President rejects mercy plea of man convicted of rape, murder of two-year-old girl

This is the third mercy plea rejected by the President since she assumed office on July 25, 2022

Updated - December 15, 2025 01:57 am IST - New Delhi

President Droupadi Murmu has rejected the mercy petition of Ravi Ashok Ghumare, who was convicted of kidnapping, raping and killing a two-year-old girl in Maharashtra in 2012, officials said on Sunday (December 14, 2025).

Indian President Drupadi Murmu (since 25 July 2022)

This is the third mercy plea rejected by the President since she assumed office on July 25, 2022. According to the status of mercy petitions disclosed by Rashtrapati Bhavan, Ghumare’s plea was rejected on November 6. The Supreme Court, on October 3, 2019, affirmed the death sentence awarded to Ghumare, saying that he had no control over his "carnal desires" and had surpassed all natural, social and legal limits just to satiate his sexual hunger.

In its verdict, a three-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant (now Chief Justice of India), by a majority verdict of 2:1, said the man had "ruthlessly finished" a life which was yet to bloom and his act of committing unnatural offence with the two-year-old exhibits "a dirty and perverted mind, showcasing a horrifying tale of brutality".

"Having said that, it may be seen that the victim was barely a two-year-old baby whom the appellant (Ravi) kidnapped and apparently kept on assaulting for over four to five hours till she breathed her last.” "The appellant, who had no control over his carnal desires, surpassed all natural, social and legal limits just to satiate his sexual hunger. He ruthlessly finished a life which was yet to bloom," Justice Surya Kant had said, while writing the verdict for himself and (now retired) Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.

President Droupadi Murmu rejects mercy petition of man convicted for raping, killing 4-year-old girl. The appellant, instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of society, made her the victim of lust, the majority verdict said. "It’s a case where trust has been betrayed, and social values are impaired. The unnatural sex with a two-year-old toddler exhibits a dirty and perverted mind, showcasing a horrifying tale of brutality," the verdict said.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on March 6, 2012, in Indiranagar locality of Maharashtra's Jalna city. Ghumare had lured the victim with a chocolate. The trial court had convicted him and awarded the death penalty on September 16, 2015. His death sentence was upheld by the Bombay High Court in January 2016.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/president-murmu-rejects-mercy-plea-of-man-convicted-for-rape-murder-of-two-year-old-in-maharashtra/article70395699.ece

Bahraich violence: Shot at close range, body riddled with 40 wounds, toes burnt; court awards death penalty in Ram Gopal Mishra murder case

14 December, 2025

The court rejected claims of provocation linked to a religious flag, detailed how Ram Gopal Mishra was dragged inside a house during Durga immersion chaos, and held misuse of a licensed firearm proved deliberate, barbaric murder.

On 11th December, the Bahraich Court awarded the death sentence to one and life imprisonment to ten others in the brutal murder case of Ram Gopal Mishra. The incident, which took place on 13th October 2024 during the Durga idol immersion procession, had shaken the nation. The judgment was pronounced by First Additional District and Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar Sharma. In the judgment, the court not merely recorded the guilt or innocence of the accused but reconstructed, step by step, how a religious procession was attacked and turned into a scene of extreme brutality, terror, and prolonged breakdown of law and order across the district. OpIndia accessed judgment in the case.

As there were videos of Ram Gopal Mishra tearing down a green flag from a rooptop, Islamists had justified the murder. However, the court also made it clear that even if, for the sake of argument, it was assumed that Ram Gopal had removed or interfered with a religious flag installed at Abdul Hamid’s house, such an act could never confer any right upon the accused to unleash brutal and barbaric violence. The judgment underlined that the licensed firearm issued to Abdul Hamid was meant strictly for self-defence, and its use by his son constituted a clear violation of law. The court observed that the legal system provides remedies for any such grievance, and no individual or group is entitled to take the law into their own hands by resorting to lynching or murderous retaliation.

