Reaffirming the Two-Step “Rarest of Rare” Test & Mandatory Mitigation Inquiry – Commentary on Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 861)

I. Introduction

In Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court of India was asked to decide the correctness of a conviction and a sentence of death imposed on the appellant for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old child. While the conviction was upheld, the apex court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life without remission.

The decision restates and strengthens two critical doctrines in Indian criminal jurisprudence:

• The Two-Step “Rarest of Rare” Test for capital punishment (aggravating–mitigating analysis PLUS inquiry into impossibility of reformation).
• The obligatory exploration of mitigating factors – socio-economic background, mental health, possibility of reformation – before confirming a death sentence, especially where the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

These principles, though earlier articulated, receive fresh emphasis, practical guidance, and binding effect through this judgment.

II. Summary of the Judgment

1. Conviction Upheld: The Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence complete – last-seen testimony, recovery of the child’s body from the appellant’s hut, and clinching DNA matches.
2. Death Penalty Set Aside: Despite the brutality of the offence, the Court held that mere gruesomeness does not by itself satisfy the “rarest of rare” standard. Both trial and High Court had failed to:
   • Conduct or rely on a meaningful inquiry into mitigating circumstances.
   • Demonstrate that reformation and rehabilitation were impossible.
3. Sentence Commuted: The appropriate punishment was held to be life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

1. Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 14 SCC 641
   Emphasises prudence in awarding death sentences where conviction rests on circumstantial evidence and the need for an “objective value” to the “rarest of rare” expression. The Court relied on this to prioritise life imprisonment when material doubts or procedural deficiencies exist.
2. Ram Naresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 4 SCC 257
   Catalogues aggravating and mitigating factors. The High Court had cited it, but the Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court failed to actually apply its balancing exercise.
3. Gudda @ Dwarikendra v. State of M.P. (2013) 16 SCC 596
   Holds that brutality alone is not decisive. Relied upon to underscore that proportionality and scope for reformation must be evaluated.
4. Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353
   Re-asserts the two-step approach: (i) rarest-of-rare category, and (ii) life imprisonment “unquestionably foreclosed”. The Supreme Court directly borrowed this template to find the lower courts wanting.
5. Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 310)
   Commuted a death sentence where no inquiry into mitigating factors had taken place. Provided a near-identical factual matrix and was heavily relied on while commutation.
6. Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 703 – anonymity of sexual-crime victims.

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Proof of Guilt
   a) Last Seen: Two child witnesses and an adult relative proved the victim was last within the appellant’s control.
   b) Recovery: Body discovered inside appellant’s hut; no explanation from him.
   c) DNA Link: Hair & seminal stains on appellant’s underwear matched the appellant and the deceased. Chain of custody unmarred.
2. Sentencing Defects Identified
   a) Both courts below focused exclusively on the heinousness of the offence.
   b) No evidence or discussion on the appellant’s background, psychological profile, socio-economic circumstances, or reformation prospects.
   c) Offence proved purely by circumstantial evidence – a class of cases where caution is doubled, yet death was awarded.
3. Application of Two-Step Test
   • Step 1 – Rarest of Rare? Brutality alone ≠ rarest of rare.
   • Step 2 – Is Reformation Foreclosed? Reports revealed no psychiatric illness, good prison conduct; poverty and lack of education contributed to early criminality – factors favouring reform.
   Because the second limb was not satisfied, death penalty became disproportionate.

C. Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Stricter Sentencing Discipline: Trial courts must now suo motu call for probation, jail, and psychological reports before considering capital punishment, or risk reversal/commutation.
• Circumstantial-Evidence Cases: Raises the threshold for death penalty where direct evidence is absent; life imprisonment is likely to be preferred unless extraordinary factors exist.
• Standardising “Rarest of Rare”: Provides a workable template, thereby reducing sentencing disparity criticised in past jurisprudence.
• Victim-centric yet Accused-oriented Balance: While acknowledging the brutal assault on a child, the Court harmonised retributive and reformative objectives, indicating that victim-centric justice does not invariably equal maximal punishment.
• Life Imprisonment Without Remission: Reinforces this intermediate sentence as a viable alternative when society’s desire for stern punishment is high but death penalty criteria are unmet.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Rarest of Rare Doctrine

The judicial guideline that death penalty may be awarded only when (i) the crime’s circumstances are exceptionally heinous, AND (ii) there is no chance the convict can be reformed – making life imprisonment inadequate.

Two-Step Test

a) Balance aggravating vs. mitigating factors.
b) Ask whether any alternative punishment will fail to meet the ends of justice.

Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence that does not directly prove guilt (e.g., eyewitness to crime) but builds an unbroken chain of facts leading to one logical inference – the accused’s guilt.

DNA Evidence

Forensic comparison of genetic material (blood, hair, semen) with that of a suspect to establish presence or participation.

Confirmation of Death Sentence (CrPC §366)

Any death sentence by a trial court is ineffective until affirmed by the High Court, which acts as a “reference court”.

Life Imprisonment without Remission

The convict remains incarcerated for his entire natural life; statutory or executive remissions are barred.

V. Conclusion

Jai Prakash does not dilute the gravity of crimes against children; it strengthens procedural fairness in capital sentencing. The Supreme Court reiterated that:

• The death penalty is constitutionally permissible but exceptional.
• Courts must engage in a thorough, evidence-based assessment of both aggravating and mitigating factors.
• Where conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, or where mitigating inquiries are absent/inadequate, life imprisonment – possibly without remission – is the proportional sanction.

Going forward, this precedent will function as an enforceable checklist for sentencing courts, fostering consistency, transparency, and a deeper alignment with constitutional mandates under Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and personal liberty), and evolving penal philosophy.