectable and loved members of the community, thestand of the deceased persons who were only againstthe marriage of their educated daughter,appellant-accused Shabnam with the uneducatedunemployed co-accused Saleem and the remorselessconduct of the appellants-accused after the murderas aggravating circumstances and in conclusion, hasrecorded that the instant case falls in thecategory of rarest of the rare requiring apunishment not less than death penalty for theoffence committed by the appellants-accused.Therefore, the Trial Court has sentenced the twoappellants to death.

12

16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment andorder, the appellants-accused had approached theHigh Court in Capital Cases Nos. 5003 and 5245 of2010. The High Court has disposed of the saidappeal along with the Capital Reference No. 8 of2010 by a common judgment and order, dated26.04.2013. 17. The High Court has examined the evidence onrecord strand by strand in light of theobservations made by the Trial Court and thesubmissions put forth by learned counsel appearingfor the parties and confirmed the judgment ofconviction passed by the Trial Court. The HighCourt has concluded that the scale of aggravatingand mitigating circumstances is heavily tiltedtowards the aggravating circumstances in thepresent case and observed as under:

we find that in the present case, theaggravating circumstances would include thediabolical and calculated nature of the crimewhich was committed after methodical planning.Biopose sedative tablets appear to have beenobtained by the appellant Shabnam with the

13

help of Saleem, and were mixed in some foodsubstance which was given to all the 6 grownup family members, all of whom were murderedwith an axe in their sleep. Their bodies werefound in their beds, with no injuries on thearms or hands of any deceased. All theinjuries were on the neck, face or trunkregions which supports the hypothesis that themurders were committed when the deceased hadbeen strongly sedated. The visceras of allthese 6 grown up deceased indicated thepresence of diazepam tranquilizer. The axewhich was got discovered by the appellantSaleem contained human blood. No mercy waseven showed to the 10 month old child Arsh whowas strangulated, and thus the only otherperson from the household who could haveinherited the property was also eliminated. The subsequent conduct of the accused Shabnamin removing all signs of the crime, bychanging her clothes, removing any signs, andfinger prints etc. and then raising an alarmfor help and thereafter pretending to beunconscious for creating an impression thatsome outsiders had committed this crime, allindicate the cold blooded planning before,during and after the commission of the crime.

(emphasis supplied)

18. Further, the High Court has refused to

14

accept the submission that the appellant-accusedShabnam was under great mental stress due to theopposition from her family to the relationshipbetween her and the other co-accused and the sameis a fit mitigating circumstance. The High Courthas noticed that there was no evidence of anythreat or any incident of attack on the lives orperson of the two appellants-accused by thedeceased persons and that the elimination of allseven members of Shabnams family, including theten month old child was a grossly disproportionateand uncalled for reaction to any apprehensions thatthe appellants-accused may have received regardingtheir proposed alliance. The High Court has furthernoticed that features of the criminal mind ofappellants-accused can be inferred from thepre-planned finesse with which the crime iscommitted, manner of commission of crime andremorseless attitude of the appellants-accusedpersons both- before and after the crime. The HighCourt has thus concluded that the aforesaid conductof the appellants-accused persons renders thembeyond reformation and observed as under:

15

Shabnam's pregnancy and subsequent deliveryof child, no ground for reducing sentence. Itwas also contended that Shabnam was carrying achild in her womb whom she has delivered injail and who would be orphaned if theappellants are executed. In most murder casesthe accused have minor children, or agedparents or a spouse who would be bereaved ifthe convict is executed. This according to theSupreme Court in Sevaka Perumal v State ofTamil Nadu, 1991 Cri.L.J. 845 (SC) cannotprovide a legitimate reason for not awardingthe death penalty, if the case is one, wherelooking to the heinous nature of the crime andthe criminal a death penalty is the onlyappropriate sentence.

Thus, in light of the aforesaid considerations, theHigh Court has thought it fit to classify thepresent case as rarest of rare and award deathpenalty to the appellate-accused persons. 19. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction andsentence, the accused-appellants are before us inthis appeal.

