Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 302 – Death Sentence –Doctrine of “rarest of rare” requires that death sentence should not be imposed only by taking into consideration the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation by a criminal. (Para 32)
Criminal Trial – Non-examination of independent witnesses by itself would not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. It would only assume importance when the evidence of eyewitness raises a serious doubt about their presence at the time of actual occurrence (Para 14( – here are bound to be some discrepancies between the narration of different witnesses, when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. It is further observed that corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. (Para 21) -Conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness- The court can act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by a statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and depends upon the judicial discretion- Court would be considered with the quality and not the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or not proving a fact. (Para 12)
Summary: Appellant conviction for murdering his pregnant daughter upheld -But the sentence of death penalty imposed by the courts below converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.