Shahjad Ali@Ali Ur Rehman vs The State Of Uttarakhand
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 557
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 491-492 OF 2019
SHAHJAD ALI @ ALI UR
REHMAN …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant herein was arraigned as an
accused in connection with FIR being Crime No. 23
of 2011, registered at Sahaspur Police Station,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand for the offences punishable
under sections 302, 392, 436, 506 and 411 of the
1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/4 of the
2
Arms Act, 1959 . He was subjected to trial before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar,
Signature Not Verified
1
For short “IPC”.
2
For short “Arms Act”.
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.05.26
17:53:04 IST
Reason:
1
3
Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 70/2011. The trial
Court vide judgment of conviction and order of
th
sentence dated 4 September, 2015, convicted the
appellant for the aforementioned offences and
sentenced him in terms indicated below: -
Charged
S. No.
Default
Sentence
Offence Sentence
Death penalty
and fine of Rs.
10,000/-
Section 302
1.
of the IPC
6 months
imprisonment
Rigorous
imprisonment for
7 years and fine
of Rs. 5,000/-
Section 436
2.
of the IPC
3 months
imprisonment
Rigorous
imprisonment for
1 year
Section 506
3.
of the IPC
-
Rigorous
imprisonment for
7 years and fine
of Rs. 5,000/-
Section 392
4.
of the IPC
3 months
imprisonment
Rigorous
imprisonment for
2 years
Section 411
5.
of the IPC
-
Rigorous
imprisonment for
6 months and
fine of Rs. 500/-
Section 25/4
of the Arms
Act
1 month
imprisonment
6.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
2
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an
4 5
appeal before the Uttarakhand High Court for
assailing his conviction and the sentences awarded
6
to him. The trial Court also forwarded a reference
under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
7
1973 for confirmation of the death sentence. The
learned division bench of the High Court vide
st
judgment dated 1 June, 2018 dismissed the appeal
preferred by the appellant and answered the
reference in the affirmative thereby confirming the
death sentence awarded by the trial Court. The
st
judgment dated 1 June, 2018 rendered by the High
Court is the subject matter of challenge in these
appeals by special leave.
Brief Facts: -
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one
Sanjay Kumar Guleria, was running a motorcycle
showroom-cum-workshop under the name and style
of “Hariom Automobile” at Selakui wherein the
appellant was employed as a head mechanic. Besides
him, Pradeep (PW-2), Gulfam (PW-13), Rajesh and
4
Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2015.
5
Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”.
6
Criminal Reference No. 01 of 2015.
7
For short, “CrPC”.
3
Abid were working as helpers and trainees in the
showroom. One Lalita, was also employed at the
showroom and was entrusted with supervisory duties
at the counter.
5.
A couple of months prior to the date of the
incident, Lalita had made a complaint regarding the
conduct of the appellant to Sanjay Guleria, pursuant
to which the appellant was removed from service. The
appellant repeatedly approached Sanjay Guleria
requesting that he be reinstated in employment,
however, Sanjay Guleria refused to re-engage him.
The appellant consequently developed resentment
and bore a grudge against Sanjay Guleria on account
of his termination from service.
th
6. On 10 February, 2011 at about 4:25 p.m., the
appellant arrived at the showroom premises and
stabbed Sanjay Guleria on his neck with a big knife
which he had concealed in his back pocket of his
pant. Subsequently he accosted Lalita, who tried to
run away from the showroom for saving her own life,
but the appellant pursued her while shouting that
everything had happened because of her and that she
would not be spared. The appellant caught hold of
Lalita in a nearby empty plot and inflicted multiple
4
blows upon her with the knife, resulting in her death
at the spot. Sanjay Guleria, who had sustained
grievous injuries in the assault, collapsed after
coming out of the showroom and succumbed to the
injuries sustained by him.
7. After assaulting and killing both the victims, the
appellant came onto the road wielding the weapon
and threatened that anyone attempting to intervene
or apprehend him would meet the same fate. The
incident caused panic and terror among the persons
in the vicinity, thereby disturbing public peace and
creating an atmosphere of fear in the locality.
8. Immediately thereafter, the appellant set the
showroom on fire, as a result whereof the articles and
materials kept therein were burnt and destroyed. He
subsequently fled from the spot on a motorcycle
bearing Registration No. UK-07Z-5561 and, while
leaving, threatened that any person attempting to
apprehend him would also be killed.
9. The occurrence was stated to have been
witnessed by the complainant, Anil Kumar (PW-1),
Pradeep (PW-2), Gulfam (PW-13) and Harish Chandra
(PW-17). On the basis of the written report lodged by
the complainant Anil Kumar (PW-1) at about 5:40
5
th
p.m. on 10 February, 2011 itself, FIR No. 23 of 2011
came to be registered at Police Station Sahaspur,
district Dehradun for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 436, 392 and 506 of the IPC with the
appellant being named as the assailant.
10. Investigation of the case was initially
undertaken by Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar (PW-19),
who proceeded to the place of occurrence along with
the police force. During investigation, the statement
of the complainant was recorded and inquest
proceedings in respect of deceased Sanjay Guleria
and Lalita were conducted. Blood-stained earth and
plain earth were seized from the respective places of
occurrence and corresponding seizure memoranda
were prepared. Postmortem examinations of both the
deceased i.e. , Lalita and Sanjay Guleria were
conducted by Medical Jurist, Dr. Y.S. Thapiyal (PW-
4) and corresponding postmortem reports were
obtained during investigation.