Submissions

20. The learned amicus for the appellants wouldrestrict his arguments only to the question of

16

sentence. He would submit that instant case isbased entirely on circumstantial evidence and theprosecution case garners support from noeye-witnesses and therefore, the same could nothave been relied upon by the Trial Court tosentence the appellants-accused to irreversibleconsequence of death. He would further submit thatthe mitigating circumstances of theappellants-accused, that is, them being young atthe time of incidence, the mental stress undergoneby them due to opposition of their alliance fromthe deceased family and the factum ofappellant-accused Shabnam being pregnant at thetime of the offence ought to be considered incontext of the offence committed by the twoappellants-accused and lenient approach be adoptedin determining and awarding appropriate sentence tothem. 21. Learned counsel for the State would opposethe request of learned amicus in respect ofadoption of lenient approach in sentencing theappellants-accused persons and supporting thereasons recorded in the judgment(s) and order(s)

17

passed by the Courts below, submit that the presentcase is a fit case to be classified as rarest ofrare and hence, the appellants-accused deservenothing but death penalty for the dastardly crimecommitted by them.22. We have given our anxious consideration tothe evidence on record in its entirety and thesubmissions put forth by both the learned counsel.We have carefully perused the judgments and ordersof the Courts below.

Discussion23. We would not lumber the discussion bytracing the entire death penalty jurisprudence asit has evolved in India, but only limit theexercise to cull out the determinants which wouldweigh large in our mind to award appropriatesentence while balancing the mitigating andaggravating circumstances. We are be mindful of theprinciples laid down by this Court inJagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20,Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983)

18

3 SCC 470 as followed by this Court upto thepresent. The aforesaid decisions indicate that themost significant aspect of sentencing policy inIndian criminal jurisprudence regarding award ofdeath penalty is that life sentence is a rule anddeath sentence is an exception only to be awardedin rarest of rare cases. Death sentence must beimposed only when life imprisonment appears to bean altogether inadequate punishment having regardto the relevant circumstances of the crime, andprovided the option to impose sentence ofimprisonment for life cannot be conscientiouslyexercised having regard to the nature andcircumstances of the crime and all the relevantcircumstances. The circumstances which should orshould not be taken into account, and thecircumstances which should be taken into accountalong with other circumstances, as well as thecircumstances which may, by themselves, besufficient, in the exercise of the discretionregarding sentence cannot be exhaustivelyenumerated. The guidelines and principles forclassification of circumstances and determination

19

of the culpability indicia as laid down by thisCourt in the aforesaid cases have been succinctlysummarized in Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh,(2012) 4 SCC 257. The said are extracted as under: Aggravating Circumstances:1. The offences relating to the commission ofheinous crimes like murder, rape, armeddacoity, kidnapping etc. by the accused with aprior record of conviction for capital felonyor offences committed by the person having asubstantial history of serious assaults andcriminal convictions.2. The offence was committed while the offenderwas engaged in the commission of anotherserious offence.3. The offence was committed with the intentionto create a fear psychosis in the public atlarge and was committed in a public place by aweapon or device which clearly could behazardous to the life of more than one person.4. The offence of murder was committed forransom or like offences to receive money ormonetary benefits.5. Hired killings.6. The offence was committed outrageously forwant only while involving inhumane treatmentand torture to the victim.7. The offence was committed by a person whilein lawful custody.

20

8. The murder or the offence was committed, toprevent a person lawfully carrying out his dutylike arrest or custody in a place of lawfulconfinement of himself or another. Forinstance, murder is of a person who had actedin lawful discharge of his duty under Section43 Code of Criminal Procedure.9. When the crime is enormous in proportionlike making an attempt of murder of the entirefamily or members of a particular community.10. When the victim is innocent, helpless or aperson relies upon the trust of relationshipand social norms, like a child, helpless woman,a daughter or a niece staying with afather/uncle and is inflicted with the crime bysuch a trusted person.11. When murder is committed for a motive whichevidences total depravity and meanness.12. When there is a cold blooded murder withoutprovocation.13. The crime is committed so brutally that itpricks or shocks not only the judicialconscience but even the conscience of thesociety.Mitigating Circumstances:1. The manner and circumstances in and underwhich the offence was committed, for example,extreme mental or emotional disturbance orextreme provocation in contradistinction to allthese situations in normal course.

