REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2004
STATE NCT OF DELHI
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
AJIT SETH @ AJJI
.. RESPONDENT(S)
O
RDER
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 the delay in the disposal of an appeal.
Two young children, Sunny Arora aged about seven
years and his sister Shikha Arora, aged about three and
half years, 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 Indu,
co-accused, to their father.
The Trial Court, relying on the dying declarations
made by the deceased children, convicted the respondent for
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC
but acquitted Indu, and on the question of sentence
observed as under:
“25.
To sum up, the special reasons for
imposing the death 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 children for the
selfish motive of possessing his women which
exhibits his depraved mentality and meanness.
26.
In view of my discussion above the
accused Ajit Seth is sentenced as below:
26 (a) U/s. 302 IPC the accused is
sentenced to death. However, the
sentence shall not e executed till its
confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court
u/s 366 Cr.P.C.
28 (b) U/s. 364 IPC the accused is
sentenced to R.I. for 10 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 to him u/s. 364 IPC.
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.”
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.
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:
“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 20 years of imprisonment
including the period already undergone by him.
Rest of the sentence will remain the same.”
It is the conceded position that the appellant has,
of now, 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 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 stage too would be completely unjustified.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
....................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD)
New Delhi,
August 17, 2010.