Summary AI

🧑‍⚖️ Facts of the Case

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court reviewed a death sentence awarded by a trial court to three men who were convicted of murdering a couple and injuring three other family members during a violent attack connected to a neighbourhood dispute.

• The trial court had found that the attack was cruel and brutal and, on that basis, sentenced the accused to death, referring the matter to the High Court for confirmation.

⚖️ High Court’s Decision

• A division bench of the High Court upheld the conviction but changed the punishment from the death penalty to life imprisonment till death.

• The High Court said that while the crime was serious and involved planning and violence, it did not satisfy the “rarest of rare” standard that the law requires to justify capital punishment. In particular, it found that the acts — though grave — did not show such overwhelming brutality or social terror that justified execution.

📜 Legal Principles Behind Commutation

The High Court’s reasoning reflects broader principles in Indian capital punishment jurisprudence:

• Under Indian law, life imprisonment is generally treated as the norm, and the death penalty is reserved only for the “rarest of rare” cases.

• Superior courts (High Court or Supreme Court) have the power to modify death sentences if the case’s circumstances do not justify the ultimate punishment—even while upholding conviction. Factors often considered include:

  • Age of the accused

  • Possibility of reform

  • Degree of brutality vs. intention to harm society at large

  • Mitigating human circumstances
    These principles have repeatedly been recognised in Indian case law, where courts commute death sentences when they find serious mitigating factors or when the case does not fall strictly within the rarest-of-rare category.

🧠 What This Means

• The High Court’s order doesn’t acquit the convicts — it sustains the murder conviction — but the punishment has been reduced to life imprisonment without execution.

• “Life imprisonment till death” means they will remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives, although rules on remission/commutation by the government may still apply unless the court specifically restricts it. 

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/mp-high-court-commutes-death-sentence-to-life-imprisonment/articleshow/106243012.cms

Bihar - Patna High Court sets aside death sentence based on sniffer dog evidence

Summary 

The Patna High Court recently set aside the death penalty of a man, Amar Kumar, because the conviction was based solely on sniffer dog evidence. The court did not issue a death sentence to a dog.

In a December 2023 ruling, a division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Alok Kumar Pandey acquitted the man who had been convicted by a trial court in a case involving the alleged rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl.

Key points from the High Court's judgment:

• Sniffer dog evidence is not sufficient for conviction: The court ruled that evidence gathered by a sniffer dog cannot be considered substantive evidence to establish guilt. At best, it is an investigative tool.
• Lack of corroborating evidence: The prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the fact that a sniffer dog, after smelling the deceased girl's body, entered the accused man's house.
• Procedural lapses: The High Court found serious lapses in the trial, including the fact that the post-mortem report did not mention anything about rape or molestation, which contradicted the prosecution's charge.
• Need for verification: The judges observed that for sniffer dog evidence to have any value, the skill and veracity of the dog, as well as the handler's ability, must be examined in court.

Image only for representative purpose: Source: WWF

The High Court emphasized that strong suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof and that the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete to warrant a conviction, especially in a case involving the death penalty. The accused was ordered to be released immediately.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/patna-hc-sets-aside-death-sentence-based-on-sniffer-dog-evidence/articleshow/106239958.cms

HC acquits Muktsar man awarded death for drowning wife, children

The allegations were that convict Palwinder Singh and Karamjit Kaur had an illicit relationship and planned the murder, in which a car driven by Palwinder fell into Gang canal near Fattanwala village on June 20, 2015, in which his wife Sarabjit Kaur, daughter Gaganpreet Kaur, son Jashanpreet Singh and Karamjit’s husband Nirmal Singh, a servant of the family, were killed

Dec 22, 2023 8:24 AM IST

By Surender Sharma, Chandigarh

The Punjab and Haryana high court has acquitted a Muktsar man, who was awarded death sentence by a trial court for killing his wife and two children in 2015. The HC also acquitted an accused woman, whose husband had also died in the incident.

