Report 202 – Proposal to amend Section 304-B IPC Dowry ... - Jeywin

36
before us falls within the category of the rarest of rare cases,
deserving extreme penalty of death.”
2.8.5 In “Ronny Alias Ronald James Alwaris & Ors. Vs State of
Maharashtra (1998) 3 SCC 625” where there were more
than one offender, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that:
“The possibility of reform and rehabilitation, however,
cannot be ruled out. From the facts and circumstances, it is
not possible to predict as to whom among the three played
which part. It may be that the role of one has been more
culpable in degree than that of the others and vice versa.
Where in a case like this it is not possible to say as to whose
case falls within the “rarest of the rare” cases, it would serve
the ends of justice if the capital punishment is commuted
into life imprisonment.”
2.8.6 In “Gurnam Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab (1998) 7
SCC 722”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while commuting the
death sentence to imprisonment for life has said that:
“We are also of the view that in the absence of any evidence
as regard the motive for abduction and as regards the
accused who actually caused their deaths and the manner
and circumstances in which they were caused, the
Designated Court should not have imposed death sentence
upon appellant Gurnam Singh.”
2.8.7 In “Allauddin Mian & Ors. Vs State of Bihar (1989) 3
SCC 5” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that:
“Having come to the conclusion that Allauddin Mian and
Keyamuddin Mian are guilty of murder, the next question is
what punishment should be awarded to them, namely,
whether extinction of life or incarceration for life. Section