Capital punishment sentencing must weigh mitigating factors and reformability; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

Capital punishment requires a separate sentencing hearing and reasoned findings of special reasons under the Criminal Procedure Code. In applying the "rarest of rare" doctrine, the Court must balance the circumstances of the crime with the circumstances of the offender, including reformability, future dangerousness, age, background, and other mitigating factors. Excessive reliance on brutality alone is insufficient where mitigating circumstances are not properly weighed. On the stated facts, the death sentence was found unsustainable and was commuted to life imprisonment, while the conviction was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the death sentence imposed for murder should be confirmed or commuted to life imprisonment in light of the mitigating circumstances and the sentencing principles governing capital punishment.

Analysis: The sentencing framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires a separate hearing on sentence and a reasoned consideration of special reasons for death penalty. In capital cases, the Court must weigh both the circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal, with due regard to reformability, the likelihood of future dangerousness, age, background, and other mitigating factors. The doctrine of "rarest of rare" makes life imprisonment the norm and death sentence the exception. The Court found that the lower courts gave excessive weight to brutality and did not properly account for the mitigating circumstances, including the absence of evidence that the accused was beyond reform or a continuing threat to society.

Conclusion: The death sentence was not sustainable and was commuted to imprisonment for life, while the conviction was maintained.

---