107 198. Deviation from this principle, i.e., unguided discretion on the other hand, would quite obviously lead to bad law. For instance, Ravji v. State of Haryana104 (hereafter ‘Ravji’), in complete contravention of this court’s earlier constitution bench decision of Bachan Singh (which focussed on both the crime, and criminal), held that “… it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial”. A line of cases105, further relied on this (in this court’s considered opinion, incorrect) decision in Ravji case, and concluded that the nature and gravity of the crime (i.e., its brutality or heinousness), were sufficient to impose capital punishment, without considering mitigating circumstances of the criminal. Subsequently, the decision in Ravji was -quite correctly- declared to be per incuriam by another bench of this court in Santosh Bariyar, for nonconsideration of circumstances of the criminal. Other cases that have focussed on brutality of the crime, as negating or washing away the need to consider mitigating circumstances, similarly serve as bad precedent. 199. This court in Rajesh Kumar v. State106 again reiterated that brutality in itself, was not enough to impose death sentence – the accused was convicted for murder of two children who offered no provocation or resistance to the brutal and inhuman fashion in which the accused committed the crime, however, it was held that due consideration to the mitigating circumstances of the criminal still had to be given. Evidence had to be placed on record by the State, demonstrating that he was beyond reform or rehabilitation, the absence of which was a mitigating circumstance in itself. The High Court had merely noted that he was a first-time offender and had a family to take care of – which this court noted was a very narrow and myopic view on the mitigating circumstances. 104 (1996) SCC 2 175. 105 Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 6 SCC 271; Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa (2003) 9 SCC 310; Mohan Anna Chavan v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 7 SCC 561; Bantu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 11 SCC 113; Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 15 SCC 268; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sattan @ Satyendra and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 736; etc. 106 Rajesh Kumar v. State, (2011) 13 SCC 706 (para 74)