LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 24 September 2026

Is the sentence of death the only adequate sentence where an intermediate sentence would meet the ends of justice?

WARIS v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2026 INSC 1050 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 429-430/2020
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta · Justice Vijay Bishnoi
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The sentence of death is not the only adequate sentence where an intermediate sentence would meet the ends of justice.

No. Since Union of India v. V. Sriharan, a court is not confined to the stark choice between the sentence of death and life imprisonment carrying, after fourteen years, the ordinary prospect of remission; the intermediate option of imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life without remission lies between these two. Once that intermediate sentence is shown adequate to the crime's gravity, the sentence of death is not the only adequate sentence, and the alternative to death remains open rather than foreclosed.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Article 21 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.376AB — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.5-6 — Sentencing — Rarest of rare — Intermediate sentence — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Bachan Singh — Crime test and criminal test — Held: A sentencing court cannot assess the criminal test at zero while considering whether to impose the sentence of death; Bachan Singh commands that the crime be weighed together with the criminal, and a court assigning zero weight to the criminal disobeys that command. (¶182) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Burden on the State — Reformation — Held further: The State must establish that a convict is beyond reformation before the sentence of death can be sustained; where the State leads no such evidence, the possibility of reformation cannot be said to be excluded, and the alternative of life imprisonment is not foreclosed. (¶188, 190) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Union of India v. V. Sriharan — Intermediate sentence — Held further: The sentence of death is not the only adequate sentence where an intermediate sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life without remission would meet the ends of justice. Death sentence commuted; conviction affirmed. (¶197, 203) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.391 — s.367 — Cure of defective cross-examination — Held further: A defect in the cross-examination of a principal witness by counsel with no opportunity to prepare can be cured by this Court directing further cross-examination, rather than requiring a fresh trial. (¶24, 26)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 197It is at this point that the intermediate sentencing option assumes its decisive importance. Since the decision of this Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (Supra), the court has not been confined, in a case of this nature, to the stark choice between the sentence of death and a sentence of life imprisonment carrying the ordinary prospect of remission after fourteen years. There lies between them the option of imprisonment for the whole of the remainder of the convict's natural life, or for a fixed term of years extending well beyond fourteen, without the benefit of remission. The significance of this intermediate option can hardly be overstated, for it enables the court to answer the gravity of the crime with a sentence of the utmost severity, one that may confine the offender for the whole of his remaining life, without the court being compelled to choose between the taking of the offender's life and a sentence that may see him released after fourteen years. The existence of this option narrows very greatly the class of cases in which the sentence of death can be said to be the only adequate sentence, for the sentence of death is not the only adequate sentence wherever a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life would meet the ends of justice.
Paragraph 198We have asked ourselves whether, in the present case, a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the appellant, without the benefit of remission, would adequately answer the gravity of the crime, including its exceptional aggravating feature. After thorough consideration, we have concluded that it would. Such a sentence would confine the appellant, now a man of about fifty-six years, for the whole of the remainder of his days, without the prospect of release. It would exact from him a retribution of the utmost severity, proportionate to the gravity of what he did. It would protect society from him for the whole of his life. And it would do these things while preserving, as the sentence of death by its irrevocable nature cannot, the possibility of reform. Where a sentence of this severity is available and would meet the ends of justice, the sentence of death cannot be said to be the only adequate sentence, and the alternative to death is therefore not foreclosed.
Acts & Sections
s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.376AB Indian Penal Code, 1860s.376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860s.376(2)(n) Indian Penal Code, 1860s.201 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.5 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.42 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.391 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.367 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of WARIS v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can a sentencing court assess the criminal test at zero while considering whether to impose the sentence of death?Must the State establish that a convict is beyond reformation before the sentence of death can be sustained?Can a defect in the cross-examination of a principal witness by counsel with no opportunity to prepare be cured by directing further cross-examination?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections