Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 149 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 149 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellants Asharfi Lal and Babu—real brothers—along with Asharfi Lal’s sons Ganga Prasad and Hemraj, and Babu’s son Mata Badal, were involved in a longstanding land dispute with Smt Bulakan, widow of their deceased cousin. In the early hours of 13/14 August 1984, the five men entered the courtyard where Smt Bulakan and her daughters, Kumari Sumati (14) and Kumari Kalkanta (20), slept on separate cots. Using bladed weapons (gandasa, banka), the assailants beheaded Sumati, fatally wounded Kalkanta—who later died in hospital—and seriously injured Smt Bulakan as she fled for help.

Based largely on the eyewitness account of Smt Bulakan, corroborated by neighbours Kandhai (PW-2) and Bhagwati Prasad Pandey (PW-3), the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bara Banki, on 23 August 1985 convicted:

  • Asharfi Lal and Babu under Section 302 IPC (two counts) and sentenced each to death; they were also convicted under Section 307/149 IPC (seven years’ RI).
  • Ganga Prasad, Hemraj and Mata Badal under Section 302/149 IPC (life imprisonment) and under Section 307/149 IPC (seven years’ RI).

The Allahabad High Court, on 11 August 1986, affirmed all convictions and the death sentences, terming the matter “one of the rarest of the rare cases.” The present Supreme Court judgment is on the convicts’ further appeal, where only the sentence—particularly the death penalty—was actively contested.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the death penalty imposed on Asharfi Lal and Babu satisfies the “rarest of the rare” test articulated in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, as elaborated in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab.
  2. Whether any ground exists to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 Laid down the “rarest of the rare” doctrine to guide imposition of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC. The Court used Bachan Singh as the primary benchmark to test whether the instant case warranted capital punishment.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 Elaborated operative criteria for identifying “rarest of the rare” cases. The Court referred to Machhi Singh to emphasise the brutality, societal impact, and deterrence rationale supporting the death sentence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Reliability of Evidence: The Court observed that the conviction rested on the “unimpeachable and truthful” testimony of Smt Bulakan, corroborated by PW-2 and PW-3 and immediately reported in the FIR. Defence counsel did not dispute the findings of guilt.

2. Scope of Appeal: Given the absence of challenge to conviction, the Court confined itself to examining the appropriateness of the sentence, especially the death penalty imposed on Asharfi Lal and Babu.

3. Application of ‘Rarest of the Rare’ Test: The murders were characterised as cold-blooded, brutal, and motivated by greed and vengeance over a property dispute. Two defenceless teenage girls were killed and their mother grievously injured. The Court held that these facts met the stringent threshold established in Bachan Singh and clarified in Machhi Singh.

4. Deterrence and Social Necessity: The Court underscored that failure to impose capital punishment in such egregious circumstances would undermine Section 302 IPC and societal confidence in the justice system. It emphasised the duty of courts to calibrate punishment to the degree of criminality.

5. Conclusion on Sentence: Finding no mitigating factors sufficient to outweigh the gravity of the offence, the Court affirmed that the death penalty was the “only appropriate sentence.”

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: Appeal dismissed; death sentences of Asharfi Lal and Babu are confirmed, and all other convictions and sentences remain undisturbed.

Implications: The judgment reinforces the precedent that exceptionally heinous murders—especially those involving extreme brutality against vulnerable victims—will attract the death penalty under the “rarest of the rare” doctrine. No new legal principle was created, but the decision underscores the continuing vitality of Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh in sentencing jurisprudence.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Asharfi Lal And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh .

    A.P Sen, J.— Appellants Asharfi Lal and Babu who are real brothers, are under sentence of death on their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having committed the brutal murders of their two nieces Kumari Sumati, aged 14 years and Kumari Kalkanta, aged 20 years, daughters of their predeceased paternal cousin, and under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having attempted to commit the murder of Smt Bulakan, widow of Devi, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The remaining appellants Ganga Prasad and Hemraj, two sons of Asharfi Lal, and Mata Badal, son of Babu, have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the two murders in furtherance of the common object of their unlawful assembly and each of them sentenced to life imprisonment. They have also been convicted under Section 148 for the attempted murder of Smt Bulakan. There was long drawn litigation between Smt Bulakan on the one hand and the appellants on the other in respect of certain agricultural property. The last of the series of the litigation was a proceeding initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on a report made by Smt Bulakan, PW1. To wreak their vengeance, the appellants effected an entry on the night between August 13/14, 1984 into the courtyard of the adjoining house where the three ladies were sleeping on three different cots. The testimony of Smt Bulakan, PW1 shows that she woke up hearing the shrieks of her younger daughter Kumari Sumati and found that appellant Mata Badal was perched over the lower part of the body of Kumari Sumati pressing down her legs while appellant Babu repeatedly struck her with a gandasa and severed her neck. The girl died almost instantaneously; her head hung down the cot partially attached to the neck. Smt Bulakan further deposes that appellant Asharfi Lal struck her other daughter Kumari Kalkanta on the neck and face with a banka while appellant Hemraj chopped off the right hand of the girl with a gandasa. She also shrieked and appellant Ganga Prasad struck her on the face and upper part of the body with a gandasa. She ran from her house through the village abadi and fell down near the house of Kandhai, PW2, which was some 30-40 paces away. She narrated the incident to Kandhai who immediately ran and informed Bhagwati Prasad Pandey, PW3 who resided some 200 paces away. The Village Pradhan Bhagwati Prasad Pandey, PW3 accompanied by some of the villagers arrived at the house of Smt Bulakan and saw the deceased Kumari Sumati lying dead on the cot and Kumari Kalkanta lying unconscious in a pool of blood on another cot. She subsequently died in the hospital.

    2. Learned counsel for the appellants made no endeavour to challenge the conviction of the appellants for having committed various offences with which they were charged, and rightly so. The conviction of the appellants rests on the unimpeachable and truthful evidence of Smt Bulakan who was herself the victim of the murderous assault, as corroborated by PW2 Kandhai and PW3 Bhagwati Prasad Pandey. She is a natural witness and has given a vivid description of the entire incident resulting in the gruesome deaths of her daughters Kumari Sumati and Kumari Kalkanta. It is established in evidence that immediately after the occurrence she named all the assailants. The first information report (Ext. Ka-1) lodged by Bhagwati Prasad Pandey PW3, the Village Pradhan, contains the names of the assailants. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Bara Banki by his judgment and sentence dated August 23, 1985 convicted the two appellants Asharfi Lal and Babu under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on two counts of murder and awarded them capital punishment. He also convicted Ganga Prasad and Hemraj, two sons of Asharfi Lal, and Mata Badal, son of Babu, under Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment. All the appellants have also been convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court by its judgment dated August 11, 1986 on a careful consideration of the evidence has agreed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants. In affirming the sentence of death imposed on the two appellants Asharfi Lal and Babu, the High Court observed that on a careful consideration of the entire material, the facts and circumstances and the applicable law, it was satisfied that this was one of the rarest of the rare cases where death penalty is the only appropriate sentence which ought to be imposed on them.

    3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants mainly on the question of sentence but we are not impressed with his submission. The two appellants Asharfi Lal and Babu were guilty of a heinous crime out of greed and personal vengeance and deserve the extreme penalty. This case falls within the test “rarest of the rare cases” as laid down by this Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 as elaborated in the later case of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470. The punishment must fit the crime. These were cold-blooded brutal murders in which two innocent girls lost their lives. The extreme brutality with which the appellants acted shocks the judicial conscience. Failure to impose a death sentence in such grave cases where it is a crime against the society — particularly in cases of murders committed with extreme brutality — will bring to naught the sentence of death provided by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. The only punishment which the appellants deserve for having committed the reprehensible and gruesome murders of the two innocent girls to wreak their personal vengeance over the dispute they had with regard to property with their mother Smt Bulakan is nothing but death. As a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring other potential offenders the sentence of death on the two appellants Asharfi Lal and Babu is confirmed.

    4. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Asharfi Lal And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh .
    (Mar 30, 1987)