Ram Gopal Mishra had gone to Maharajganj market in the evening to watch the Durga idol immersion procession. He was accompanied by his brother Harimilan Mishra and other relatives and villagers. The procession consisted of multiple village idols mounted on tractors and vehicles and proceeded through the market area in the usual course. As the procession reached in front of the house of Abdul Hamid in Maharajganj, objections were raised regarding the songs that were being played on the DJ accompanying the procession. The court also recorded that a Ganesh Chaturthi immersion procession had earlier been stopped at the same location. However, that incident did not turn violent, as the procession was allowed to move ahead after locals intervened. According to witnesses’ testimonies, demands were made to stop the music. When Hindus refused to stop the DJ, the wire of the DJ was pulled, which triggered an immediate confrontation.

The court recorded that the confrontation soon turned into chaos. Stones, bricks, and bottles were thrown at the procession from the rooftop. Panic spread through the procession as people rushed to safety. As fear gripped the area, shopkeepers quickly shut down their shops. Amidst the disorder, Ram Gopal Mishra was forcibly caught and dragged inside Abdul Hamid’s house. According to the court documents, multiple eyewitnesses stated that the door was shut after he was pulled inside. Moments later, gunshots were heard from within the house. Several rounds were fired in quick succession, as per the witnesses. The court noted that there was no dispute that the firing took place from inside the premises and that Ram Gopal Mishra was shot at close range.

When Ram Gopal Mishra was eventually pulled out by his relatives, he was in a grievously injured condition. Notably, when Rajan and Kishan were trying to pull Ram Gopal out of Abdul Hamid’s house, two rounds were fired upon them as well. He was rushed to the district hospital at Bahraich. However, he succumbed to his injuries. The incident triggered widespread panic in the area. The court observed that the Maharajganj market descended into complete disorder. People fled the area. Homes and shops were shut. The atmosphere was described by witnesses as one of terror and fear.

The FIR in the case

The FIR in the matter was registered on the complaint of Harimilan Mishra, brother of Ram Gopal Mishra. He approached the police and lodged an official complaint detailing how his brother was dragged into Abdul Hamid’s house and shot dead. In his complaint, he named Hamid, his sons, and others as the assailants. He also mentioned that there were some persons present at the scene who were unknown to him.During the trial, the defence repeatedly attempted to raise doubts over the timing of the FIR and claimed that it was “anti-timed”, calling it fabricated. However, the court rejected the argument, noting that Harimilan Mishra first took his injured brother to the hospital, which was a natural and expected response in such circumstances.

The court further took note of the fact that the incident had plunged the district into chaos. Internet services across Bahraich were suspended for several days. Additional police forces, including RAF and PAC, were deployed from outside the district. In such a situation, a delay in the formal registration of the FIR was not only plausible but inevitable. The court also noted that the core allegations against the accused remained consistent throughout the investigation and trial. The defence failed to show any material contradiction or manipulation arising out of the alleged delay.

Who was Ram Gopal Mishra and why his death mattered to the court

While the judgment is primarily based on the facts of the case, it did not treat Ram Gopal Mishra as a mere statistic. During the sentencing phase, the court stated that Ram Gopal had been married only a few months prior to the incident. His sudden and violent death did not merely extinguish one life but shattered an entire family, leaving his young wife’s future irreversibly altered.The court noted that Ram Gopal was unarmed and helpless when he was dragged inside the house. Whatever may have transpired outside during the chaos of the procession, the court emphasised that once he was inside the premises, the act of firing multiple rounds at close range crossed every conceivable boundary of proportionality, restraint, or lawful conduct.

Early defence narrative and references to videos

During the course of arguments, the defence tried to introduce an alternative narrative. They referred to videos purportedly showing Ram Gopal Mishra climbing onto a rooftop or tearing a flag during the chaos. These references were placed before the court as part of an attempt to suggest provocation or a different sequence of events. However, the court was careful in its treatment of these claims. While the court noted that such arguments were raised, it stated that even if such acts were assumed for the sake of argument, they could not, in law or in reason, justify what followed. The court did not accept any narrative that sought to dilute responsibility for dragging Ram Gopal Mishra inside a house and subjecting him to repeated gunfire and extreme violence. The emphasis remained on the manner of killing and the level of brutality involved.