11. On the very same day, the appellant was
apprehended and a motorcycle bearing Registration
No. UK-07Z-5561 along with a blood-stained knife
allegedly used in the commission of the offence were
recovered from him. Arrest memo and information
6
memo pertaining to his arrest were also prepared.
The clothes worn by the accused at the time of arrest
were found to bear blood stains and were seized
under a separate seizure memo. Subsequently, he
was subjected to medical examination.
12. During investigation, the police also seized
blood traces allegedly found on the clothes of one
Harish Chandra (PW-17) and on a piece of the cover
of the motorcycle allegedly taken away by the
appellant while fleeing from the place of occurrence.
13. Further investigation of the case was entrusted
to another Investigating Officer, namely Praveen
Singh (PW-22).
14. During the course of further investigation, a
completely burnt structure of a motorcycle and frame
of a scooty were seized from the place of occurrence
and corresponding seizure memo was prepared. Site
plans of the place of occurrence as well as the place
from where the appellant was apprehended were
prepared and the articles seized during investigation
8
were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory
for examination.
8
For short, “FSL”.
7
15. Upon completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer formed an opinion that sufficient
material existed to charge the accused for offences
punishable under Sections 302, 392, 411, 436 and
506 of the IPC well as Section 25/4 of the Arms Act.
Accordingly, a chargesheet came to be filed before the
competent Court. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun took cognizance of the offences
and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for
trial, where it came to be registered as Sessions Trial
No. 70 of 2011.
16. Charges under Sections 302, 392, 411, 436 and
506 of the IPC and Section 25/4 of the Arms Act were
framed, read over and explained to the accused, who
denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution
examined 22 witnesses and exhibited certain
documents in order to prove its case. 1 witness was
examined on behalf of the accused in defence. By
resorting to the procedure under Section 313 CrPC,
the appellant was questioned and confronted with
the circumstances appearing against him in the
prosecution case. He refuted these allegations and
claimed to have been falsely implicated.
8
17. The trial Court upon appreciating the
arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and
the defence counsel and upon analysing the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, found the
appellant guilty for the charges framed against him
and sentenced him as noted supra.
18. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an
appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC to the High
Court challenging his conviction and sentences
awarded to him whereas, a reference was forwarded
by the trial Court under Section 366 CrPC to the High
Court, for confirmation of the death sentence
awarded to the appellant. The appeal filed by the
appellant was rejected and the reference was
answered in the affirmative by the Division Bench of
st
the High Court vide common judgment dated 1
June, 2018 which is the subject matter of challenge
in the present appeals by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-
19. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant strenuously contended
that the both the Courts below erred in convicting the
appellant and awarding him death penalty.
9
20. On the aspect of conviction of the appellant,
learned counsel pointed out that there exists a stark
discrepancy between the ocular testimony of the
prosecution witnesses and the contemporaneous
documentary evidence regarding the timing and
sequence of the occurrence. Learned counsel
submitted that while the prosecution witnesses
attempted to place the incident at around 4:25 p.m.
and projected a prolonged sequence involving
assault, chase, murder and arson, the ambulance
call records and fire brigade records reveal that
information regarding the incident had already been
received by the authorities at approximately 4:00
p.m., thereby materially undermining the
prosecution narrative. Learned counsel also
highlighted that alleged eye-witnesses, Anil Kumar
(PW-1) and Pradeep (PW-2) furnished inconsistent
accounts regarding the interaction preceding the
assault, thereby creating doubt as to whether the
occurrence was sudden or premeditated.
21. Questioning the reliability of the ocular
testimony, learned counsel submitted that the
evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses is wholly
unreliable, self-contradictory and incapable of
10
sustaining conviction. In this regard, it was pointed
out that Gulfam (PW-13), despite claiming to be an
eyewitness, admitted in cross-examination that he
did not know the appellant personally, whereas
Harish Chandra (PW-17) made material
improvements over the statement earlier recorded
under Section 164 CrPC. Attention was also drawn to
the fact that neither any Test Identification Parade
was conducted nor was any independent witness
examined, notwithstanding the fact that as per the
prosecution case, the incident occurred in a busy
commercial locality during broad daylight.
22. Learned counsel further assailed the
investigation by contending that the same suffered
from grave lapses which materially prejudice the
defence and render the prosecution case doubtful. It
was submitted that no fingerprints were lifted either
from the alleged weapon, the motorcycle, or the place
of occurrence and that vital forensic evidence,
including the blood-stained clothes of Anil Kumar
(PW-1), was never seized.
23. On the aspect of sentencing, learned counsel
contended that the trial Court erred in imposing the
death penalty and the High Court also erred in
11
affirming the same. It was submitted that the present
case does not satisfy the “rarest of rare” doctrine as
laid down by this Court in Bachan Singh v. State
9
of Punjab , inasmuch as the occurrence arose out of
personal animosity following termination from
employment and not out of any depraved, anti-social
or diabolical motive warranting the extreme penalty
of extinguishing the life of the accused.
24. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Courts below failed to undertake the constitutionally
mandated balancing exercise between aggravating
and mitigating circumstances and proceeded to
award the death penalty on a pre-conceived notion of
the brutality of the crime alone.
25. It was further submitted that the mandatory
sentencing guidelines laid down by this Court in
10
Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh were
not complied with in the present case. Learned
counsel pointed out that no psychological or
psychiatric evaluation, probation officer’s report,
socio-economic assessment or jail conduct report
was placed before the Courts below prior to awarding
9
(1980) 2 SCC 684.
10
(2023) 2 SCC 353.
12
capital punishment or the affirmation thereof.
According to learned counsel, the failure to
undertake the exercise of identifying the mitigating
and aggravating factors preceded by a proper
psychosocial evaluation of the appellant vitiates the
sentencing exercise itself and renders the imposition
of death penalty unsustainable in law.
26. Learned counsel contended that this Court in
recent decisions has commuted death sentences to
fixed-term life imprisonment even in cases involving
multiple murders. In this regard reliance was placed
11
upon Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala ,
wherein the sentence of death was commuted to
imprisonment for a fixed term of 25 years without
remission, and upon Mohd. Firoz v. State of
12
Madhya Pradesh , wherein the death sentence was
commuted to 20 years’ imprisonment without
remission after considering the possibility of
reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.
Learned counsel also referred to the socio-economic
background of the appellant and the absence of any
material demonstrating that he is beyond reform.
11
2024 INSC 215.
12
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1099.
13
27. Thus, learned counsel prayed that the instant
appeals be allowed and the conviction of the
appellant be set aside. In the alternative, it was urged
that even if this Court were to affirm the conviction,
the sentence of death deserves to be commuted to life
imprisonment with possibility of remission.
Submissions on behalf of respondent-State of
Uttarakhand:-
28. Per contra, Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-State
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
29. Learned counsel supported the judgments
rendered by the trial Court as well as the High Court
and contended that both the Courts were fully
justified in convicting the appellant and awarding the
sentence of death for the gruesome double murder for
revenge committed by him in broad daylight. It was
submitted that conviction was founded upon proper
appreciation of the ocular, medical and forensic
evidence available on record and does not suffer from
any infirmity or perversity warranting interference by
this Court.
14
30. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution
had examined four eyewitnesses, namely Anil Kumar
(PW-1), Pradeep (PW-2), Gulfam (PW-13) and Harish
Chandra (PW-17), all of whom consistently described
the manner in which the appellant first assaulted
Sanjay Guleria with a knife inside the showroom and
thereafter chased and brutally attacked Lalita in the
adjacent plot. It was urged that the testimony of these
eyewitnesses remained substantially consistent
throughout and stood fully corroborated by the
evidence of Dr. Y.S. Thapiyal (PW-4), who conducted
the postmortem examinations and proved the nature,
number and severity of injuries sustained by both
deceased persons. Learned counsel pointed out that
Sanjay Guleria suffered a deep incised wound on the
neck severing the trachea, jugular vein and carotid
arteries, whereas Lalita sustained as many as ten
incised and stab wounds including fatal injuries on
the neck, chest and arms. According to learned
counsel, the brutality, number and nature of injuries
clearly establish the deliberate and vicious nature of
the assault.
31. Learned counsel urged that the alleged
discrepancies sought to be highlighted in the
15
testimony of prosecution witnesses are trivial and
inconsequential in nature and do not affect the core
prosecution case. It was contended that such minor
inconsistencies are natural in truthful testimony,
and the same were duly considered and evaluated by
the trial Court as well as the High Court while
recording concurrent findings of guilt.
32. Learned counsel further submitted that the
prompt lodging of the FIR, the unimpeachable ocular
testimonies, the recovery of the blood-stained knife
and motorcycle from the appellant, and the FSL
report detecting human blood on the weapon, clothes
of the appellant and the motorcycle used during
escape form a complete chain corroborating and
establishing the prosecution version beyond
reasonable doubt.
33. On the aspect of sentence, learned counsel
contended that the present case squarely falls within
the “rarest of rare” category as contemplated in
Bachan Singh . It was submitted that the
(supra)
murders were premeditated and committed out of
vengeance after the appellant had been removed from
service pursuant to a complaint made by Lalita.
Learned counsel pointed out that the appellant had
16
arrived at the showroom concealing a knife on his
person. He first slashed the neck of his employer Shri
Sanjay Guleria in the showroom and thereafter
chased Lalita into a vacant plot nearby where he
inflicted repeated blows of the knife upon her.
According to learned counsel, the manner of
commission of the offence, the extreme brutality
reflected from multiple forceful injuries by a sharp
weapon, the targeting of a helpless woman who had
merely reported misconduct, and the acts of setting
the showroom on fire and threatening bystanders
clearly demonstrate exceptional depravity and
complete disregard for human life.
34. Learned counsel further contended that the
conduct of the appellant after the incident completely
rules out any mitigating circumstance warranting
commutation of sentence. It was urged that the
appellant showed no remorse either during
investigation or before the Courts below and failed to
place any material demonstrating possibility of
reformation or rehabilitation thereby justifying the
capital punishment.
