SHABNAM versus STATE OF U. P.
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 943, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 943 
SHABNAM 
V. 
STATE OF U. P. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[H. L. DATTU, CJI., S. A. BOBDE AND 
ARUN MISHRA,JJ.] 
A 
B 
Sentence/Sentencing- Death penalty- For the murder C 
of seven persons of her own family including a 10 months 
old child - Propriety of- Held: Life Sentence is the rule and 
death sentence is the exception to be awarded in 'rarest of 
rare cases' - Death sentence is to be awarded only when life 
imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate D 
punishment- The aggravating circumstances in the present 
case vii. victims of the crime, motive for commission of 
murder, manner of execution, magnitude of crime and 
remorseless attitude of the accused, outweigh the mitigating 
circumstances i.e. young age of the accused and dependence E 
of the minor child on them - The case falls in the rarest of 
rare case and hence, both the appellants accused have been 
rightly sentenced to death by courts below - Penal Code, 
1860 - s. 302. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder by app6!/ant-
accused - Of seven persons of her own family including a 
ten months old child - Conviction and death sentence by 
courts below - On appeal conviction as well as sentence 
upheld. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. The most significant aspect of sentencing 
policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award H 
943
944 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death 
sentence is an exception only to be awarded in "rarest 
of rare cases." Death sentence must be imposed only 
when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether 
inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant 
B circumstances of the crime, and provided the option to 
impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be 
conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature 
and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant 
circumstances. The circumstances which should or 
C should not be taken into account, and the circumstances 
which should be taken into account along with other 
circumstances, as well as the circumstances which may, 
by themselves, be sufficient, in the exercise of the 
0 
discretion regarding sentence cannot be exhaustively 
enumerated. [Para 23] (958-B-F] 
E 
F 
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, (1973) 1 SCC 
20: 1973 (2) SCR 541; Bachan Singh v. State 
of Punjab, (1980) 2 sec 684: 1980 (2) sec 
684; Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 
SCC 470: 1983 (3) SCR 413; Ramnaresh v. 
State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257: 2012 
(3) SCR 630 - relied on. 
2. While determining the questions relateable to 
sentencing policy, the Court has to follow certain 
principles and those principles are the loadstar besides 
the consideration of aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances in imposition or otherwise of the death 
G sentence. The Court has to
apply the test to determine, 
if it was the 'rarest of rare' case; that in the opinion of the 
Court, imposition of any other punishment, i.e., life 
imprisonment would be completely inadequate and 
H would not meet the ends of justice; that life imprisonment
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. 
945 
is the rule and death sentence is an exception; that the A 
option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life 
cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the 
nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant 
circumstances; and that the method (planned or 
otherwise) and the manner (extent of brutality and B 
inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime was committed and 
the circumstances leading to commission of such 
heinous crime. [Para 23) (961-C-H] 
3. The Courts are required to independently C 
consider facts of each case and determine a sentence 
which is the·most appropriate and proportional to the 
culpability of the accused. It is not sufficient for the Court 
to decide the quantum of sentence only with reference 
to one of the classes under any one of the head of D 
circumstances while completely ignoring classes under 
the other. That is to say, what is required to be considered 
is notjustthe circumstances by placing them in separate 
compartments, but their cumulative effect. The Court 
ought to be sufficiently cautious and adherent of the E 
same so as to better administer the criminal justice 
system and provide an effective and meaningful 
reasoning by the Court as contemplated under Section 
354 (3) Cr.P.C. [Para 24] (962-A-D] 
Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir v. State of WB., (2014) 7 
SCC 443; Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2015) 
1 SCC 67; Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1 : 
2007 (2) SCR 651; Ajit Singh Hamamsingh Gujral
v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 14SCC401: 2011 
(13) SCR 1000; Atbir v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 
(201 O) 9 sec 1: 201 o (9) SCR 993; Jagdish v. 
State of M.P 2009 (4) Scale 580; Saibanna v. State 
•· 
of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 165: 2005 (3) 
F 
G 
H
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
SCR 760; State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, 
(2003) 8 sec 224: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 861; 
Suresh v. State of UP, (2001) 3 SCC 673: 2001 
(2) SCR 263 - relied on. 
B 
4. Having regard, however, to the conditions in 
India, in evaluating a crime and apportioning the most 
appropriate punishment, one of the most important 
functions court performs while making a selection 
between life imprisonment and death is to maintain a link 
C between contemporary community values and the penal 
system. Criminal jurisprudence indicates that society's 
perceptions of a crime with respect to appropriate 
penalties are not conclusive. Concurrently, it also stands 
that the said standards have always been progressive 
D and acquire meaning as public opinion becomes 
enlightened by a humane justice. The scope of 
determining the standards is never precise and rarely 
static. The Courts must thus draw its meaning from the 
evolving standards of public morality and 
E consciousness that mark the progress of a maturing 
society. [Para 28] [964-H; 965-8-D] 
5. The aggravating circumstances indicate the 
. extreme brutal, calculated and diabolical nature of the 
F crime, which suggests that there is little likelihood of 
reform of these accused and of their abstaining from 
f1Jture crime. All these features stench of the apathetic 
attitude of the appellant-accused-daughter towards her· 
family and mirrors the extent of her depravity in 
G schemingly
committing the cold-blooded murder of her 
own parents, brother, sister-in-law and ten-month old 
nephew. This itself triggers intense indignation in the 
com111unity. It is the combined concoction of all 
H aggravating circumstances, that is, victims of the crime,
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. 