Eyewitness accounts, what the court accepted, and how the medical evidence exposed the brutality

During the trial, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses to establish not only the identity of the assailants but also the manner in which Ram Gopal was killed. Substantial space in the judgment was devoted to analysing the testimonies of those eyewitnesses who were present during the Durga idol immersion procession and saw the violence unfolding on the day of the incident. Harimilan, in his sworn testimony, informed the court that he, Ram Gopal , along with other relatives including Rajan and Kishan, went to Maharajganj market to watch the idol immersion. He categorically stated that Abdul Hamid, his sons Sarfaraz alias Rinku and Fahim, and others were present in front of their house when the procession reached there. He described how Ram Gopal was forcibly dragged inside the house.He stated that once his brother was dragged inside, the door was shut, and he heard multiple rounds of gunfire from within. Due to the sudden firing and the panic created, he and others were unable to immediately intervene.

Rajan Mishra, Ram Gopal’s cousin, corroborated Harimilan Mishra’s testimony. He, along with others, later took Ram Gopal to the district hospital, where he was declared dead. Abhishek Mishra, another eyewitness in the case, further strengthened the prosecution case. He told the court that he witnessed Ram Gopal being dragged from the procession and that multiple accused were involved in pulling him inside the house. He further stated that when Ram Gopal was brought out, he had visible gunshot injuries on the upper body and head.

Shashibhushan Awasthi, another eyewitness in the case, told the court how objections were raised and the DJ wire was pulled, leading to the confrontation. He also told the court about the terror that spread in the market. Importantly, he testified that the violence did not stop at firing alone and that the manner in which Ram Gopal Mishra was attacked indicated extreme cruelty.

The defence argued that all eyewitnesses were interested or partisan witnesses because they belonged to the same village or were related to the deceased. Relying on settled legal principles, the court held that relationship by itself does not render a witness unreliable. The court observed that in incidents occurring during public processions, it is natural that those present and affected would be relatives or acquaintances. What mattered was whether their testimonies were consistent, credible, and corroborated by independent evidence.

Post-mortem report – a body riddled with bullets

Perhaps the most damning part of the judgment was the medical evidence. The post-mortem report revealed a level of violence that the court repeatedly described as brutal, cruel, and shocking to the conscience. According to the post-mortem findings, Ram Gopal’s body bore forty firearm entry wounds. These were not confined to one area but spread across vital parts of the body. The chest, neck, face, and upper limbs showed multiple entry wounds along with two exit wounds. The margins of the wounds showed blackening, which indicated that the shots were fired from close range. The court specifically noted that close-range firing eliminated any possibility of accidental or stray bullets. The medical examination further revealed deep burn injuries on both toes. The court noted that the toes were burned to such an extent that the nails had come out. A lacerated wound was present above the eyebrow, caused by a blunt object. Internally, both lungs were found punctured, and the pleural cavities contained approximately 2.5 litres of blood and clots. The heart contained clotted blood. Death was caused by shock and haemorrhage resulting from the gunshot injuries. The court observed that the medical evidence completely demolished the defence narrative that Ram Gopal may have been shot once or accidentally during the chaos. The sheer number of entry wounds, the presence of close-range firing indicators, and the additional injuries established that the attack was deliberate, sustained, and intended to ensure death.

Defence arguments versus medical reality

One of the key defence arguments was that the post-mortem did not conclusively show injuries caused by a sword or sharp-edged weapon. The court, while dealing with this argument, said that the absence of certain types of injuries did not weaken the prosecution case, particularly when the cause of death was clearly related to the injuries caused by the firearm. The court further observed that even if some injuries were caused by blunt objects or burning, the overwhelming evidence of multiple gunshot wounds was sufficient to establish murder beyond reasonable doubt. The court also addressed the defence claims that Ram Gopal had climbed onto a rooftop or interfered with a flag, leading to firing by an unknown person. The court stated that such arguments were speculative and unsupported by credible evidence. More importantly, the court held that even assuming chaos or provocation during the procession, nothing could explain or justify firing multiple rounds at close range at an unarmed individual.