35. Thus, learned counsel prayed that the instant
appeals be dismissed and the conviction of the
17
appellant as well as the capital punishment awarded
to him by the trial Court and confirmed by the High
Court be affirmed. In the alternative, it was
submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to
commute the death sentence, the same ought not to
be converted into a fixed-term sentence and the
appellant should instead be directed to undergo
imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life
without possibility of remission or shortening of
sentence.
Discussion:-
36. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the impugned judgment and the original
record.
A. Conviction: -
37. we find the testimony of the
Ex facie,
eyewitnesses Anil Kumar (PW-1), Pradeep Kumar
(PW-2), Gulfam (PW-13) and Harish Chandra (PW-17)
to be unimpeachable and beyond the pale of doubt.
The presence of these witnesses at the spot was
absolutely natural.
38. Anil Kumar (PW-1) is the first informant and the
brother of the deceased Sanjay Guleria. He
18
categorically stated that he used to look after the
accounts work at the showroom and had come there
in the ordinary course of his duties on the day of the
incident. He deposed about the minute details of the
occurrence. Relevant portions from his evidence are
extracted hereunder: -
“ Examination-in-chief
My brother Sanjay Kumar has a Bajaj motorcycle
showroom and workshop in Selaqui in the name of
Hariom Automobile. This workshop is presently
being run by another brother of mine. In the above
Hariom automobile of my brother Sanjay Kumar,
the accused Ali-ur-Rehman alias Sehzaad who is
present in the court used to work as Head
Mechanic in addition Abid, Gulfaam, Rajesh and
Pradeep also work there and one girl Lalita also
used to work in the showroom as Supervisor. Two
months earlier to the day of incident Lalita
complained about Ali-ur-Rehman alias Sehzaad to
my brother Sanjay. On complaint of Lalita my
brother fired Ali-ur-Rehman alias Sehzaad from the
job in his showroom. After that the accused spoke
many times to my brother Sanjay to keep him on
the job but my brother refused to keep him on the
job. Time to time, he tried to persuade other
employees of the showroom to leave the job and
started enmity with my brother Sanjay. On
10.02.2011, I came to the showroom of my brother
Sanjay in Selaqui after 1.00 PM in the noon since I
used to look after the accounts work in the
showroom. On that day at around 4.25 in the
evening the accused Ali-ur-Rehman alias Sehzaad
present in the court came to the showroom of my
brother and took out a knife from the side of his
pants, assaulted at the throat of my brother Sanjay
thereafter leaving my brother ran towards Lalita,
the girl sitting on the counter, upon seeing him
19
Lalita ran outside from the back door which is
situated in the eastern direction. The accused
stated that "all this is happening because of you
and I will not leave you" and he caught her while
running in the adjacent vacant plot and assaulted
Lalita with knife. Upon seeing the incident the
stampede caused at the spot and the accused
stated that whoever would interfere I would do the
same with him, showing his knife. After that the
accused Ali-ur-Rehman alias Sehzaad came inside
the showroom and he set the showroom on fire due
to which all the goods in the showroom burned to
ashes and in this fire, one motorcycle and one
scooty also burned completely. The accused after
setting the showroom on fire, snatched motorcycle
no. UK 07Z-5561 from the showroom and gave
threat, while sitting on the motorcycle that he
would kill whoever would try to catch him, and fled.
My brother Sanjay on whose neck the accused
assaulted with a knife, he came out of the shop and
fell down. After that all of us ran to pick both the
injured and saw that my brother succumbed to the
injuries at the spot. At the time of incident, myself
and the workers who work in the showroom and
the person on whose motorcycle the accused fled,
the owner of that motorcycle Harish Chandra and
other people who came to the workshop owing to
their work also saw the incident and the report of
the incident was given same day by me in the P.S.
Sahaspur…...
In the opinion of us Panchas, the death of the
deceased Sanjay Guleria occurred due to slitting of
throat by a sharp-edged weapon..…
On 12.02.2011, Daroga ji came at the spot at
showroom and I shown him the place of incident
and on the same day police (Daroga ji) took in
possession from the spot (showroom) skeleton of
one completely burned motorcycle and one scooty
before me and Randeep Singh and the paperwork
was done at the spot…..
20
After seeing the structure of burned motorcycle and
scooty the witness stated that this is the same
burned motorcycle and scooty which was seized by
Daroga ji before me. On the structure of burned
motorcycle material exhibit-1 and on scooty
material exhibit-2 was marked. The accused Ali-ur-
Rehman alias Sehzaad is present in the court in
judicial custody. This accused committed murder
of my brother Sanjay and Lalita by inflicting wound
by a knife due to enmity.”
39. We find the evidence of this witness to be
truthful and worth reliance. His presence at the crime
scene cannot be doubted. This witness, in his
testimony, narrated the entire incident in the manner
as set out in the FIR and fully supported the
prosecution case. Despite extensive cross-
examination, nothing material could be elicited so as
to impeach the credibility or evidentiary worth of his
testimony or to cast any doubt regarding his presence
at the place of occurrence.
40. The second eye-witness, Pradeep Kumar (PW-2)
was employed as a mechanic at the workshop of
Sanjay Guleria and gave explicit testimony
implicating the appellant for causing the knife injury
on the neck of Sanjay Guleria and thereafter
pursuing and attacking Lalita with the same knife.