947 
motive for commission of murder, manner of execution, A 
magnitude of crime and remorseless attitude of the 
appellants-accused that stands before this Court. [Para 
32] [967 -E-H] 
6. The mitigating circumstances regarding young · B 
age of the appellants-accused at the time of commission 
of crime do not bear any significance in terms of the 
outweighing aggravating circumstances of their wanton 
act. Though the appellant-accused was pregnant at the 
time of commission of offence and the accused-couple C 
now has a dependent minor child, such compassionate 
grounds are present in most cases and are not relevant 
in considering commutation of death sentence. The 
principle that when the offence is gruesome and was 
committed in a·calculated and diabolical manner, the age D 
of the accused may not be a relevant factor. It is, 
however, shocking that at the pink of their youth, the 
couple indulged in such debased act of multiple murders 
driven by infatuation and exhibited no remorse. [Para 
33] [968-A-D] 
E 
7. The crime is committed in the most cruel and 
inhuman manner which is extremely brutal, grotesquej 
diabolical and revolting. Therefore, the extreme 
culpability of both the appellants-accused makes therri 
F 
the most deserving for death penalty. [Para 34] [968-G-
H] 
Case Law Reference 
1973 (2) SCR 541 
relied on 
Para 23 
G 
1980 (2) sec 684 
relied on 
Para 23 
1983 (3) SCR 413 
relied on 
Para 23 
2012 (3) SCR 630 
relied on
Para 23 
2014 (7) sec 443 
relied on 
Para 25 
H

948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
2015 (1) sec 67 
relied on 
Para 26 
2007 (2) SCR 651 
relied on 
Para 27 
2011 (13) SCR 1000 
relied on 
Para 27 
2010 (9) SCR 993 
relied on 
Para 27 
B 2009 (4) Scale 580 
relied on 
Para 27 
2005 (3) SCR 760 
relied on 
Para 27 
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 861 
relied on 
Para 27 
2001 (2) SCR 263 
relied on 
Para 27 
c 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2013 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CC No. 5245 of 2010 
D in CR No. 8 of2010. 
E 
F 
WITH 
Crl A Nos. 804-805 of 2015 
Dushyant Parashar (AC) for the Appellant. 
Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Garvesh Kabra, Abhishek 
Chaudhary, Utkarsh Jaiswal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H. L. DATTU, CJI. 
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 
2. These appeals are directed against the common 
G judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad in the two connected appeals- Capital Cases Nos. 
5003 and 5245 of2010 along with Capital Reference No. 8 of 
2010, dated 26.04.2013. By the impugned judgment and order, 
the High Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction, dated 
H 14.07.2010and order of sentence, datsd 15.07.2010, passed
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
949 
by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 293 of A 
2008, whereby and whereunderthe learned Sessions Judge 
has conv.icted the appellants-accused for offence under Section 
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for 
short, "the IPC") and sentenced them to death. 
B 
. 
3. At the outset, it would be pertinent to notice that learned 
amicus curiae, Shri Dushyant Parashar, appearing for the two 
appellants-accused has limited his submissions only to the 
question of sentence. Therefore, the scope of these appeals 
stand restricted to the determination of appropriate sentence C 
for the offence committed by the appellants-accused. 
Facts: 
4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is: on the intervening 0 
night of 14/15.04.2008, eight persons of the family were present 
at the residence of Master Shaukat Ali (deceased father), 
besides himself; his wife Smt. Hashmi (deceased mother), 
their daughter Shabnam (the appellant-accused), their younger 
son Rashid (deceased younger brother), their minor niece E 
Rabia (deceased cousin), theireldersonAneeshAhmad and 
his wife Anjum (deceased couple) along with their 10 month 
old son Arsh. At about 02: 15 A. M. on the fateful night, upon 
hearing the cries of appellant-accused Shabnam, their. 
neighbor Lateef Ullah Khan (PW-1) along with other neighbours 
F 
reached the house. PW-1 entered the house and found 
Shabnam lying unconscious near the dead body of her
deceased father, whose neck was cut and also discovered 
the dead body of deceased younger brother with slit throat. 
Further, in another room, PW-1 discovered the dead bodies G 
of the deceased wife, deceased couple and deceased cousin 
lying in a pool of blood, with their respective necks cut. The 
dead body of 10 month-old infant, Arsh, was also found between 
the dead bodies of his parents. Immediately thereafter, PW-1 • 
raised an alarm gathering the neighbours and informed the H
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 9 S.C.R. 