Police investigation, encounter, recovery of murder weapon, and how the court reached the death penalty conclusion

Following the murder of Ram Gopal Mishra, the police swung into action immediately. The incident had not only triggered a criminal investigation but also a district-wide law and order emergency. Internet services were suspended, additional forces were called, and the district remained on edge for several days. Against this backdrop, the police launched an intensive search for the accused named in the FIR. During the investigation, police teams received specific intelligence inputs indicating that some of the accused were attempting to flee towards the Nepal border. The police acted on the information, and multiple teams were formed, including the local police and SOG units, to nab the accused. On 17th October 2024, officers reached the area near an ice cream factory and an adjoining resting place. Four accused, including Abdul Hamid and his sons Sarfaraz, Fahim, and Talib, were apprehended.

During the interrogation, the accused told the police about the weapon used in the murder, which was a licensed 12-bore SBBL gun belonging to Abdul Hamid. It was hidden near a canal bridge. Based on the information, a recovery operation was planned. When police took Sarfaraz and Talib to recover the weapon, they attempted to escape. They pushed police personnel, broke free, and fired upon the police team using the hidden firearm. The police retaliated in self-defence, and they sustained bullet injuries to their legs. From the location, the police recovered the gun, a fired cartridge stuck in the barrel, and a live cartridge.

The court noted that the forensic science laboratory later confirmed that the bullets recovered from the body of Ram Gopal Mishra had been fired from the same weapon. According to the judgment, this recovery directly connected the accused to the murder and eliminated any lingering doubt regarding the source of the gunfire.

Court’s assessment of unlawful assembly and common object

In the judgment, the court analysed whether the accused acted as part of an unlawful assembly and whether the murder was committed in furtherance of a common object. The court noted that objections to the procession, pulling the DJ wire, stone pelting, dragging Ram Gopal inside the house, firing multiple rounds, and subsequent attempts to flee together formed a continuous chain of events. The court rejected the defence argument that the incident was a spontaneous outburst or an isolated act by one individual. It held that the evidence showed coordinated conduct and participation by several accused, even though the precise role of each differed.

Sentencing hearing and the question of ‘rarest of rare’

While sentencing the accused, the court held that the manner of killing demonstrated a “cold-blooded” intent to ensure death. The repeated firing at vital organs, the additional acts of cruelty, and the context in which the murder was committed led the court to conclude that Sarfaraz’s role crossed the threshold into the “rarest of rare” category and awarded him the death penalty. While discussing the principles governing punishment, the court also referred to classical jurisprudential thought on the role of punishment in maintaining social order. The court cited Manusmriti to underline the idea that punishment is central to the preservation of justice and societal balance.

The court quoted the verse, “दण्ड शास्ति प्रजाः सर्वा दण्ड एवाभिरक्षति। दण्ड सुप्तेषु जागर्ति, दण्ड धर्म विदुर्वधा॥”, which means “Punishment governs all creatures; Punishment alone protects them; Punishment lies awake while all are asleep; the wise regard Punishment as Law itself”. The court, citing the verse, observed that punishment disciplines society, protects the innocent, and acts as a deterrent even when people are inclined to transgress the law. The court noted that the concept of punishment, as articulated in Manusmriti, treats punishment not as vengeance but as an essential instrument of governance to prevent chaos, lawlessness, and moral collapse. In the context of the Bahraich violence, the court held that failure to impose proportionate punishment for such a brutal crime would undermine public faith in the justice system and embolden further acts of violence.

Death penalty, life sentences, and final directions

Accordingly, the court awarded the death penalty to Sarfaraz for the offence of murder, subject to confirmation by the Allahabad High Court. Abdul Hamid and several other accused were sentenced to life imprisonment along with additional terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. Some accused were acquitted after the court found that the evidence against them did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court directed that all sentences would run concurrently and issued orders for the preparation of warrants. In the case of the death sentence, the court ordered that the record be referred to the High Court for confirmation, as mandated by law.