The allegations were that convict Palwinder Singh and Karamjit Kaur had an illicit relationship and planned the murder, in which a car driven by Palwinder fell into Gang canal near Fattanwala village on June 20, 2015, in which his wife Sarabjit Kaur, daughter Gaganpreet Kaur, son Jashanpreet Singh and Karamjit’s husband Nirmal Singh, a servant of the family, were killed. Lone survivor in the case was Palwinder Singh, who nine months after the incident was booked for murder after he married Karamjit, wife of his servant Nirmal Singh.

Initially, family members of Palwinder’s wife, two of whom were reportedly following the vehicle on a bike, said the car suddenly lost control and fell into the canal. However, subsequently they levelled allegations against Palwinder and cited alleged illicit relationship between him and his servant’s wife as the reason behind the killing. Police registered an FIR on March 19, 2016. The trial court in Muktsar in October 2020 held Palwinder and Karamjit guilty of murder. While Palwinder was awarded death sentence, the woman was awarded life sentence. It was against this order that they approached the high court. The trial court had also sent the reference for high court consideration.

The high court bench of justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan acquitted the duo holding that the prosecution case suffered from a lot of “infirmities” and termed it a case of “circumstantial evidence”, where chain of circumstances could not be proved beyond “reasonable doubt”. “No doubt a relative, who is an eyewitness, would try to bring on record the real culprit. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is a strong indication...(Sarabjit’s brother) being a close relative of the deceased became vindictive and came up with a new version altogether to implicate his brother-in-law in the present case,” it recorded. The court found that on the day of the incident, Sarabjit’s family did not level any allegations and changed their statement and claimed foul play after nine months when Palwinder married his servant’s wife. The allegations of illicit relationship between them also did not figure prior to the FIR, it added.

The court took note of defence version which said the matrimonial alliance between both the appellants became bone of contention which was opposed by the relatives of Sarabjit and said their argument seemed “quite probable and, thus, causes a dent” in the allegations against the convict. It also took note of the fact that after the marriage was solemnised, Palwinder and Karamjit had to approach the court for security as relatives were against this as it was an inter-caste marriage. The trial court ignored one statement that the marriage was on account of the ailing mother of Palwinder Singh and the Sarabjit’s family were not happy about it, the court added.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/hc-acquits-muktsar-man-awarded-death-for-drowning-wife-children-101703186692225.html#google_vignette

Chhattisgarh High Court commutes death sentence of man convicted for killing his parents over ideological differences

“Murder was committed by him by 3 gunshot injuries to each of them, hence no doubt, such heinous crime should be deprecated and no amount of criticism can be given to such gruesome act, that too, of his own father and mother.” 

December 7, 2023

Chhattisgarh High Court: In a case wherein, the Trial Court after passing the death sentence to the respondent-accused, submitted the proceedings to the present Court for confirmation of the death sentence as per Section 366(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.*, opined that in the instant case, the respondent had caused brutal murder of his father and mother and hence his act shocked the conscience of the Court and society at large, but motive of the crime was not found so grievous in nature. Thus, due to such trivial issues, instant crime of double murder was committed and extreme sentence of capital punishment was not warranted and the present case did not fell within the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’. Thus, the Court opined that imprisonment for life to the extent of remainder of natural life of the respondent would be complete and adequate to meet the ends of justice and directed the commutation of death sentence to imprisonment of life to the extent for remainder of natural life of the respondent. Further, the Court affirmed the respondent’s conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘the Act’) and reduced the sentence from five years to three years for the offence under 25(1B)(a) of the Act.