· A investigating authorities of the incident. Accordingly, Case 
Crime No. 880 of 2008 was recorded on the basis of 
information received from PW-1, and an FIR was registered 
under Section 302 of the IPC against unknown persons for the 
murder of seven members of the family, in Police Station 
· B Hasanpur at 03:05 A.M. on 15.04.2008. Neither PW-1 nor 
Hash mat Hussain (PW-2), i.e. the neighbour residing opposite 
to the house of the deceased persons, had conversed with 
the appellant-accused Shabnam before approaching the 
investigative authorities. 
c 
5. The investigative agency reached the spot, prepared 
the inquest report and dispatched the dead bodies for post-
mortem. Further, blood-stained pillows, mattress, quilt, rope 
of cot, etc. found near the respective dead bodies were duly 
D sealed, marked, taken into possession and sent for further 
analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Moradabad (for 
short, "the FSL"). Dr. Deewan Ram (PW-24) conducted the 
post-mortem on the dead bodies of diseased father, infant and 
the younger brother and Dr. R. P. Sharma (PW-27) conducted 
E the post-mortem on the remaining deceased persons. Upon 
further investigation, both the appellants-accused, namely 
Saleem and Shabnam, were arrested. Recoveries of the 
n:iurder weapon- axe and a blood-stained shirt were made at 
F the instance of Saleem. Further, a l'-:Jokia mobile phone, one 
empty wrapper of 10 bio-pose tablets, blood
stained cloths, 
mobile SIM of Saleem, etc. were recovered from Shabnam's 
possession. Additionally, the call records and details for 
conversations between the appellants-accused were also 
G obtained. 
6. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused 
persons were involved in a love affair and an illicit physical 
.relationship. While appellant-accused Shabnam is the 
H educated daughter of the deceased family, working as a
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
951 
Shikshamitra (teacher), the appellant-accused Saleem is an· A 
unemployed youth residing in the same village. It is established 
that the appellant-accused Shabnam was pregnant at the time 
of commission of the instant gruesome murders. The 
prosecution has put forth the motive for commission of the 
offence to eliminate the appellant-accused Shabnam's family B 
who were vehemently opposed to their relationship and secure 
the entire property of the family creating financial security for 
themselves. 
7. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet C 
was drawn and the appellants-accused were charged with the 
offence under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC, further 
Shabnam was charged separately under Section 302 of the 
IPC. The appellant-accused had denied their guilt and thus, 
the case was committed to trial. 
D 
8. The prosecution has examined 29 witnesses, 
documentary evidence (Exhibit Ka-1 to Ka-101 ), FSL Reports 
(Exhibit Ka-102 to Ka-112) and recorded statements of the 
appellant-accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of E 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). 
9. The post-mortem reports have indicated the cause of 
death of deceased father, mother, younger brother, cousin and 
the couple as shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem 
F 
injuries, namely multiple incised wounds caused by a sharp 
edge weapon and a cut on the front of neck. Further, inner-
linings of the stomach of
deceased persons were recorded 
as red and swollen, concluding that intoxicating substances 
were ingested before death. The cause of death for deceased G 
infant was recorded as asphyxia and ante-mortem injuries 
caused by means of throttling and strangulation with hand. 
10. It is a case qf circumstantial evidence, there being 
no eye-witness to the incident. The testimony of neighbours, 
H
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
namely PW-1 and PW-2, has corroboratively supported the 
prosecution story and established that the main door to the 
house was locked from the inside when they had rushed 
towards the house after hearing the cries of appellant-accused 
Shabnam. They have stated that when they broke into the 
B house, they did not notice any bedcovers on or around the 
roof of the house as alleged by the appellant-accused 
Shabnam in her statement recorded under Section 313 of the 
Code, instead that her bedding was prepared near her 
mother's bed. 
c 
11. Further, Mahendra Singh, Block Head of the village 
(PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad, tea-seller (PW-6) have testified 
regarding confession of appellant-accused Saleem before 
them and corroborated the factum and manner of the 
D commission of the offence as follows: the appellants-accused 
had planned to kill her family and on the fateful day the former 
brought and handed over 10 intoxicating tablets to the latter, 
which she administered to her family members in tea. The 
family members being unconscious, Saleem reached her 
E house with the murder weapon and as Shabnam held the heads 
of her family members, Saleem kept cutting their necks one-
by-one. Upon commission of crime, Saleem threw away the · 
murder weapon in a pond. They have al.so testified to the fact 
F that appellant-accused Shabnam has herself throttled the 
infant. Rais Ahmad, witness at the pharmacy (PW-8) has stated 
that Saleem,
on the fateful morning, had attempted to purchase 
sleeping pills from the pharmacy, but only finally managed to 
acquire the same from one Pappu. His statement has been 
G incontrovertibly supported by Mobil Hussain, the pharmacist 
(PW-11). 
