CASE BRIEF: YOGENDRA v. STATE OF M.P., (2019) 9 SCC 243

CASE NAME	Yogendra v. State of M.P., (2019) 9 SCC 243
CITATION	(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 835, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 42
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Subhash Reddy
APPELLANT	Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh
RESPONDENT	The state of M.P.
DECIDED ON	17th January 2019

INTRODUCTION

The vicious acid assault that killed Smt. Ruby and seriously injured other victims are at the center of the Supreme Court’s January 17, 2019, ruling in Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Sessions Court found the appellant, Yogendra Singh, guilty of Ruby’s murder in accordance with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was further charged with grievous harm under Section 326A of the IPC for injuring Smt. Chandrakala, Raju, and Janu as a result of the acid attack.

The Sessions Court first gave Yogendra Singh the death punishment for the horrible crime, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court maintained the conviction and death sentence. Ruby was killed, and numerous others were seriously injured in the case’s violent and premeditated act, in which the appellant attacked several victims by dousing them in acid.

After considering the case on appeal, the Supreme Court decided that although the case was serious, the death penalty was not warranted and upheld the conviction but lowered the death sentence to life in prison. The Court underlined that, even in cases involving horrific crimes, the death penalty must be applied humanely.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant was found guilty of killing Smt. Ruby by dousing her in acid. In accordance with Section 302 of the IPC, the Sessions Court imposed a death sentence. The deceased’s grandmother, Smt. Chandrakala (PW 3), one of her Raju nephews (PW 7), and her brother, Janu (PW 4), were also hurt in the tragedy. According to Section 326(A) of the IPC, the appellant was found guilty of disfiguring and hurting these individuals by hurling acid.
The appellant was fined Rs. 10,000 by the Sessions Court, which must be paid to Smt. Chandrakala, Raju, and Janu. The High Court has increased the compensation, ruling that Janu should receive Rs. 3 lac, while Smt. Chandrakala and Raju, who were not as severely damaged, should receive Rs. 1.5 lac each.

Ruby, who passed away, had two children from her marriage to Mr. Sanjay Gupta. The husband suspected an affair between his deceased wife and the appellant, and he tormented her, accusing her of having an affair with the appellant. After that, the deceased moved in with her maternal uncle. In order to get the deceased’s father (PW 8) to call her to Porsa, the appellant put pressure on him and threatened to take drastic measures if his demand was not met. The dead and her family members retired for the night to their individual chambers on that foreboding June night. It was summer, so the doors were left open. A few light bulbs illuminated the courtyard and the rooms.

The appellant sneaked into the deceased’s chamber and told her that “even if she doesn’t want to live with him, he will not allow her to live with anyone else.” After hearing this, Dataram (PW 8), the deceased’s father, awoke and observed the appellant fleeing after hurling acid at his daughter. After the deceased began to scream and other family members attempted to help her, the appellant hurled acid at them, burning and hurting them all. The dead suffered 90% of her body in burns during the incident, and other people also suffered burn injuries.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the appellant should receive a death sentence for exceptional reasons?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

There was no deliberate plan to kill the victim, according to the defense. Ruby was killed as a result of the appellant’s acts, but it was argued that the crime was not premeditated or intentional, which would support a lesser charge than murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
The defense stressed that life in prison, rather than the death penalty, may be used to rehabilitate the appellant. They maintained that life in prison would be a more suitable punishment because the death penalty is irreversible, and the appellant’s case did not fit within the “rarest of rare” category.
The Sessions Court’s death sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed, according to the appellant’s attorney, and it was contended that the case did not fit the requirements for the death penalty. The defense argued that the death sentence should be commuted, pointing out the benefits of life in prison and the potential for reform.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The appellant purposefully threw acid on several people, killing Ruby and seriously injuring others, according to the prosecution, making the crime extremely horrific. The actual acid attack was used as proof of the appellant’s malevolent intent and determination to do the most damage possible.
The state made it clear that the offense was a deliberate and heinous act of violence rather than a brief period of poor judgment. Since the appellant’s crimes were characterized as cold-blooded and premeditated, the death sentence was appropriate since it satisfied the “rarest of rare” requirements for this type of punishment.
The prosecution contended that in order to serve as a deterrent against similar offenses, the death penalty was required. The most severe punishment was necessary to deter future incidents and shield vulnerable people from such horrible deeds because of the viciousness of the acid assault and the pervasive social consequences of such crimes.

JUDGMENT

The incident had to do with the appellant’s dissatisfaction with his relationship with the deceased, whom he felt abandoned. The case’s circumstances, especially the acid selection, do not reveal a callous scheme to kill the dead. Like in many instances, the goal appears to have been to harm or deform the deceased seriously; in this instance, the goal led to a more severe attack than anticipated, which ultimately caused the deceased’s death. It’s possible that an injury rather than a death was planned.

Judges must never be ruthless. For them, hanging murderers has always been a good idea. Even though they are not complete, the Union of India’s facts and figures demonstrate that courts have historically applied the harshest punishment very infrequently, which speaks to the care and consideration they have always given to the use of their sentencing discretion in such serious cases. It is necessary to express the concern that courts will carry out the difficult task with ever-greater care and humane concern, guided along the high of legislative policy outlined in Section 1 that is, that for those found guilty of murder, life in prison is the norm and the death penalty is an exception with the help of the broad illustrative guidelines that we have indicated. Resistance to taking a life through the use of the law is a predicate of a genuine and enduring concern for the dignity of human life. Except in extremely rare circumstances where the alternative choice is definitely foreclosed, that shouldn’t be done.

There isn’t any specific cruelty or depravity in the appellant’s actions that justifies this case being categorized as the “rarest of the rare.” As a result, the High Court’s death sentence is overturned, and the appellant will instead serve a life sentence in prison.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case emphasizes how difficult it is to decide on the proper penalty for horrible actions. One victim tragically died as a result of the appellant’s unquestionably violent actions, and other victims suffered severe injuries. The crime featured a vicious and intentional acid attack, which caused widespread social indignation because of its violent character and the long-lasting bodily and psychological damage it caused to its victims. The Court recognized the need to strike a balance between justice for the victims and the values of human dignity and reform, and in evaluating the case, it considered both the seriousness of the offense and the larger context of the penalty.

Whether the appellant’s crime qualified as the “rarest of rare” category necessary for such a punishment was the main point of debate surrounding the death sentence. The Court concluded that the death penalty might not be the best course of action in this specific case, despite the fact that the act’s brutality clearly provided a strong case for a harsh punishment. In addition to upholding the idea that the death penalty ought to be saved for the most dire circumstances, life in prison without the possibility of parole was regarded as an adequate punishment that would guarantee the appellant would not be free for an extended period of time.

In summary, the ruling highlights the necessity of a compassionate approach to sentencing, even when dealing with severe criminal offenses. Even though the appellant committed a serious crime, the Court’s ruling shows that it understands the subtleties of capital punishment cases and that life in prison can be used as a deterrence as well as a punishment. This case emphasizes how crucial it is to take into account both the seriousness of the offense and the wider effects that court rulings may have on the criminal justice system. The ruling demonstrates the changing viewpoint on the use of the death penalty by striking a balance between the victims’ right to justice and the possibility of rehabilitation.