21

2. The age of the accused is a relevantconsideration but not a determinative factor byitself.3. The chances of the accused of not indulgingin commission of the crime again and theprobability of the accused being reformed andrehabilitated.4. The condition of the accused shows that hewas mentally defective and the defect impairedhis capacity to appreciate the circumstances ofhis criminal conduct.5. The circumstances which, in normal course oflife, would render such a behavior possible andcould have the effect of giving rise to mentalimbalance in that given situation likepersistent harassment or, in fact, leading tosuch a peak of human behavior that, in thefacts and circumstances of the case, theaccused believed that he was morally justifiedin committing the offence.6. Where the Court upon proper appreciation ofevidence is of the view that the crime was notcommitted in a pre-ordained manner and that thedeath resulted in the course of commission ofanother crime and that there was a possibilityof it being construed as consequences to thecommission of the primary crime.7. Where it is absolutely unsafe to rely uponthe testimony of a sole eye-witness thoughprosecution has brought home the guilt of the

22

accused.While determining the questions relateable tosentencing policy, the Court has to followcertain principles and those principles are theloadstar besides the above considerations inimposition or otherwise of the death sentence.Principles:1. The Court has to apply the test todetermine, if it was the 'rarest of rare' casefor imposition of a death sentence.2. In the opinion of the Court, imposition ofany other punishment, i.e., life imprisonmentwould be completely inadequate and would notmeet the ends of justice.3. Life imprisonment is the rule and deathsentence is an exception.

4. The option to impose sentence ofimprisonment for life cannot be cautiouslyexercised having regard to the nature andcircumstances of the crime and all relevantcircumstances.5. The method (planned or otherwise) and themanner (extent of brutality and inhumanity,etc.) in which the crime was committed and thecircumstances leading to commission of suchheinous crime.

24. It is now settled law that where maximum

23

punishment that could be awarded under a provisionis death penalty, the Courts are required toindependently consider facts of each case anddetermine a sentence which is the most appropriateand proportional to the culpability of the accused.It is not sufficient for the Court to decide thequantum of sentence only with reference to one ofthe classes under any one of the head ofcircumstances while completely ignoring classesunder the other. That is to say, what is requiredto be considered is not just the circumstances byplacing them in separate compartments, but theircumulative effect. The Court ought to besufficiently cautious and adherent of the same soas to better administer the criminal justice systemand provide an effective and meaningful reasoningby the Court as contemplated under Section 354(3)of the Code while sentencing.25. The aforesaid principles also findreference in observations of this Court in Mohd.Jamiludin Nasir v. State of W.B.,(2014) 7 SCC 443: 173. Sentencing is a delicate task requiringan interdisciplinary approach and calls for

24

special skills and talents. A proper sentenceis the amalgam of many factors, such as, thenature of offence, circumstancesextenuating oraggravatingof the offence, prior criminalrecord of the offender, age and background ofthe offender with reference to education, homelife, sobriety, social adjustment, emotionaland mental condition, the prospects for hisrehabilitation, etc. The above passage can befound in Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes,26th Edn. at p. 185 on the topic OfPunishments.

26. Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand, (2015) 1SCC 67 is a case where the appellants-accused hadcommitted brutal and cold blooded murders of eightpersons of their own family successively due todiscord over property. This Court while awardingdeath penalty to the accused persons noted that thescope of reformation of the perpetrators of thecrime has been obliterated given the manner ofexecution of cold blooded murder of the kin andtheir conduct after commission of the crime. ThisCourt observed as follows: 46. The Crime Test, Criminal Test and theRarest of the Rare Test are certain tests

25

evolved by this Court. The Tests basicallyexamine whether the society abhors such crimesand whether such crimes shock the conscience ofthe society and attract intense and extremeindignation of the community. The casesexhibiting premeditation and meticulousexecution of the plan to murder by levelling acalculated attack on the victim to annihilatehim, have been held to be fit cases forimposing death penalty. Where innocent minorchildren, unarmed persons, helpless women andold and infirm persons have been killed in abrutal manner by persons in dominatingposition, and where after ghastly murderdisplaying depraved mentality, the accused haveshown no remorse, death penalty has beenimposed. Where it is established that theaccused is a hardened criminal and hascommitted murder in a diabolic manner and whereit is felt that reformation and rehabilitationof such a person is impossible and if let free,he would be a menace to the society, this Courthas not hesitated to confirm death sentence.Many a time, in cases of brutal murder,exhibiting depravity and callousness, thisCourt has acknowledged the need to send adeterrent message to those who may embark onsuch crimes in future. In some cases involvingbrutal murders, societys cry for justice hasbeen taken note of by this Court, amongst other

