Dismissed¶53

State NCT of Delhi v. Ajit Seth @ Ajji

Supreme Court17 Aug 20102010 INSC 520 · [2010] 10 S.C.R. 3432010 INSC 520

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Death sentence withheld though crime termed barbaric; capital punishment denied because accused completed 20-year sentence and was released (April 2010) during pendency of State's appeal; 'complete travesty of justice'; murder by burning of two children (aged ~7 and ~3.5); conviction on dying declarations; ss. 302 and 364 IPC; death reference under s. 366 CrPC; rarest of rare; commutation to life imprisonment with minimum 20-year term; delay in disposal of appeal; administration of criminal justice; State NCT of Delhi v. Ajit Seth @ Ajji; [2010] 10 SCR 343.

What did the court decide?

The Court endorsed the finding of the Trial Court that the crime committed by the respondent was indeed barbaric and called for no mercy. ¶51

State NCT of Delhi versus Ajit Seth @ Ajji — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2010)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's appeal should be allowed and a capital sentence awarded to the respondent at this stage, notwithstanding that he had already completed his sentence of 20 years and had been released in April 2010 pending the appeal.

¶50

Court's answer

The Court endorsed the finding of the Trial Court that the crime committed by the respondent was indeed barbaric and called for no mercy.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fact that the respondent had already undergone more than 20 years of the sentence and had been released in April 2010, it would be a complete travesty of justice and completely unjustified to allow the State's appeal and award a capital sentence at that stage; the Court declined to send the respondent to the gallows.

¶50

Key takeaways

General observation on administration of criminal justice: this case indicates the hardship and inequity that can ensue to an accused, the prosecution and the victims in the case of a delayed trial or delay in the disposal of an appeal.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State NCT of Delhi v. Ajit Seth @ Ajji, Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 2004 (decided 17-08-2010) before Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ. The respondent, a friend of the children's mother, burnt to death two children aged about seven and three-and-a-half years. Relying on the deceased children's dying declarations, the Trial Court convicted him under ss. 302 and 364 IPC (death sentence, and R.I. 10 years with Rs.1000/- fine respectively) and acquitted co-accused Indu; the case went to the Delhi High Court under s. 366 CrPC, which on 01.10.2001, holding the crime heinous and barbaric but not 'rarest of rare', converted the death sentence into life imprisonment with a direction that the accused not be released unless he served at least 20 years including time already undergone. Dismissing the State's appeal, this Court endorsed the Trial Court's finding that the crime was barbaric and called for no mercy, but since the respondent had already undergone more than 20 years and been released in April 2010, awarding a capital sentence at that stage would be 'a complete travesty of justice'. The Court observed the hardship and inequity that delayed trials and delays in disposal of appeals cause to the accused, the prosecution and the victims.

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 343

STATE NCT OF DELHI

AJIT SETH @ AJJI (Criminal appeal No. 1059 of 2004)

¶6

AUGUST 17, 2010

¶7

¶8

[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, JJ.]

¶9

Penal Code, 1860:

¶10

¶11

ss. 302 and 364 - Two children aged 3 and 7, burnt to death by friend of their mother - Conviction by trial court with death sentence - High Court commuted the sentence and directed that accused should not be released unless he had served at least 20 years of imprisonment - Appeal by State - HELD: The Court endorses the finding of the trial court that crime committed by the accused was indeed barbaric and called for no mercy - But in view of the facts that pending appeal the accused has already completed his sentence of 20 years and has been released, it would be a complete travesty of justice to allow the appeal and to award a capital sentence at this stage - This is indeed a sorry case and indicates the hardship and inequity that can ensue to an accused, the prosecution and the victims in the case of a delayed trial or delay in disposal of an appeal - Administration of Criminal Justice - Delay in trial/appeal.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 2004.

¶16

From the Judgment and order dated 01.10.2001 of the G High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1999 and Murder Reference No. 1 of 99.

¶17

Mohan Jain, ASG J.S. Attri and Brijender Chahar, SWA

¶18

343

¶19

¶20

SUPkt:ME COURT REPORTS

¶21

344

¶22

[2010] 10 S.C.R.

¶23

A Qadri, Saina Bakshi, Niraj Jha, Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra for the Appellant.

¶24

R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Amit Wadhwa and P.P. Singh for the Respondent.

¶25

B The following Order of the Court was delivered

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This is indeed a sorry case aiid indicates thehardship and C inequity that can ensue to an accused, theprosecution and the victims in the case of a delayed trialor the delay in the disposal of an appeal.

¶28

Two young children, Sunny Arora aged about sevenyears and his sister Shikha Arora, aged about three and half years, D were burnt to death by the respondent Ajit Seth as he was under the impression that they were carrying tales of his illicit connection with their mother lndu, co-accused, to their father.

¶29

The Trial Court, relying on the dying declarations made by E the deceased children, convicted the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC but acquitted lndu, and on the question of sentence observed as under:

¶30

"25. To sum up, the special reasons for imposing the death F sentence are that the murders were pre-meditated; the manner of commission of murders was brutal and diabolical and shocks the judicial conscience as the two innocent children were roasted alive; accused was in a position of domination and trust vis.-a-vis. the two deceased children the accused killed the two G children for the selfish motive of posse-:sing his women which exhibits his depraved mentality and meanness.

¶31

In view of my discussion above the accused Ajit Seth is sentenced as below:

¶32

¶33

STATE NCT OF DELHI v. AJIT SETH @ AJJI 345

¶34

(a) U/s. 302 IPC the accused is sentenced to death. A However, the sentence shall not e executed till its confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court u/s 366 Cr.P.C.

¶35

(b) U/s. 364 IPC the accused is sentenced to R.I. 8 for 1 O years. He is also fined Rs.1000/- In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo R.I. for one month. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation of trial of this case shall be set off against the sentence awarded C to him u/s. 364 IPC.

¶36

¶37

The proceedings are hereby submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for confirmation of the death sentence passed u/s. 302 IPC and the accused is committed to the jail custody under a separate warrant."

¶38

¶39

The matter was therefore remitted to the High Court under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. for the confirmation of the death sentence and an appeal was also filed by the accused respondent in the High Court.

¶40

The High Court by its judgment dated 1st October 2001 held that though the crime committed by the respondent was indeed heinous and barbaric but it still did not fall in the category of the "rarest of rare cases". The death reference was accordingly disallowed and the appeal of the respondent was dismissed with the following observations:

¶41

¶42

¶43

"We convert the death sentence of the appellant into life imprisonment with a direction that the appellant shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment for life and he shall not be released from the prison unless he has served at least 2.0 years of imprisonment including the period already undergone by him. Rest of the sentence will remain the same."

¶44

¶45

It is the conceded position that the appellant has, of now,

¶46

¶47

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶48

[2010] 10 S.C.R.

¶49

346

¶50

A undergone more than 20 years of the sentence and has also been released in April 2010. We see that the SLP had been filed in the year 2002 and leave was granted two years later. In the light of the fact that the appellant has already completed his sentence of 20 years and has been released it would be a

¶51

B complete travesty of justice to allow this Appeal and to award a capital sentence at this stage. We endorse the finding of the Trial Court that the crime committed by the respondent was indeed barbaric and called for no mercy but in the face of the facts given above, to send the respondent to the gallows at this

¶52

c stage too would be completely unjustified.

¶53

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶54

R.P.

¶55

Appeal dismissed.

State NCT of Delhi v. Ajit Seth @ Ajji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State NCT of Delhi v. Ajit Seth @ Ajji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reserve Bank of India versus Gm, Coope. Bank Deposit Ajc Hr. Sha & Ors.

Jabar Singh versus State of M.P.

Rakesh Chand & Anr. versus State of Punjab

Shivanna versus State by Hunsur Town Police

Ram Naresh versus State of U.P.

Brundaban Moharana & Anr. versus the State of Orissa