REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1059  OF 2004

STATE NCT OF DELHI ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

AJIT SETH @ AJJI ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

This  is  indeed  a  sorry  case  and  indicates  the  

hardship and inequity that can  ensue to an accused, the  

prosecution and the victims  in the case of a delayed trial  

or the delay in the disposal of an appeal.  

Two  young  children,  Sunny  Arora  aged  about  seven  

years and his sister Shikha Arora, aged about three and  

half years, were burnt to death by the respondent Ajit Seth

as  he  was  under  the  impression  that  they  were  carrying  

tales of his illicit connection with their mother Indu,  

co-accused, to their father.

The Trial Court, relying on the dying declarations  

made by the deceased children, convicted the respondent for  

offences punishable  under Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC  

but  acquitted  Indu,   and  on  the  question  of  sentence  

observed as under:

“25. To  sum  up,  the  special  reasons  for  

imposing  the  death  sentence  are  that  the  murders  

were  pre-meditated;  the  manner  of  commission  of  

murders was brutal and diabolical and shocks the  

-2-

judicial  conscience  as  the  two  innocent  children

were roasted alive; accused was in a position of  

domination and trust vis.-a-vis. the two deceased  

children the accused killed the two children for the  

selfish  motive  of  possessing  his  women  which  

exhibits his depraved mentality and meanness.

26. In  view  of  my  discussion  above  the  

accused Ajit Seth is sentenced as below:

26 (a)  U/s.  302  IPC  the  accused  is  

sentenced  to  death.  However,  the  

sentence shall not e executed till its  

confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court  

u/s 366 Cr.P.C.

27

28 (b)   U/s.  364  IPC  the  accused  is  

sentenced to R.I. for 10 years.  He is  

also  fined  Rs.1000/-  In  default  of  

payment of fine he shall further undergo  

R.I.  for  one  month.  The  period  of

detention  undergone  by  the  accused  

during  the  investigation  of  trial  of  

this case shall be set off against the  

sentence awarded to him u/s. 364 IPC.

29

The proceedings are hereby submitted to the  

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for confirmation of the  

death sentence passed u/s. 302 IPC and the accused  

is committed to the jail custody under a separate  

warrant.”

The matter was therefore remitted to the High Court  

under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. for the confirmation of  

the death sentence and an appeal was also filed by the  

accused respondent in the High Court.

-3-

The High Court by its judgment dated 1st October 2001  

held that though the crime committed by the respondent was  

indeed heinous and barbaric but it still did not fall in  

the  category  of  the  “rarest  of  rare  cases”.  The  death  

reference was accordingly disallowed and the appeal of the  

respondent was dismissed with the following observations:

“We convert the death sentence of the  

appellant  into  life  imprisonment  with  a  

direction that the appellant shall undergo the  

sentence of imprisonment for life and he shall  

not be released from the prison unless he has  

served  at  least  20  years  of  imprisonment  

including the period already undergone by him.  

Rest of the sentence will remain the same.”

It is the conceded position that the appellant has,  

of now, undergone more than 20 years of the sentence and

has also been released  in April 2010. We see that the SLP  

had been filed in the year 2002 and leave was granted two  

years later.  In the light of the fact that the appellant  

has already completed his sentence of 20 years and has been  

released  it  would  be  a  complete  travesty  of  justice  to  

allow this Appeal and to award a capital sentence  

-4-

at this stage.  We endorse the finding of the Trial Court

that  the  crime  committed  by  the  respondent  was  indeed  

barbaric and called for no mercy but in the face of the  

facts given above, to send the respondent to the gallows at  

this stage too would be completely unjustified.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

                     .................J.          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

....................J.                                    (CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD) New Delhi,

    August 17, 2010.