He also deposed about the subsequent acts of the
21
appellant in setting the showroom on fire. Relevant
portions from his evidence are extracted
hereinunder:-
“ Examination-in-chief
I was working in the motorcycle agency Hariom
automobiles of Sanjay Guleria for around three
months prior the date of incident on 10.02.2011.
The above agency was Bajaj motorcycle agency. I
worked there as helper and used to learn the work
of mechanic. Around 1 and 1/2 months before the
date of incident the accused Sehzaad Ali alias
Aliur-Rehman also used to work as a mechanic in
the above stated agency and he looks after the work
of head mechanic. Around 1 and 1/2 months
before the date of incident the owner Sanjay
Guleria removed Sehzaad from the job due to some
reasons. He came to the agency once or twice after
removal from the job. On 10.02.2011 at around 4
pm in the evening I was working in the agency and
along with me other mechanic Abid and Gulfaam
were also there and owner Sanjay Guleria/his
brother Anil and Lalita who sits on the counter
were also present in the agency. In addition four-
five customers were also present. At around 4.15
pm in the evening accused Sehzaad who is present
before the court today came to the agency and
assaulted the neck of owner Sanjay Guleria with a
knife and stampede was caused there and after
that Sehzaad ran after Lalita ran towards the way
to godown and Sehzaad caught her in the vacant
plot situated adjacent and Sehzaad attacked her
with a knife and killed her. Sehzaad gave threat
that whoever would interfere in between he would
kill him after that Sehzaad came in the showroom
and Sehzaad set the showroom on fire and
everything burned in that fire including one
motorcycle and scooty where were completely
22
burned. After that Sehzaad fled after snatching
Discover motorcycle of a customer……
Cross-Examination
Where Lalita got knife injuries that is a vacant plot.
I do not know to whom it belongs. It might belong
to Sanjay or maybe not. I do not know that any
argument or conversation happened between
accused Sehzaad and Lalita. I do not know as to
what was the dispute in between Lalita, Sehzaad
and Sanjay. I also do not know whether Sehzaad
helped Lalita in getting a job in the workshop or
not. On the day of incident fight and incident
between Sehzaad and Sajay took half hour. At the
time of fight and time of incident I was working in
the workshop. I came outside after the incident of
stabbing. After stabbing Sanjay he ran towards
Lalita. Where did he get hold of the knife either it
was taken from the workshop or snatched from
Sanjay, I do not know. I went to the police station.
I do not know that accused reached the police
station already. The accused did not arrive in the
Police station in front of me. I went to the police
station to give information immediately after the
incident along with a scooterist. The police reached
the spot immediately. He again stated that police
arrived at the spot before I returned from the police
station. When police arrived at the spot other
people also had arrived at the spot. I and other
people who work in the workshop told the police
about the incident. It is wrong to say that I have
not seen the incident and I am deposing falsely.”
41. In his cross-examination, the witness was
questioned at length regarding his presence at the
workshop, the sequence of events, the manner in
which the assault took place, and the conduct of the
accused before and after the incident. Suggestions
23
were also put to him that the knife was originally in
the hands of Sanjay Guleria and that the accused
had merely snatched the same during an altercation.
The witness, however, emphatically denied all such
suggestions and consistently maintained that it was
the accused who had arrived armed with the knife
and had assaulted both the deceased i.e., Sanjay and
Lalita. The evidence of this witness is totally natural
and trustworthy. Moreover, there existed no motive
whatsoever for him to falsely implicate the appellant.
42. The third eye-witness, Gulfam (PW-13) was also
employed at the workshop of Sanjay Guleria and gave
categoric evidence about the assault made by the
appellant on the neck of Sanjay Guleria and the
subsequent assault on Lalita after chasing her to the
empty plot nearby. Relevant portions from his
testimony are extracted hereinbelow: -
“ Examination-in-Chief
I used to work at Hariom Automobile Bajaj
Showroom Selaqui in the year 2011, on the day of
the incident i.e. on 10/02/2011, I was working in
the agency. I used to work and learn as a mechanic
in the said Bajaj showroom.
On the day of the incident, on 10/02/2011, the
owner of Bajaj showroom Sanjay Guleria, Anil,
Abid, Pradeep and the girl sitting at the counter
named Lalita were present; Abid and Pradeep used
to work as mechanics.
24
At the time of the incident, Sanjay Guleria was
working on a motorcycle, then at around 4:00-4:15
o'clock, Sehzaad who is present in Court, came to
the incident spot and he stabbed Sanjay Guleria
with a knife on his neck and after that he ran
towards Lalita, who went towards the empty plot
from behind and he stabbed on her in the plot.
There was a stampede on the incident spot and the
accused had threatened that he would kill anyone
who came in between. After that the accused set
the showroom on fire, in which my Scooty
UA07E/5822 and one another motorcycle were
also burnt. The Scooty belonged to my father's
acquaintance Zahid Khan.
After that accused had snatched a customer's
motorcycle from the incident spot and ran away,
the papers of my Scooty were also in the Scooty and
were burnt in the Scooty itself, the Scooty had
completely burnt.”
