AP High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Murder Convicts, Says 'Rarest Of Rare' Test Not Met If Accused Amenable To Reform

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that capital punishment cannot be imposed unless the case falls within the "rarest of rare" category and the court is satisfied that the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the accused is unquestionably foreclosed. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 162]

Commuting the death sentence awarded to two convicts to rigorous imprisonment for life without remission, the Court reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception. It further acquitted a third accused after finding that no specific overt act had been attributed to her by the prosecution.

A Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed:

"Criminal Justice System is more punitive than intended. The system is touted to be reformable and rehabilitative. The objectives of the Indian Criminal Justice System include penalizing, reforming and rehabilitating the offender. Reformation is its final goal as the system asserts to be more rehabilitative than retributive...

It is a settled principle of law that the imposition of the death penalty is an exception, to be invoked only in cases that fall within the ambit of the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Court, while adjudging the question of sentence, is required to undertake a conscientious and principled balancing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, keeping in view not only the nature and gravity of the crime, but also the circumstances pertaining to the offender. In this exercise, the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused assumes paramount importance and must be accorded due and substantive consideration.

In the case on hand, though the offence is grave and heinous, resulting in the loss of two lives, the material on record does not establish that the accused are beyond the possibility of reformation. The reports placed before this Court indicate that the accused have no prior criminal antecedents and belong to a modest socio-economic background. There is no material to suggest that they pose a continuing threat to society or that they are incapable of being reformed and rehabilitated. In the absence of any material to conclude that the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not fall within the ambit of the “rarest of rare” category warranting imposition of the death penalty." 

The case came before the High Court after the trial court awarded the death penalty to Accused No. 1 (the husband of the deceased) and Accused No. 2 (his father) for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Accused No. 3 (the mother of Accused No. 1) was convicted for the offences with the aid of common intention under Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with other terms of imprisonment. 

Since a death sentence cannot be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was referred to the High Court for confirmation. Meanwhile, all three accused filed separate criminal appeals challenging their convictions and sentences.  

According to the prosecution, Accused No. 1 fatally stabbed his wife less than two weeks after their marriage. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also alleged to have murdered her mother and attempted to murder her father, who survived and testified as the sole injured eyewitness.

The trial court sentenced Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to death for one count of murder and to life imprisonment for the remaining offences, while Accused No. 3 was convicted with the aid of common intention and sentenced to life imprisonment along with ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the other offences.

Examining the evidence, the High Court found that the testimony of the injured eyewitness (P.W.1) consistently established the involvement of Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the murders and the attack on him. However, it observed that no overt act had been attributed to Accused No.3 apart from her presence at the scene. Holding that mere presence was insufficient to sustain her conviction, the Court acquitted her of all charges. 

On the question of sentence, the High Court considered reports submitted by the District Collector, Superintendent of Police and prison authorities, which showed that the accused had no criminal antecedents, belonged to a Below Poverty Line family and had no adverse remarks against them. 

The Court observed that although the offence was grave and resulted in the loss of two lives, the material on record did not establish that the accused were beyond the possibility of reformation or that they posed a continuing threat to society.

It further noted that "the Court, while adjudging the question of sentence, is required to undertake a conscientious and principled balancing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, keeping in view not only the nature and gravity of the crime, but also the circumstances pertaining to the offender."

Accordingly, the High Court commuted the death sentence imposed on Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for life without remission. It also directed each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment.

Case Title: Narapuram Shravan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Nos.: Referred Trial No. 1 of 2024; Criminal Appeal Nos. 604 & 608 of 2024Counsel for the Appellant: V. NiteshCounsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 162