Background

In the instant case, the deceased were the parents of the respondent. On 01-01-2018, at around 06:25 am, the complainant informed the Police Station that he received a call from his maternal grandmother that something had happened to his maternal grandfather and she called him quickly to the house. The respondent reached there and saw that the outside and inside doors were open and when the complainant went inside the house, he saw that his maternal grandfather and grandmother were shot dead. Thereafter, when the investigation was completed, the charge-sheet was filed and the charges were framed against the respondent under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(2) of the Act and a charge under Section 25(1B) of the Act was framed against the two associates of the respondent. Subsequently, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondent to the death for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and five and ten years for the offences under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27(2) of the Act respectively and also, sentenced the two accused to five years for an offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Act. Thus, the Trial Court after passing the death sentence to the respondent submitted the proceedings to the present Court for confirmation of the death sentence as per Section 366(1) of the CrPC.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court upon perusal of the evidence, opined that it was proved that on the date of the incident, when both the deceased and the respondent were present in the house, both the deceased were shot dead by three bullet injuries. Further, on being called by one of the deceased, the complainant reached the house within eight-nine minutes and found that both the deceased were shot dead. The Court opined that the respondent and his wife had tried to demonstrate that there were other ways to enter in the house, but their deposition did not inspire the Court’s confidence as Investigating Officer had clearly stated that no evidence was found on inspection to demonstrate that any outside person had entered into the house. The Court referred to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’) and opined that Section 106 of the IEA was an exception to Section 101 of the IEA and when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him.

The Court relied on Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 27; Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725; Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460; Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 193; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 and Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373 and opined that in the present case, liability was upon the respondent that when he along with his father, mother were present in the house, then how did homicidal death of his mother and father were caused by three gunshot injuries. Further, with regard to the respondents contention that no motive was proved on the part of the respondent, the Court relied on State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing, (1997) 6 SCC 514; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 80 and opined that it was well-settled and trite law that absence of motive could be missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once the other incriminating circumstances were established to its entirety, absence of motive would not give any benefit to the accused. However, in the present case it was alleged that due to lack of ideological harmony between father and son, the deceased father scolded the respondent and criticized various activities and also, threatened the respondent to deprive him from his property. Due to this, the respondent was fed up from his father. Thus, motive was also proved in the present case and accordingly, the Court confirmed the conviction of the respondent recorded under Section 302 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 27(2) of the Act.

Further, with regard to the death sentence awarded to the respondent, the Court relied on Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470; Panchhi v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177; Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 and on perusal of the impugned judgment, opined that the respondent was convicted and on the same day, the death penalty was imposed upon him. Considering that it had been committed in a very cruel and inhuman manner which was an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner, of his own father and mother and therefore, such offence of respondent affected the entire moral fibre of the society, hence the instant case fell under rarest of rare cases category. However, the Court opined that in the instant case, the respondent had committed murder of his father and mother with three gunshot injuries to each of them mainly because there was a lack of ideological harmony between them. However, the Trial Court had not taken into consideration the probability of the respondent being reformed and rehabilitated, and the respondent had also not been given effective opportunity of hearing on question of sentence. The Court opined that in the instant case, the respondent had caused brutal murder of his father and mother and hence his act shocked the conscience of the Court and society at large, but motive of the crime was not found so grievous in nature. Thus, due to such trivial issues, instant crime of double murder was committed and extreme sentence of capital punishment was not warranted in the instant case and the present case did not fell within the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’.

Thus, the Court opined that imprisonment for life to the extent of remainder of natural life of the respondent would be complete and adequate to meet the ends of justice and directed the commutation of death sentence of the respondent into imprisonment of life to the extent for remainder of natural life of the respondent. urther, the Court affirmed the respondent’s conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 27(2) of the Act and reduced the sentence from five years to three years for the offence under 25(1B)(a) of the Act. Further, the Court set aside and quashed the conviction and sentence imposed by the impugned judgment on the two associate of the accused and acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. The Court directed the two associates of the respondent to file personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in compliance with Section 437-A of the CrPC.

[State of Chhattisgarh v. Sandeep Jain, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 5307, decided on 01-12-2023]

*Judgment authored by- Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant: Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocates;

For the Respondent: N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Sumit Singh,

Advocate For the Appellant in CRA No. 272 of 2023: M.P.S. Bhatia and Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocates.

Source: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/07/chhattisgarh-hc-grants-commutes-death-sentence-of-man-convicted-for-killing-his-parents-over-ideological-differences-legal-news/