43. The flimsy attempt made by the learned counsel
for the appellant to discredit the testimony of this
witness on the basis of minor discrepancies regarding
the precise timing of the incident does not persuade
us to doubt either his presence at the spot or the
intrinsic worth of his testimony. Such minor
variations are bound to occur in the narration of a
traumatic and sudden occurrence witnessed by
different persons and do not affect the substratum of
the prosecution case.
44. The fourth eye-witness, Harish Chandra (PW-
17), was an independent witness who had come to
25
the showroom for repair of his motorcycle at the
relevant time. He gave a vivid and natural account of
the occurrence and specifically identified the
appellant as the assailant who attacked Sanjay
Guleria, chased and stabbed Lalita, set the
showroom on fire and fled away on the motorcycle of
the witness. Relevant excerpts from the evidence of
the witness are extracted hereinbelow:-
“ Examination-in-chief
I had taken my motorcycle to Hariom Motorcycle
Agency Selaqui at around 4:45 in the evening to
show it as it was having some problem. I reached
the showroom to get the motor cycle repaired. The
incident is of 10/02/2011, I was standing outside
the showroom, when a boy with a knife in his hand
came into the showroom and attacked the owner of
the showroom, who was working on a motorcycle
at that time, at about 4- 4:45 o'clock, he stabbed
him on the neck with a knife. I ran inside the
showroom, the person, who sustained an attack on
his neck ran outside, his blood splattered on my
clothes, after this the accused ran inside with a
knife on his hand and he stabbed knife on the girl
who was working in the showroom at a vacant plot
adjacent to the showroom, due to which she fell in
the plot itself. When said he ran away after
stabbing the girl. Then stated that he set fire on the
showroom and ran away from the showroom after
taking my motorcycle number UK07Z/5561. The
boy and girl who were stabbed with knife died on
the incident spot. After the incident, a huge crowd
had gathered at the incident spot and policemen
had also arrived. My motorcycle number
UK07Z/5561 was seized by the Police on the same
day at around 7:30-8 pm. Then, I went to Sahaspur
26
Police Station, the same day on 10/02/2011 at
around 8-8:30 pm, the Police had taken under
possession both the grip covers and seat cover of
my recovered motorcycle which had blood stains on
them…...
On 10/02/2011, my pants which were worn by me,
which had blood splatters on it, were taken under
possession by the police during the proceedings
which took place at around 8-8:30 pm and its
written proceedings were also conducted at the
police station. A sealed bundle related to the case
crime is before the Court, which was opened with
the permission of the Court. A total of 9 small
sealed bundles came out from inside the sealed
bundle, out of which one sealed bundle on which is
marked the pants worn by witness Harish Chandra
related to Case Crime No. 23/11 Section 302, 436,
392, 506, 411 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, it was
opened with the permission of the Court. Inside of
which a khaki coloured pants was obtained, on
seeing which the witness stated that I had worn
these pants on the day of the incident and there
was blood splatters on it on the same day and the
police had sealed his pants at the police station…...
I had recognized the accused at the incident spot
and I can recognize him when he will come before
me. On seeing the accused Sehzad @ Ali-Ur-
Rehman, standing in judicial custody, the witness
stated that the accused is present in the Court and
both of them were stabbed to death by this same
person. I got my motorcycle released from the
Court.”
45. The testimony of this witness is also
unimpeachable as he was an independent customer
having no prior acquaintance or enmity with the
appellant. His presence at the spot was wholly
natural and stands corroborated by the seizure of his
27
blood-stained clothes and the recovery of his
motorcycle from the possession of the appellant.
Despite cross-examination, nothing material could
be elicited so as to discredit his version or cast any
doubt upon the truthfulness of his testimony.
46. Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar Mainwal, (PW-19)
the first Investigating Officer, furnished cogent and
consistent testimony which substantially
corroborated the prosecution case. He deposed that
upon receiving information, he immediately reached
the spot with other police personnel and saw the
showroom engulfed in flames with the blood-stained
bodies of the deceased persons lying there. The
witness further stated that the appellant was
apprehended on the very same evening near the
Selakui Rampur bridge and that the blood-stained
knife along with the motorcycle used in the incident
were recovered from his possession. Although the
defence sought to create a doubt referring to the
absence of blood marks inside the showroom, the
witness satisfactorily explained that the same had
been washed away during the fire-fighting operations
carried out by the fire brigade. The Courts below
found no material contradiction in his evidence so as
28
to discredit the fairness of the investigation or the
prosecution version and rightly so in our opinion.
47. The Medical Jurist, Dr. Y.S. Thapiyal (PW-4),
proved the post-mortem reports of both the deceased
and gave a detailed description of the ante-mortem
injuries sustained by them.
48. The description of injuries found on the body of
deceased Lalita is as below:-
“1. At the front of the neck incised wound of 13 cm
x 9 cm was present which was above the Thyroid
Cartilage. This wound had cut the Larynx,
Treachea, wind pipe, food pipe, external and
internal juglar vain and external and internal
carotid artery and neck muscles.
2. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm muscle deep which
was above the right breast.
3. Stab wound 3 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep which was
on the right chest at the seventh intercostal space
which was bleeding.