Who got what sentence – death penalty, life terms, and rigorous imprisonment

Sarfaraz, along with the death penalty, was also awarded a total of eight years of rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 1,30,000 fine. Abdul Hamid was sentenced to life imprisonment with a Rs 1,81,000 fine. Life imprisonment was also awarded to Talib, Fahim, Saif Ali, Javed Khan, Mohammad Jishan, Shoaib Khan, Nankau, and Maruf Ali, with a fine of Rs 1,50,000. The court held that although their individual roles varied, their participation in the unlawful assembly that culminated in the murder stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. Khursheed, Shakeel Ahmed, and Mohammad Afzal were acquitted, as the prosecution could not establish their role in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The convicted individuals will remain in judicial custody under the applicable provisions until the Allahabad High Court confirms or commutes the sentence.

The judgment in Ram Gopal Mishra’s murder case serves as a stark reminder that provocation, even if claimed to be religious in nature, can never give anyone the right to take an extreme step such as murder. In its final conclusion, the court made it clear that even if Ram Gopal Mishra had removed or touched a religious flag, as alleged by the defence, such an act could never be treated as provocation for killing. The judgment stressed that the law provides clear legal remedies for any such act, not a licence for violent retaliation. By misusing a licensed firearm meant solely for self-defence, the accused crossed every legal boundary, turning a minor dispute into a brutal and unlawful killing.

Yug murder case: Family moves SC against HC’s order commuting death sentence of 2 and acquittal of one

By, Shailee Dogra, Shimla

Published on: Dec 13, 2025 04:52 am IST

Yug, who was abducted from his courtyard in busy Ram Bazaar in the heart of the town on June 14, 2014, was tortured and killed after seven days, even before the first call for ransom of ₹3.6 crore was made

In pursuit of justice for 4-year-old Yug Gupta – who was kidnapped and murdered in 2014 – his family has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the Himachal high court’s September 23 judgment that commuted the death sentences of two convicts and acquitted the third.It was in September that HC commuted the death sentence handed down to two convicts by a sessions court to life term, for kidnapping and murdering the 4-year-old. One convict was acquitted of all charges. A division bench of justice Vivek Singh Thakur and justice Rakesh Kainthala had ruled that convicts — Chander Sharma, 26 and Vikrant Bakshi, 22— would remain in jail till their last breath while acquitting Tejinder Pal, 29, of all charges.

The case dates back to 2014. Yug, who was abducted from his courtyard in busy Ram Bazaar in the heart of the town on June 14, 2014, was tortured and killed after seven days, even before the first call for ransom of ₹3.6 crore was made. The kid was tortured, forced to drink liquor and dumped in a water tank on June 21, 2014. His skeletal remains were recovered two years later from a water tank of the Shimla municipal corporation in Kelston on August 21, 2016.

The crime investigation department filed the chargesheet on October 25, 2016, and the trial commenced on February 20, 2017. During the course of the proceedings, statements from 105 witnesses were recorded, leading to a verdict in 10-and-a-half months. In September 2018, Shimla district and sessions judge Virender Singh had termed the crime rarest of rare and sentenced all three to death after the court found the trio guilty of kidnapping and murdering Yug.

The case was then referred to the high court by the Shimla sessions judge for confirmation of capital punishment, while the convicts filed an appeal challenging their conviction. “In the present case, the life of a 4-year-old boy was lost. He was playing outside his home, after which he was found missing. We have also seen the video recording on the mobile phone and are shocked by how the child was tied, and he was crying. We are satisfied that the manner in which the child was kept and treated did not deserve any leniency, but at the same time, we are bound to consider the possibility of reformation of the convicts while confirming the death sentence,” ruled the division bench. Tejinder Pal was acquitted for lack of evidence.

