ISSUE:
Whether the death penalty awarded to the appellants falls within the "rarest of rare" category, justifying the ultimate punishment?
Whether sentencing discretion should focus solely on the nature of the crime or also consider the circumstances of the criminal?
Whether the balance-sheet approach of weighing aggravating and mitigating factors is legally valid under Bachan Singh?
Whether life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life or a fixed term subject to remission?
RULE:
The death penalty must only be imposed when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. The sentencing court must consider both the crime and the criminal before deciding on capital punishment. If there is any possibility of reformation, the death penalty is not justified.
Sentencing must not be based solely on the brutality of the crime but must also consider the individual circumstances of the accused. The shift from Jagmohan Singh to Bachan Singh requires an individualized sentencing approach that includes factors like the criminal’s background, psychological state, and likelihood of rehabilitation.
The balance-sheet approach to aggravating and mitigating factors is flawed. Aggravating circumstances relate to the crime, while mitigating circumstances pertain to the criminal; they cannot be mechanically compared. Sentencing must be principle-based rather than a mathematical exercise.