A murder conviction does not warrant death absent the rarest-of-rare circumstances.

On 24 April 2021, Nidhi alias Hansi was fatally injured by a cut to her neck at her home.

Haider was apprehended at the scene; Rehan and another person allegedly fled.

The Sessions Court convicted Haider under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death, and convicted Rehan under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Haider appealed, Rehan appealed, and the High Court considered the statutory reference for confirmation of Haider’s death sentence.

The prosecution relied principally on eyewitness testimony, evidence that Haider was apprehended at the scene, and the deceased’s immediate identification of him.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Haider committed the murder of Nidhi

2. Whether the evidence established Rehan’s participation in the offence or common intention under Section 34 IPC

3. Whether Haider’s case met the standard for imposing the death penalty, or whether the sentence should be reduced to life imprisonment

The Court applied Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, governing murder and joint liability, respectively.

It considered the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and held that the police-recorded confessional statements could not be read in evidence.

For capital sentencing, the Court applied the principles in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, which makes life imprisonment the rule and death the exception, permissible only in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative is unquestionably foreclosed; Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, which requires assessment of the crime and offender and a balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, which elaborates those circumstances.

The Court found PW 2 Dheeraj’s account of seeing Haider enter the house and then assault the deceased reliable, and considered it corroborated by PW 3 Yogendra Singh, the immediate identification of Haider by the deceased, and evidence that Haider was apprehended at the scene.

It did not rely on the later alleged dying declaration during the journey to Saharanpur, given evidence that the deceased was then unconscious.

The Court treated the DVR recovery memo’s recorded description as corroborative, while declining to rely on unproved footage contents.

As to Rehan, the eyewitnesses did not identify him as an assailant; the alleged declarations implicating him were unreliable in light of the deceased’s reported unconsciousness, and Haider’s police-recorded confessions were inadmissible.

The Court therefore found insufficient evidence to sustain Rehan’s conviction.

In sentencing Haider, the Court concluded that the case did not fall within the rarest-of-rare category and that life imprisonment was appropriate.

It acquitted Rehan of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and directed his release unless required in another case, subject to furnishing a bond and sureties under Section 437-A CrPC.

Haider’s appeal was partly allowed, Rehan’s appeal was allowed, and the death reference was answered accordingly.