Speaking to HT on Friday, Yug’s father Vinod Gupta said, “Justice was denied to our son. We will fight for justice till our last breath. The acquittal of Tejinder, who allegedly kept Yug confined and assisted in transporting him in a cardboard box has shattered us. We were dissatisfied with the high court’s decision, as the accused Tejinder was acquitted. Therefore, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against this decision. Now, the Supreme Court is the only place where we can get justice. In the petition, we have requested that these three accused be hanged. The lower court had sentenced all the accused to death. Those three accused tortured my child and threw the child into the tank while he was still alive.”He added, “The CID had worked very hard on this case, but they are not satisfied with the decision given by the HC. They said that their petition in the Supreme Court has been accepted, but a date for this case has not been set yet.”

“We seek that Tejinder’s passport should not be issued and that no parole be granted to Chandra Sharma. Despite enduring an 11-year struggle we have been denied justice. Only death penalty to the trio would constitute justice for our son. We have full faith that the Supreme Court will restore the punishment awarded by the trial court,” he said.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/85-to-90-of-missing-voters-ours-yogi-warns-bjp-workers-against-complacency-101765732637306-amp.html?articleno=1

Udaipur court sentences man to death for wife’s murder

TNN / Dec 10, 2025, 21:42 IST

Udaipur: A court here has sentenced a man to death for murdering his wife, stating that the brutal nature of the crime fell under the “rarest of rare” category. The Udaipur sessions court, in its judgment, noted that the accused had premeditated the murder and executed it in a particularly cruel manner, leaving no room for leniency.

The court also awarded life imprisonment to other individuals who abetted or assisted in the crime, depending on their level of involvement. The judgment highlighted the aggravating factors, including the relationship between the victim and the accused, the method of killing, and the impact on society, which outweighed any mitigating circumstances.

The death sentence will require confirmation by the Rajasthan High Court before it can be carried out.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/udaipur-court-sentences-man-to-death-for-wifes-murder/articleshow/125897085.cms

Jharkhand High Court Converts Death Sentence To Life Imprisonment In SP Balihar Killing

A lower court in Dumka had earlier awarded the death sentence to two Maoists—Sukhlal alias Praveer Murmu and Sanatan Baskey alias Tala Da—for murdering the former SP. The Indian Tribal reports
December 10, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded by a lower court to life imprisonment in the case involving the killing of the then Pakur SP Amarjit Balihar and six police personnel in 2013. Delivering the judgment, the bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that it was not possible to sustain the death penalty when two judges of the earlier division bench had expressed conflicting views on the matter, even though the crime itself was extremely grave.

The lower court in Dumka had earlier awarded the death sentence to two Maoists—Sukhlal alias Praveer Murmu and Sanatan Baskey alias Tala Da—for murdering the former SP. Before this, Justice R. Mukhopadhyay of the High Court’s division bench had favoured acquitting the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt, whereas Justice Sanjay Prasad held them guilty and upheld the death penalty. This divergence of opinion created a judicial deadlock, after which the case was referred to Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary. 

While affirming the conviction, Justice Choudhary’s court held that the eyewitness testimonies of the injured members of the police escort team clearly proved the appellants’ involvement in the attack. The court further noted that the ambush was part of a well-planned conspiracy and amounted to a serious attempt to challenge the State’s law and order machinery. It held that when armed groups try to undermine the sovereign authority of the state, it poses a grave threat to the rule of law and such attacks are not just against the police force but against the state’s sovereign power itself.

On reducing the sentence, the court observed that although the crime was extremely serious and no mitigating circumstances were found, the clear judicial disagreement between two judges on the issue of sentencing was in itself sufficient ground to commute the death penalty. The judgment also referenced several past court rulings in this context. 

What The Case Was About?

In 2013, then Pakur SP Amarjit Balihar had travelled to Dumka to attend a meeting related to the upcoming elections. While returning, Maoists attacked the police convoy, killing SP Balihar and six other police personnel. The convicts had challenged the death sentence granted by the Dumka court before the High Court, arguing that the judgment was not legally sound and that they were awarded capital punishment without adequate and conclusive evidence. Both convicts had also sought their release through their appeals.