26

relevant factors.(emphasis supplied)

27. In Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1, amarried couple had murdered the wifes father,mother, sister, stepbrother and his whole familyincluding three young ones of 45 days, 2 years and4 years with the motive of resisting her fatherfrom giving property to her stepbrother and hisfamily. Therein, this Court has held that since themurders were committed in a cruel, pre-planned anddiabolic manner while the victims were sleeping,without any provocation from the victims side, itcould be concluded the accused persons did notpossess any basic humanity and lacked the psyche ormind-set amenable to any reformation and therefore,the case fell within the category of the rarest ofrare cases for imposition of death penalty.Further, in similar cases where the accused personshad committed murders of their own kith and kin ina pre-planned brutal manner, without any remorse orfor self-defense, this Court has thought it fit touphold their death penalty observing that themanner of commission of crime being grotesque and

27

diabolical, the accused persons deserved nothingbut death penalty. (Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral v. State ofMaharashtra, (2011) 14 SCC 401, Atbir v. Govt. (NCTof Delhi), (2010) 9 SCC 1, Jagdish v. State of M.P,(2009) 12 Scale 580, Saibanna v. State ofKarnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 165, State of Rajasthan v.Kheraj Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 224 and Suresh v. State ofU.P, (2001) 3 SCC 673.)

28. Having regard, however, to the conditionsin India, to the variety of social upbringing ofits citizens, to the disparity in the level ofmorality and education in the country, to thevastness of its area, to the diversity of itspopulation and to the paramount need formaintaining law and order in the country at thepresent juncture, in evaluating a crime andapportioning the most appropriate punishment, oneof the most important functions Court performswhile making a selection between life imprisonmentand death is to maintain a link betweencontemporary community values and the penal system.Criminal jurisprudence indicates that societysperceptions of a crime with respect to appropriate

28

penalties are not conclusive. Concurrently, it alsostands that the said standards have always beenprogressive and acquire meaning as public opinionbecomes enlightened by a humane justice. The scopeof determining the standards is never precise andrarely static. The Courts must thus draw itsmeaning from the evolving standards of publicmorality and consciousness that mark the progressof a maturing society.

29. Familial relations play a vital role indescribing and highlighting the qualities of oursociety. The Indian legal system today does notdifferentiate between a son and a daughter- theyhave equal rights and duties. Indian culture hasbeen witness to for centuries, that daughtersdutifully bear the burden of being the caregiversfor her parents, even more than a son. Ourexperience has reflected that an adult daughterplaces greater emphasis on their relationships withtheir parents, and when those relationships goawry, it takes a worse toll on the adult daughtersthan the adult sons. The modern era, led by the

29

dawn of education, no longer recognizes thestereotype that a parent would want a son so thatthey have someone to look after them and supportthem in their old age. Now, in an educated andcivilized society, a daughter plays a multifacetedand indispensible role in the family, especiallytowards her parents. She is a caregiver and asupporter, a gentle hand and responsible voice, anembodiment of the cherished values of our societyand in whom a parent places blind faith and trust. 30. Of all the crimes that shock the souls ofmen, none has ever been held in greater abhorrencethan parricide, which is by all odds the mostcomplete and terrible inversion, not alone of humannature but of brute instinct. Such a deed would besufficiently appalling were the perpetrator and thevictims are uneducated and backward, but it gains aghastly illumination from the descent, moralupbringing, and elegant respectful living of theeducated family where the father and daughter areboth teachers. Here is a case where the daughter,appellant-accused Shabnam, who has been brought upin an educated and independent environment by her

30

family and was respectfully employed as aShikshamitra (teacher) at the school, influenced bythe love and lust of her paramour has committedthis brutal parricide exterminating seven livesincluding that of an innocent child. Not only didshe forget her love for and duty towards herfamily, but also perpetrated the multiple homicidein her own house so as to fulfill her desire to bewith the co-accused Salim and grab the propertyleaving no heir but herself. Theappellant-co-accused Salim hatched the intricateplan with her, slayed the six deceased persons withan axe, escaped the crime scene, hid the murderweapon and supported the false story of occurrence.Both the appellants-accused wrench the heart of oursociety where family is an institution of love andtrust, which they have disrespected and corruptedfor the sake of their love affair. 31. The appellants-accused have put an end toseven innocent lives while they lay asleepdefenseless and unsuspecting, in safety of theirown house, absolutely unaware of the gory scheme oftheir daughter and her paramour. The