4. Stab wound 3 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep which was
on the left side of the chest which at the fifth
intercostal space.
5. On the left chest there were three incised wound
having size 5x2 cm, 5x2 cm, 3 cm X 2 cm and were
muscle deep.
6. On the left forearm incised wound was present
which was 5 cm x 2 cm and were muscle deep.
7. Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm on the palm of the
left hand.
8. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the
right elbow.
9. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of the
right hand.
10. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the thumb of the
left hand.
29
Internal Injuries: - wind pipe was severed; both
lungs left and right were ruptured in which 1-2 litre
doted blood was present in pleural cavity. Heart
was ruptured on which wound of 5 x 2 cm was
present.”
49. The description of injuries found on the body of
deceased Sanjay Guleria is as below:-
“Incised wound 30 cm x 10 cm was present on the
right and front side of the neck which was bone
deep. In this injury external and internal jugular
vein was cut and external and internal carotid
artery was cut and wind pipe (Larynx) and food pipe
(pharynx) was cut and the muscles of the neck were
also cut.”
50. The Medical Jurist (PW-4) categorically opined
that the injuries sustained by both the deceased
could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon
such as a knife. Insofar as deceased Sanjay Guleria
was concerned, the witness specifically deposed that
the external and internal jugular veins, carotid
arteries, neck muscles, windpipe and food pipe had
all been completely severed. According to the doctor,
the said injury was extremely grave in nature and
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death and was, in fact, capable of causing
instantaneous death owing to rapid and profuse loss
30
of blood coupled with immediate
obstruction/severance of the air passages.
51. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
noted above, the consistent and unimpeachable
testimony of the eye-witnesses, duly corroborated by
the medical evidence, the testimony of the
Investigating Officer and the attendant incriminating
circumstances on record, coupled with the strong
motive attributed to the appellant, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has proved
its case as against the appellant beyond all manner
of doubt. The conviction of the appellant as recorded
by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court, therefore, warrants no interference.
B. Sentencing:-
52. Coming to the aspect of the sentence of death
awarded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by
the High Court, we are required to examine whether
the present case falls within the “rarest of rare”
category as laid down by this Court in Bachan Singh
(supra).
53. A consideration of the overall conspectus of the
case as emanating from the record reveals that the
appellant was working in the shop of the deceased
31
Sanjay Guleria and was removed from service on
account of alleged misbehaviour with the deceased
Lalita. The appellant comes from the lower echelon of
society. Having lost his only source of livelihood, he
had repeatedly and persistently requested Sanjay
Guleria to take him back into service, but those
requests went in vain. It is, therefore, discernible that
the appellant was deeply frustrated on account of the
loss of his source of livelihood and also probably, he
felt insulted on account of being thrown out of
employment on charges of misbehaviour. This
context, while being wholly irrelevant to justify the
crime, provides a degree of explanation for the mental
state of the appellant that cannot be entirely
eschewed from consideration while deliberating upon
the quantum of sentence and the balancing act
between death penalty and life imprisonment.
54. It is settled position of law that capital
punishment can be only be awarded when the
alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably
foreclosed. The exercise requires a careful and
individualized balancing of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, with the focus being not
merely on the nature of the crime but equally on the
32
character of the criminal, his background, prior
antecedents, socio-economic circumstances, and the
possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.
55. We have carefully considered the aggravating
circumstances in the present case. The murders were
pre-meditated, the appellant having arrived at the
showroom with a knife concealed on his person with
a clear intention to cause harm. The offence was
committed in broad daylight in a public place in the
presence of several eyewitnesses. The appellant first
killed his employer and thereafter chased and killed
Lalita, the lady who had reported his misconduct, by
inflicting multiple stab wounds upon her. Following
the double murder, the appellant threatened the
bystanders, set the showroom ablaze and escaped by
snatching the motorcycle of the customer Harish
Chandra (PW-17) while threatening to kill any person
who attempted to apprehend him. These
circumstances undoubtedly reflect a grave and
heinous crime.
56. At the same time, we cannot be unmindful of
the mitigating circumstances. The appellant had no
prior criminal antecedents. The motive for the
commission of the crime, howsoever reprehensible,
33
was traceable to a perceivable grievance arising from
the termination of employment, his only source of
livelihood and was not rooted in any communal,
political, gratuitous, or preying motivation. The
appellant belongs to the lower echelon of society and
was driven, in part, by the frustration of repeated
rejection of his pleas for re-engagement. There is no
material on record establishing that the appellant
poses a continuing threat to society or is incapable of
reformation and rehabilitation.
57. On a careful and holistic consideration of the
aforesaid aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
we are of the opinion that the offence committed by
the appellant, howsoever, brutal and heinous, cannot
be brought within the purview of the “rarest of rare”
category as expounded by this Court in Bachan
Singh . The double murder, though arising
(supra)
from a calculated premeditation, was fueled by the
frustration of a man who had been deprived of his
livelihood and whose repeated requests for revival of
employment were rejected. It is thus, not a case
exhibiting such extreme moral depravity or
exceptional brutality as would shock the collective
conscience of society so as to warrant the imposition
34
of death penalty. Hence, we are not inclined to
sustain the capital punishment imposed upon the
appellant by the trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court.