12. The statements of other witnesses have confirmed 
the illicit relationship between the appellants-accused which 
H was against the wishes of latter's family and that the two lover 
would meet at night.
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI) 
953 
13. In their defence, the appellants-accused have denied A 
the charges against them and pleaded false implication. They 
have, in fact, sought to implicate each other in their defence. 
Appellant-accused Shabnam, in her Section 313 statement 
has stated that Saleem had entered the house with a knife 
through the roof and killed all her family members while she B 
was asleep alone on the roof. To the contrary, Saleem, has 
stated that he reached the house only at the request of 
Shabnam where she had confessed commission of crime to 
him. 
c 
14. The Trial Court, after meticulous marshalling of facts 
and thorough scrutiny of available evidence, has observed that 
the evidence on record including post-mortem reports and 
witness statements has established a continuous and 
consistent link in the chain of events and thoroughly supported D 
the prosecution story. The Trial Court has concluded that the 
appellants-accused deranged by the opposition to their illicit 
relationship had hatched a gruesome murder plan which they 
had executed by first rendering the family unconscious by 
administering sleeping pills through tea at the hands of E 
Shabnam, and thereafterslicing their throats by an axe while 
they lay in a comatose state. Therefore, the Trial Court has 
concluded that the link in chain of events having been 
established and corroborated unquestionably confirms the guilt 
F 
of appellants-accused for the brutal murder
of seven persons 
and thereby, convicted them for offence under Sections 302 
read with 34 of the IPC. 
15. In the order of sentence, the Trial Court has observed 
that the crime committed by appellants-accused is enormous G 
in proportion. They are convicted of multiple successive 
murders of seven persons of co-accused Shabnam's family 
including her innocent ten month old nephew, old helpless 
mother, old father, one young couple- her brother and sister-
H
954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
in-law, one young boy and a sixteen years old cousin. The Trial 
Court considered the motive behind ruthless murders, pre-
. planned execution, manner of commission of crime, the 
personality of deceased persons who were respectable and 
loved members of the community, the stand ofthe deceased 
B persons who were only against the marriage of their educated 
daughter, appellant-accused Shabnam with the uneducated 
unemployed co-accused Saleem and the remorseless conduct 
of the appellants-accused after the murder as aggravating 
circumstances and in conclusion, has recorded that the instant 
C case falls in the category of "rarest of the rare" requiring a 
punishment not less than death penalty for the offence 
committed by the appellants-accused. Therefore, the Trial 
Court has sentenced the two appellants to death. 
D 
16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the 
E 
appellants-accused had approached the High Court in Capital 
Cases Nos. 5003 and 5245 of 2010. The High Court has 
disposed of the said appeal along with the Capital Reference 
No. 8 of 2010 by a common judgment and order, dated 
26.04.2013. 
17. The High Court has examined the evidence on record 
strand by strand in light of the observations made by the Trial 
Court and the submissions put forth by learned counsel 
F appearing for the parties and confirmed the judgment of 
conviction passed by the Trial Court. The High Court has 
concluded that the
scale of aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances is heavily tilted towards the aggravating 
circumstances in the present case and observed as under: 
G 
" ... we find that in the present case, the aggravating 
circumstances would include the diabolical and 
calculated nature of the crime which was committed 
after methodical planning. Biopose sedative 
H 
tablets appear to have been obtained by the
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
appellant Shabnam with the help of Saleem; and 
were mixed in some food substance which was 
given to all the 6 grown up family members, all of 
whom were murdered with an axe in their sleep. 
Their bodies were found in their beds, with no 
injuries on the arms or hands of any deceased. All 
the injuries were on the neck, face or trunk regions 
which supports the hypothesis that the murders 
were committed when the deceased had been 
strongly sedated. The visceras of all these 6 grown 
up deceased indicated the presence of diazepam 
tranquilizer. The axe which was got discovered by 
the appellant Saleem contained human blood. No 
mercy was even showed to the 10 month old child 
Arsh who was strangulated, and thus the only other 
person from the household who could have inherited 
the property was also eliminated. 
. .. The 
subsequent conduct of the accused Shabnam in 
removing all signs of the crime, by changing her 
clothes, removing any signs, and finger prints etc. 
and then raising an alarm for help and thereafter 
pretending to be unconscious for creating an 
impression that some outsiders had committed this 
crime, all indicate the cold blooded planning 
before, during and after the commission of the 
crime." 
