Abolish Death Penalty India: Chhattisgarh High Court commutes death sentence for man convicted of killing wife, 3 children

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Chhattisgarh High Court commutes death sentence for man convicted of killing wife, 3 children

By Partha Behera/ TNN/ Dec 18, 2024

Case Summary — Umend Kenwat

Accused: Umend Kenwat, 34‑year‑old man
Original Conviction: He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur for the murder of his wife and three young children — Sukrita Kewat (32), daughters Khushi (5) and Lisa (3), and son Pawan (18 months).
Crime Details: On January 1, 2024, Kenwat strangled his wife and children with a rope, allegedly driven by suspicion regarding his wife’s character. After the killings, he attempted suicide by hanging himself but survived and then reported the incident to the police.

Trial Court Sentence

The trial court sentenced him to death by hanging under four counts of Section 302 IPC (murder), plus a fine of ₹10,000. This death sentence was sent to the High Court for confirmation.

High Court Decision

The Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) overturned the death sentence and commuted it to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

Reasoning:

The court held that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” standard required for imposing capital punishment, even though the crime was shocking.
It noted mitigating factors including the accused’s young age, the circumstances of the crime being based on suspicion rather than clear intent beyond doubt, and that the evidence was entirely circumstantial.
The court observed that while the act was grievous, life imprisonment was sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

Outcome

Death sentence → Commuted to life imprisonment for natural life.
The High Court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302 but replaced the capital punishment with life imprisonment and maintained the fine.
The court also directed that a copy of its judgment be provided to relevant authorities and informed Kenwat of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/chhattisgarh-hc-commutes-death-sentence-for-man-convicted-of-killing-wife-3-children/articleshow/116423041.cms

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of 193 countries that retains the death penalty. Some judges have delivered landmark verdicts upholding the rights of death row prisoners, while debates continue advocating abolition or reform of sentencing policies. The Indian government remains committed to retention, asserting executions occur only in “rarest of rare” cases. The death penalty applies to crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or mentally-retarded person, and in certain cases of rape. Outrage over child rape and murder has intensified these discussions. After an unofficial eight-year moratorium, the government executed Ajmal Kasab (Mumbai attacks) in 2012 and Afzal Guru (Parliament attack) in 2013, both covertly and immediately after mercy petitions were rejected. Prior to this, Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed in 2004 after 13 years on death row. Following these, many mercy petitions have been rejected, creating fear among death row convicts. Courts continue to hand down death sentences at an increasing rate. Empirical studies highlight the plight of death row prisoners. The India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found fair trial rights largely denied, with convicts often marginalized by caste, religion, poverty, and education. The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) documented socio-economic profiles and experiences of death row prisoners. Dr. Reena Mary George’s studies (2014, 2009) emphasized poverty, social exclusion, and dignity as central to death row experiences, and examined the human rights impact of the penalty. According to the National Crime Records Bureau 2015, 101 prisoners were on death row, with many sentences commuted to life. The “rarest of rare” doctrine introduced by the Supreme Court in the 1980s has not substantially limited death sentences, which have increased over the decades. Justice Joseph (2018) reaffirmed the Bachan Singh judgment but urged restriction of the death penalty to only those cases meeting its criteria. While updating the blog and conducting my own empirical studies, I observed the heinous nature of the crimes that were committed and thought about the families, about their loss, about the victims who for no fault of their own died. If I lost my relative or a dear friend, would I still oppose death penalty and would I still advocate to abolish the death sentence? Having worked in the criminal justice system and also having the seen the other side, where often it is the marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed who are on death row makes me want to advocate for abolition of this punishment. Victims should definitely get justice for their loss, for their pain. No one should escape the rule of law. As long as humanity exists; crime will exist. Should we not re-consider our sentencing policies? Reena Mary George