58.
The question that then falls for determination is
as to the appropriate sentence required to be imposed
upon the appellant. The governing principles in this
regard were evolved by this Court in Swamy
13
Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka , wherein
it was held that in cases falling short of the “rarest of
rare” category, the Court may yet find the ordinary
sentence of life imprisonment subject to remission to
be inadequate having regard to the gravity of the
offence. In such situations, instead of being
compelled to choose between a sentence of 14 years’
imprisonment and death penalty, the Court may
impose life imprisonment for a specified term without
remission so as to ensure a punishment
proportionate to the crime committed. The
constitutionality of this principle was subsequently
affirmed by a Constitution Bench in Union of India
14
v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan , which recognised
13
(2008) 13 SCC 767.
14
(2016) 7 SCC 1.
35
the power of constitutional Courts to prescribe a fixed
period of incarceration without remission depending
upon the nature of the offence and the surrounding
circumstances. The relevant excerpts from V.
Sriharan (supra) are extracted hereinbelow: -
“ 104. That apart, in most of such cases where
death penalty or life imprisonment is the
punishment imposed by the trial court and
confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court,
the convict concerned will get an opportunity to get
such verdict tested by filing further appeal by way
of special leave to this Court. By way of abundant
caution and as per the prescribed law of the Code
and the criminal jurisprudence, we can assert that
after the initial finding of guilt of such specified
grave offences and the imposition of penalty either
death or life imprisonment, when comes under the
scrutiny of the Division Bench of the High Court, it
is only the High Court which derives the power
under the Penal Code, which prescribes the
capital and alternate punishment, to alter the
said punishment with one either for the
entirety of the convict's life or for any specific
period of more than 14 years, say 20, 30 or so
on depending upon the gravity of the crime
committed and the exercise of judicial
conscience befitting such offence found proved
to have been committed.
105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power derived
from the Penal Code for any modified punishment
within the punishment provided for in the Penal
Code for such specified offences can only be
exercised by the High Court and in the event of
further appeal only by the Supreme Court and not
by any other court in this country. To put it
differently, the power to impose a modified
punishment providing for any specific term of
36
incarceration or till the end of the convict's life
as an alternate to death penalty, can be
exercised only by the High Court and the
Supreme Court and not by any other inferior
court.
106. Viewed in that respect, we state that the
ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2)
[ Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka ,
(2008) 13 SCC 767] that a special category of
sentence; instead of death; for a term exceeding
14 years and put that category beyond
application of remission is well founded and we
answer the said question in the affirmative. We
are, therefore, not in agreement with the opinion
expressed by this Court in Sangeet v. State of
Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 that the deprival of
remission power of the appropriate Government by
awarding sentences of 20 or 25 years or without
any remission as not permissible is not in
consonance with the law and we specifically
overrule the same.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
59. The principles governing determination of such
fixed-term sentence were comprehensively
considered by a three-Judge bench of this Court in
15
Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala . After
surveying a series of earlier precedents on the
subject, this Court observed that fixation of the
minimum term of incarceration is essentially an
exercise in proportionality, requiring due
consideration of factors such as the nature of the
15
2024 INSC 215
37
offence, number of victims, extent of injuries, motive,
degree of premeditation, criminal antecedents,
possibility of reformation, socio-economic
background and conduct of the convict. The Court
further noticed that in a majority of cases, applying
the Swamy Shraddananda principle, the period of
compulsory/fixed term incarceration has generally
ranged between 20 and 35 years, with 25 years being
frequently considered appropriate in cases involving
double murder bereft of exceptionally aggravating
circumstances. In the facts of that case, involving
murder of two persons arising out of personal
grievance and absence of criminal antecedents, the
sentence of death was accordingly commuted to
imprisonment for life with a minimum term of 25
years without remission.
60. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, we find that the aggravating
circumstances are that the crime was premeditated;
two persons both known to the appellant were killed
in cold blood; the manner of assault was brutal and;
the appellant thereafter indulged in acts of arson and
threatened those present at the spot. At the same
time, certain mitigating circumstances also deserve
38
due reference. The appellant had no prior criminal
antecedents; the offence arose out of personal
frustration following loss of livelihood; he belongs to
the lower strata of the society with a modest socio-
economic background and; there is no material to
indicate that he is beyond the scope of reformation.
61. Balancing the aforesaid circumstances, we are
of the considered opinion that the ends of justice
would be adequately met by commuting the sentence
of death to imprisonment for life which shall enure to
a fixed term of 25 (twenty-five) years without
remission. Such a sentence, in our view, would be
proportionate to the gravity of the offence while at the
same time preserving the possibility of reformation
and rehabilitation of the appellant.
Conclusion:-
62. As a result of discussion made hereinabove, the
conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial
Court and affirmed by the High Court, is upheld. The
sentences imposed in respect of offences punishable
under sections 392, 436, 506 and 411 of the IPC and
Section 25/4 of the Arms Act are also affirmed.
63. However, the sentence of death awarded for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is
39
commuted to imprisonment for life which shall enure
for a fixed term of 25 (twenty-five) years without
remission. The appellant shall also pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only); in
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
64. The appeals are partly allowed as above.
65. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
……………………….J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI
MAY 06, 2026.
40