(emphasis supplied) 
955 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
18. Further, the High Court has refused to accept the 
submission that the appell~nt-accused Shabnam was under· G 
great mental stress due to the opposition from her family
to 
the releotionship between her and the other co-accused and 
the same is a fit mitigating circumstance. The High Court has 
noticed that there was no evidence of any threat or any incident 
of attack on the lives or person of the two appellants-accused H
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
by the deceased persons and that the elimination of all seven 
members of Shabnam's family, including the ten month old child 
was a grossly disproportionate and uncalled for reaction to 
any apprehensions that the appellants-accused may have 
received regarding their proposed alliance. The High Court 
B has further noticed that features of the criminal mind of 
appellants-accused can be inferred from the pre-planned 
finesse with which the crime is committed, manner of 
commission of crime and remorseless attitude of the 
appellants-accused persons both- before and after the crime. 
C The High Court has thus concluded that the aforesaid conduct 
of the appellants-accused persons renders them beyond 
reformation and observed as under: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"Shabnam's pregnancy and subsequent delivery of 
child, no ground for reducing sentence. It was also 
contended that Shabnam was carrying a child in 
her womb whom she has delivered in jail and who 
would be orphaned if the appellants are executed. 
In mo~.~(ft,urder cases the accu~~? have minor 
children; or aged parents or a spollse who would 
be bereaved if the convict is executed. This 
according to the Supreme Court in Sevaka 
Perumal v State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 Cri.L.J. 845 
(SC) cannot provide a iegitimate reason for not 
awarding the death penalty, if the case is one, 
where looking to the heinous nature of the crime 
and the criminal a death penalty is the only 
appropriate
sentence." 
Thus, in light of the aforesaid considerations, the High 
Court has thought it fit to classify the present case as "rarest of 
rare" and award death penalty to the appellate-accu!>ed 
persons. 
H 
19. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, 
the accused-appellants are before us in this appeal.
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
957 
Submissions 
A 
20. The learned amicus for the appellants would restrict 
his arguments only to the question of sentence. He would submit 
that instant case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence 
and the prosecution case garners support from no eye-
B 
witnesses and therefore, the same could not have been relied 
. upon by the Trial Court to sentence the appellants-accused to 
irreversible consequence of death. He would further submit 
thatthe mitigating circumstances of the appellants-accused, 
that is, them being young at thetime of incidence, the mental C 
stress undergone by them due to opposition of their alliance 
from the deceased family and the factum of appellant-accused 
Shabnam being pregnant at the time of the offence ought to 
be considered in context of the offence committed by the two 
appellants-accused and lenient approach be adopted in 
D 
determining and awarding appropriate sentence to them. 
21. Learned ·counsel for the State would oppose the 
request of learned amicus in respect of adoption of lenient 
approach in sentencing the appellants-accused persons and 
E 
supporting the reasons recorded in the judgment(s) and 
order(s) passed by the Courts below, submit that the present 
case is a ·fit case to be classified as "rarest of rare" and hence, 
the appellants-accused deserve nothing but death penalty for 
the dastardly crime committed by them. 
F 
22. We have given our anxious consideration to
the 
evidence on record in its entirety and the submissions put forth 
by both the learned counsel. We have carefully perused the 
judgments and orders of the Courts below. 
G 
Discussion 
23. We would not lumber the discussion by tracing the 
entire death penalty jurisprudence as it has evolved in India, 
H 
but only limit the exercise to cull out the determinants which
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
would weigh large in our mind to award appropriate sentence 
while balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 
We are be mindful of the principles laid down by this Court in 
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, (1973) 1 SCC 20, Bachan 
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi 
B Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 as followed by 
this Court upto the present. The aforesaid decisions indicate 
that the most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian 
· "criminal jurisprudence regarding award of death penalty is that 
life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only 
C to be awarded in "rarest of rare cases." Death sentence must 
be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an 
altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant 
circumstances of the crime, and provided the option to impose 
0 
sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously 
exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of 
the crime and all the relevant circumstances. The 
circumstances which should or should not be taken into account, 
and the circumstances which should be taken into account 
E along with other circumstances, as well as the circumstances 
which may, by, themselves, be sufficient, in the exercise of the 
discretion ~'regarding sentence cannot be exhaustively 
enumerated. The guidelines and principles for classification 
of circumstances and determination
of the culpability indicia 
F as laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases have been 
succinctly summarized in Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 
(2012) 4 sec 257. The said are extracted as under: 
G 
H 
"Aggravating Circumstances: 
1. The offences relating to the commission of heinous 
crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping etc. 
by the accused with a prior record of conviction for capital 
felony or offences committed by the person having a 
substantial history of serious assaults and criminal 
convictions.
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
959 
2. The offence was committed while the offender was A 
engaged in the commission of another serious offence. 
3. The offence was committed with the intention to create 
a fear psychosis in the public at large and was committed 
in a public place by a weapon or device which clearly· s 
could be hazardous to the life of more than one person. 
4. The offence of murder was committed for ransom or 
like offences to receive money or monetary benefits. 
5. Hired killings. 
6. The offence was committed outrageously for want only 
while involving inhumane treatment and torture to the 
victim. 
7. The offence was committed by a person while in lawful 
custody. 