31

appellants-accused driven by the opposition totheir alliance from the deceased family and aliveto the conception of their illegitimate child, hadhatched the depraved plan to first administer themsedatives mixed in tea prepared byappellant-accused Shabnam, who the family would notraise suspicion at, and thereafter, bleeding themto death by slitting the vital blood vessels intheir throats. The appellants-accused couple didnot even spare the ten month old infant, who couldnot have protested to their liaison, and ruthlesslythrottled him to death so as to leave no survivorsfor claiming share in the familys property in thefuture. As soon as the family members were rendereddead, while appellant-accused Saleem fled from thespot disposing of the murder weapon and otherevidence of crime, the appellant-accused Shabnamfeigned unconsciousness and laid by the side ofdeceased fathers mutilated body, to callouslyinsinuate that the crime had been committed by anoutsider while she was asleep on the roof-top. Theappellant-accused lovers have consistently deniedtheir guilt throughout the trial and, on the

32

prosecution case being proved, stooped down toimplicate each other in the commission of offenceso as to exonerate themselves from the consequencesof their obnoxious act. 32. The aggravating circumstances indicate theextreme brutal, calculated and diabolical nature ofthe crime, which suggests that there is littlelikelihood of reform of these accused and of theirabstaining from future crime. All these featuresstench of the apathetic attitude of theappellant-accused daughter towards her family andmirrors the extent of her depravity in scheminglycommitting the cold blooded murder of her ownparents, brother, sister-in law and ten-month oldnephew. This itself triggers intense indignation inthe community. It is the combined concoction of allaggravating circumstances, that is, victims of thecrime, motive for commission of murder, manner ofexecution, magnitude of crime and remorselessattitude of the appellants-accused that standsbefore us in this case.33. The mitigating circumstances regardingyoung age of the appellants-accused at the time of

33

commission of crime do not bear any significance interms of outweighing the aggravating circumstancesof their wanton act. Further, it has also beenpointed out before us that the appellant-accusedShabnam was pregnant at the time of commission ofoffence and the couple now has a dependent minorchild. While the said circumstances stand as such,it is pertinent to notice that this Court hasconsistently held that such compassionate groundsare present in most cases and are not relevant inconsidering commutation of death sentence. Theprinciple that when the offence is gruesome and wascommitted in a calculated and diabolical manner,the age of the accused may not be a relevantfactor, was further affirmed by this Court in MofilKhan case(supra). It is however shocking that atthe pink of their youth, the couple indulged insuch debased act of multiple murders driven byinfatuation and exhibited no remorse. 34. Death penalty is not proportional if thelaws most severe penalty is imposed on one whoseculpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to asubstantial degree, by reason of youth and

34

immaturity. This however does not seem to be thecase herein. The appellant-accused personspreparedness, active involvement, schemingexecution and subsequent conduct reeks ofcalculated and motivated murders. The act ofslaughtering a ten month old child by strangulationin no chance reflects immature action but evidencefor the lack of remorse, kindness and humanity. Thecrime is committed in the most cruel and inhumanmanner which is extremely brutal, grotesque,diabolical and revolting. Therefore, as the instantcase requires us to award a punishment that isgraduated and proportioned to the crime, we havereached the inescapable conclusion that the extremeculpability of both the appellants-accused makesthem the most deserving for death penalty.35. In the result, we concur with and confirmthe reasons recorded by the Trial Court andapproved by the High Court while awarding andconfirming the death sentence of theappellants-accused, respectively. In our consideredview, the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by thecourts below do not suffer from any error

35

whatsoever which would call for our interference inthe sentence awarded to the appellant-accusedpersons.36. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed.The Registry is directed to pay a sum ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to thelearned amicus curiae in each case.

................CJI. (H.L. DATTU)

..................J. (S.A. BOBDE)

..................J.(ARUN MISHRA)

NEW DELHI;MAY 15, 2015.