CASE NAME: JAI PRAK Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 331-332 OF 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT: JULY 16, 2025
JUDGES: HON’BLE JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, AND SANDEEP MEHTA
Introduction
This case reports the terrible account of the 10 year old girl’s rape and murder at the hands of the appellant Jai Prakash in Dehradun, Uttarakhand which occurred on 28 July 2018. The child was enticed into the appellant’s home under the false premise that he would be given money for some sweets, proceeded to be sexually assaulted and then strangled to death. The Trial Court which tried the case convicted the appellant and imposed the death penalty which in turn was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court looked into the issue of the conviction as well as the appropriate meting out of the death sentence in the context of the constitutional and judicial precepts which guide capital punishment.
Issues for Determination
Whether the trial that resulted in the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 376(AB), 377 IPC and Sections 5 6 of the POCSO Act was proper.
Whether the issue of the death penalty doled out by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is justifiable under the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Legal Provisions Involved
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 302 – Murder
Section 376AB Rape of a child under 12 years.
Section 377 – Unnatural offences
Section 201 Removal of evidence.
Prohibition of Child Sexual Abuse Act, 2012 (POCSO):
Sections 13 and 14 Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Crime Procedure Code, 1973:
Article 366 Issuance of death sentence report.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant put forward that he was convicted only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He reported that the child witnesses may have been influenced and that their testimonies do not have great value. Also the appellant presented that the death penalty was a disproportionate sentence in his case which also took into account his socio economic status, little education, and which takes into account that he does atones. Also the courts of the lower tier did not do a thorough job in the sentencing issue, they ignored mitigating issues which may have played a role in the punishment.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State put forth the case for conviction and sentence which they did via production of strong evidence. The victim was seen with the appellant at last which is where they found her body. DNA evidence which came out of the trial proves beyond a doubt that the appellant was the perpetrator. The prosecution presented that the brutal nature of the crime which saw a defenseless child as the target made this case one of the “rarest of rare” which in turn supported the case for the death penalty.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction which it said was based on the words of credible eye witnesses which included that of children who we are told were natural and consistent. Also the “last seen” theory which placed the victim with the appellant right before the crime. The body of the victim was found in the appellant’s hut. Also we have conclusive DNA evidence which matched theappellant’s to that found on the victim’s body and clothing. The Court did not find any procedural irregularities or that the evidence was gaps in which to question and thus reported that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But the Court did take issue with the sentencing which it said focused only on the brutality of the crime which is a requirement of the two stage analysis as laid out in the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Court looked to past cases like Gudda v. State of M.P., Manoj v. State of M.P., Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. Also it stressed that sentencing had to take into account not only the brutal act but also the background of the convict which in this case reported to be very poor, that he had to leave school at age 12 to work, that he did not show signs of mental illness, and that in prison he has been a model prisoner.
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for rape and murder. Also it commuted the death sentence to life without release which means the appellant will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Conclusion
This judgment upholds the constitutional protections which surround capital punishment in India. It reports that even in cases of the most heinous crimes, courts must take a balanced and principled stand in meting out punishment. The decision also puts forth a theme of consistent and fair judgment which is that of a progressive standard of justice in a civilized society. Also it is a reminder that the “rarest of rare” doctrine is not a pass for retributive justice but a precise tool to use only when the death penalty is 0 in fact the only option.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYUSHI TRIVEDI