8. The murder or the offence was committed, to prevent 
c 
D 
a person lawfully carrying out his duty like arrest or custody E 
in a place of lawful confinement of himself or another. 
For instance, murder is of a person who had acted in 
lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 Code of 
Criminal Procedure. 
F 
9. When the crime is enormous in proportion likE:: r.1aking 
an attempt of murder of the entire family or members of 
a particular community. 
10. When the victim is innocent, helpless or a person 
relies upon th~ trust of relationship and social norms, like G 
a child, helpless woman, a daughter or a niece staying 
with a father/uncle and is inflicted with the crime by such 
a trusted person. 
H
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
11. When murder is committed for a motive which 
evidences total depravity and meanness. 
B 
c 
D 
12. When there is a cold blooded murder without 
provocation. 
13. The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks or 
shocks not o~ly the judicial conscience but even the 
conscience of the society. 
Mitigating Circumstances: 
1. The manner and circumstances in and under which 
the offence was committed, for example, extreme mental 
or emotional disturbance or extreme provocation in 
contradistinction to all these situations in normal course. 
2. The age of the accused is a relevant consideration 
but not a determinative factor by itself. 
3. The chances of the accused of not indulging in 
E 
commission of the crime again and the probability of the 
accused being reformed and rehabilitated. 
F 
G 
H 
4. The condition of the accused shows that he was 
mentally defective and the defect impaired his capacity 
to appreciate the circumstances of his criminal conduct. 
5. The circumstances which, in normal course of life, 
would render such a behavior possible and could have 
the effect of giving rise to ,mental imbalance in that given 
situation like persistent harassment or, in fact, leading to 
such a peak of human behavior that, .in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he 
was morally justified in committing the offence. 
6. Where the Court upon proper appreciation of evidence 
is of the view that
the crime was not committed in a pre-

SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
961 
ordained manner and that the death resulted in the course A 
of commission of another crime and that there was a 
possibility of it being construed as consequences to the 
commission of the primary crime. 
7. Where it is absolutely unsafe to rely upon the testimony B 
of a sole eye-witness though prosecution has brought 
home the guilt of the accused. 
While determining the questions relateable to sentencing 
policy, the Court has to follow ~ertain principles and those c 
principles are the loadstar besides the above 
considerations in imposition or otherwise of the death 
sentence. 
Principles: 
D 
1. The Court has to apply the test to determine, if it was 
the 'rarest of rare' case for imposition of a death sentence. 
2. In the opinion of the Court, imposition of any other 
punishment, i.e., life imprisonment would be completely E 
inadequate and would not meet the ends of justice. 
3. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an 
exception. 
F 
4. The option to impose sentence of imprisonment for 
life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the 
nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant 
circumstances. 
5. The method (planned or otherwise) and the manner G 
(extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime 
was committed and the circumstances leading to 
commission of such heinous crime." 
H
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
24. ltis now settled law that where maximum punishment 
that could be awarded under a provision is death penalty, the 
Courts are required to independently consider facts of each 
case and determine a sentence which is the most appropriate 
" 
and proportional to the culpability of the accused. It is not 
B sufficient for the Court to decide the quantum of sentence only 
with reference to one of the classes under any one of the head 
of circumstances while completely ignoring classes under the 
other. That is to say, what is required to be considered is not 
just the circumstances by placing them in separate 
C compartments, but their cumulative effect. The Court ought to 
be sufficiently cautious and adherent of the same so as to better 
administer the criminal justice system and provide an effective 
and meaningful reasoning by the Court as contemplated under 
0 
Section 354(3) of the Code while.sentencing. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
25. The aforesaid principles also find reference in 
observations of this Court in Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir v. State 
ofWB.,(2014) 7 sec 443: 
"173. Sentencing is a delicate task requiring an 
interdisciplinary approach and calls for special skills 
and talents. A proper sentence is the amalgam of 
many factors, such as, the nature of offence, 
circumstances-extenuating or aggravating-of the 
offence, prior criminal record of the offender, age 
and background of the offender with reference to 
education, home
life, s·obriety, social adjustment, 
emotional and mental condition, the prospects for 
his rehabilitation, etc. The above passage can be 
found in Ratan/al & Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes, 26th 
Edn. at p. 185 on the topic "Of Punishments"." 
26. Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand, (2015) 1 SCC 
67 is a case where the appellants-accused had 
committed brutal and cold blooded murders of eight
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
persons of their own family successively due to 
discord over property. This Court while awarding 
death penalty to the accused persons noted that 
the scope of reformation of the perpetrators of the 
crime has been obliterated given the manner of 
execution of cold blooded murder of the kin and 
their conduct after commission of the crime. This 
Court observed as follows: 
"46. The Crime Test, Criminal Test and the "Rarest 
of the Rare" Test are certain tests evolved by this 
Court. The Tests basically examine whether the 
society abhors such crimes and whether such 
crimes shock the conscience of the society and 
attract intense and extreme indignation of the 
community. The cases exhibiting premeditation 
and meticulous execution of the plan to murder 
by levelling a calculated attack on the victim to 
annihilate him, have been held to be fit cases for 
imposing death penalty. Where innocent minor 
children, unarmed persons, helpless women and 
old and infirm persons have been killed in a brutal 
manner by persons in dominating position, and 
where after ghastly murder displaying depraved 
mentality, the accused have shown no remorse, 
death penalty has been imposed. Where it is 
established that the accused is a hardened 
criminal and has committed murder in a diabolic 
manner and where it is felt that reformation and 
963 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
rehabilitation of such a person is impossible and 
G 
if let free, he would be a
menace to the society, 
this Court has not hesitated to confirm death 
sentence. Many a time, in cases of brutal murder, 
exhibiting depravity and callousness, this Court has 
acknowledged the need to send a deterrent 
H
964 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
message to those who may embark on such crimes 
in future. In some cases involving brutal murders, 
society's cry for justice has been taken note of by 
this Court, amongst other relevant factors." 
(emphasis supplied) 
27. In Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1, a married 
· couple had murdered the wife's father, mother, sister, 
stepbrother and his whole family including three young ones 
C of 45 days, 2% years and 4 years with the motive of resisting 
her father from giving property to her stepbrother and his family. 
Therein, this Court has held that since the murders were 
committed in a cruel, pre-planned and diabolic manner while 
the victims were sleeping, without any provocation from the 
0 
victim's side, it could be concluded the accused persons did 
not possess any basic humanity and lacked the psyche or 
mind-set amenable to any reformation and therefore, the case 
fell within the category of the rarest of rare cases for imposition 
of death penalty. Further, in similar cases where the accused 
E persons had committed murders of their own kith and kin in a 
pre-planned brutal manner, without any remorse or for self-
defense, this Court has thought it frt to uphold their death penalty 
observing that the manner of commission of crime being 
grotesque and diabolical, the accused persons deserved 
F 
nothing but death penalty. 
' 
(Ajitsingh Hamamsingh Gujral v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 
14 sec 401, Atbirv.
Govt. (NCTofDelhi), (2010) 9 sec 1, 
Jagdish v. State of M.P, (2009) 12 Scale 580, Saibanna v. 
G State of Kamataka, ( 2005) 4 SCC 165, State of Rajasthan v. 
Kheraj Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 224 and Suresh v. State of U.P, 
r2001J 3 sec 673.J 
28. Having regard, however, to the conditions in India, to 
H the variety of social upbringing of ~ts citizens, to the disparity
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
965 
in the level of morality·and education in the country, to the A 
vastne.ss of its area, to the diversity of its population and to the 
paramount need for maintaining law and order in the country 
at the present juncture, in evaluating a crime and apportioning 
the most appropriate punishment, one of the most important 
functions Court performs while making a selection between B 
life imprisonment and death is to maintain a link between 
contemporary community values and the penal system. 
Criminal jurisprudence indicates that society's perceptions of 
a crime with respect to appropriate penalties are not 
conclusive. Concurrently, it also stands that the said standards C 
have always been progressive and acquire meaning as public 
opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice. The scope 
of determining the standards is never precise and rarely static. 
The Courts must thus draw its meaning from the evolving 0 
·standards of public morality and consciousness that mark the 
progress of a maturing society. 
29. Familial relations play a vital role in describing and 
highlighting the qualities of our society. The Indian legal system 
today does not differentiate between a son and a daughter-
E 
they have equal rights and duties. Indian culture has been 
witness to for centuries, that daughters dutifully.bear the burden 
of being the caregivers for her parents, even more than a son. 
Our experience has reflected that an adult
daughter places 
greater emphasis on their relationships with their parents, and 
F 
when those relationships go awry, it takes a worse toll on the 
adult daughters than the adult sons. The modern era, led by 
the dawn of education, no longer recognizes the stereotype 
that a parent would want a son so that they have someone to G 
look after them and support them in their old age. Now, in an 
educated and civilized society, a daughter plays a multifaceted 
and indispensible role in the family, especially towards her 
parents. She is a caregiver and a supporter, a gentle hand 
and responsible voice, an embodiment of the cherished values H
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A of our society and in whom a parent places blind faith and 
trust. 
30. Of all the crimes that shock the souls of men, none 
has ever been held in greater abhorrence than parricide, which 
s is by all odds the most complete and terrible inversion, not 
alone of human nature but of brute instinct. Such a deed would 
be sufficiently appalling were the perpetrator and the victims 
are uneducated and backward, but it gains a ghastly illumination 
from the descent, moral upbringing, and elegant respectful 
C living of the educated family where the father and daughter 
are both teachers. Here is a case where the daughter, appellant-
accused Shabnam, who has been brought up in an educated 
and independent environment by her family and was 
respectfully employed as a Shikshamitra (teacher) at the 
D school, influenced by the love and lust of her paramour has 
committed this brutal parricide exterminatin9 seven lives 
including that of an innocent child. Not only did she forget her 
love for and duty towards her family, but also perpetrated the 
multiple homicide in her own house so as to fulfill her desire to 
E be with the co-accused Salim and grab the property leaving 
no heir but herself. The appellant-co-accused Salim hatched 
the intricate plari with her, slayed the six deceased persons 
with an axe, escaped the crime scene, hid the murder weapon 
F 
and supported the false story of occurrence. Both the 
appellants~accused wrench
the heart of our society where 
family is an institution of love and trust, which they have 
disrespected and corrupted for the sake of their love affair. 
31. The appellants-accused have put an end to seven 
G innocent lives while they lay asleep defenseless and 
unsuspecting, in safety of their own house, absolutely unaware 
of the gory scheme of their daughter and her paramour. The 
appellants-accused driven by the opposition to their alliance 
H from the deceased family and alive to the conception of their
. 
.,.. 
SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
967 
illegitimate child, had hatched the depraved plan to first A 
administer them sedatives mixed in tea prepared by appellant-
accused Shabnam, who the family would not raise suspicion 
at, and thereafter, bleeding them to death by slitting the vital 
blood vessels in their throats. The appellants-accused couple 
did not even spare the ten month old infant, who could not have 
B 
protested to their liaison, and ruthlessly throttled him to death 
so as to leave no survivors for claiming share in the family's 
. property in the future. As soon as the family members were 
rendered dead, while appellant-accused Saleem fled from the 
spot disposing of the murder weapon and other evidence of C 
crime, the appellant-accused Shabnam feigned 
unconsciousness and laid by the side of deceased father's 
mutilated body, to callously insinuate that the crime had been 
committed by an outsider while she was asleep on the roof-
0 
top. The appellant-accused lovers have consistently denied 
their guilt throughout the trial and, on the prosecution case 
being proved, stooped down to implicate each other in the 
commission of offence so as to exonerate themselves from 
the consequences of their obnoxious act. 
E 
32. The aggravating circumstances indicate the extreme 
brutal, calculated and diabolical nature of the crime, which 
suggests that there is little likelihood of reform of these accused 
and of their abstaining from future
crime. All these features 
F 
stench of the apathetic attitude of the appellant-accused 
daughter towards her family and mirrors the extent of her 
depravity in schemingly committing the cold blooded murder 
of her own parents, brother, sister-in law and ten-month old 
nephew. This itself triggers intense indignation in the G 
community. It is the combined concoction of all aggravating 
circumstances, that is, victims of the crime, motive for 
commission of murder, manner of execution, magnitude of 
crime and remorseless attitude of the appellants-accused that 
stands before us in this case. 
H
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015]98.C.R. •· 
A 
33. The mitigating circumstances regarding young age 
of the appellants-accused at the time of commission of crime 
do not bear any significance in terms of outweighing the 
aggravating circumstances of their wanton act. Further, it has 
also been pointed out before us that the appellant-accused 
B Shabnam was pregnant at the time of commission of offence 
and the couple now has a dependent minor child. While the 
said circumstances stand as such, it is pertinent to notice that 
this Court has consistently held that such compassionate 
grounds are present in most cases and are not relevant in 
C considering commutation of death sentence. The principle that 
when the offence is gruesome and was committed in a 
calculated and diabolical manner, the age of the accused may 
not be a relevant factor, was further affirmed by this Court in 
0 
Mofi/ Khan case( supra). It is however shocking that at the pink 
of their youth, the couple indulged in such debased act of 
multiple murders driven by infatuation and exhibited no 
remorse. 
34. Death penalty is not proportional if the law's most 
E severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or 
blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by 
reason of youth and immaturity. This however does not seem 
to be the case herein. The appellant-accused persons' 
F preparedness, active involvement, scheming execution and 
subsequent conduct reeks of calculated and motivated
murders. The act of slaughtering a ten month old child by 
strangulation in no chance reflects immature action but 
evidence for the lack of remorse, kindness and humanity. The 
G crime is committed in the most cruel and inhuman manner which 
is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and revolting. 
Therefore, as the instant case requires us to award a 
punishment that is graduated and proportioned to the crime, 
we have reached the inescapable conclusion that the extreme 
H culpability of both the appellants-accused makes them the most 
deserving for death penalty.

SHABNAM v. STATE OF U. P. [H. L. DATTU, CJI] 
969 
35. In the result, we concur with and confirm the reasons A 
recorded by the Trial Court and approved by the High Court 
while awarding and confirming the death sentence of the 
appellants-accused, respectively. In our considered view, the 
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the courts below do not 
suffer from any error whatsoever which would call for our B 
interference in the sentence awarded to the appellant-accused 
persons. 
36. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. The 
Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 
C 
Th9usand Only) to the learned amicus curiae in each case. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals dismissed.