Source: https://theindiantribal.com/2025/12/10/jharkhand-high-court-converts-death-sentence-to-life-imprisonment-in-sp-balihar-killing/

Madikeri - Man sentenced to death for killing four of his family

TNN / Dec 10, 2025, 23:18 IST

Madikeri: A man, who had murdered four of his family members in March this year, was convicted and sentenced to death by the Virajpet II additional district and sessions court on Wednesday. The death sentence has to be confirmed by the Karnataka high court. The case was disposed of speedily — in 8.5 months — with Yasin Ahmed being the public prosecutor. Girish, 38, a native of Wayanad in Kerala, was awarded the death penalty by the Virajpet court judge S Nataraj, according to the Kodagu SP’s office.

Girish lived with his wife Naagi, 30, daughter Kaveri, 5, and in‑laws Kariya, 75, and Gowri, 70, at Beguru village of Ponnampet. Girish attacked and killed all those four on March 27. Naagi’s parents owned a small plot of coffee estate in the settlement area. On the fateful day, Girish and Naagi left for work at a private estate, and returned home. In the evening, a fight broke out between the couple as Girish suspected Naagi of having an extramarital affair. Besides demanding money — from the proceeds of coffee sales by her parents — Girish assaulted Naagi brutally with a sharp weapon, killing her on the spot. Later, he killed their daughter and aged parents‑in‑law for trying to stop him. After committing the crime, Girish destroyed the evidence and fled to Kerala. The murders came to light the next morning when the estate owner came looking for Kariya. Ponnampet police, who took up the case, arrested Girish from Iritty of Kerala two days after the crime.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mysuru/man-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-four-of-his-family/articleshow/125895267.cms

Bandi Singh release: The question of clemency and how different governments approach it

Dec 7, 2025

Summary

The article examines the issue of clemency and long-term imprisonment in India by comparing two sets of cases: the Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts in Tamil Nadu and the Sikh prisoners known collectively as “Bandi Singhs” in Punjab. It explains how India’s constitutional and legal framework allows for clemency through remission or commutation, involving either the President or state governors and statutory processes. The piece highlights how the Tamil Nadu government actively pursued remission and judicial intervention, which eventually led to the release of the Rajiv Gandhi convicts after decades. In contrast, the Bandi Singhs’ cases have progressed differently due to statutory complexities and the involvement of both state and central authorities. Their advocates, especially the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), have mobilized public support and petitions for reconsideration, but institutional pathways and outcomes remain varied. The article uses this comparison to illustrate how different political and institutional approaches influence clemency outcomes in India.

Source: https://www.pgurus.com/bandi-singh-release-the-question-of-clemency-and-how-different-governments-approach-it/

Gujarat: POCSO court sentences Valsad resident Razak Khan to death for rape and murder of a minor girl

December 6, 2025 | 1:54 PM

A special POCSO court in Vapi town of Valsad district in Gujarat gave the death penalty to a 42-year-old man for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and murdering a minor girl in 2023. The order was passed on Thursday, 4th December, by the Court of Justice H. N. Vakil.

Razak Subhan Khan gets death sentence for kidnap (Image via X/TheTreeni)

The court also directed that the victim’s family must be given ₹17 lakh as compensation. The convict, identified by police as Razak Khan Subhan Khan, is currently lodged in Surat Central Jail.

Officials said this is the second time the same POCSO court has given a death sentence in a case of rape and murder of a minor girl. The first was in 2023, when another minor girl was raped and killed.

Court relies on strong evidence: Bite marks, CCTV footage, and witness accounts

Surat District Government Pleader Nayan Sukhadwala, who argued the case for the prosecution, said the evidence against the accused was very strong. He explained that bite marks were clearly visible on the child’s body, and the clothes she was wearing were used by the accused to strangle her.

He added that CCTV footage played a crucial part in confirming the sequence of events. The footage showed the accused casually visiting a nearby tea stall for tea and cigarettes after committing the crime. Sukhadwala also pointed out that the accused is a father of three children and that his youngest daughter is around the same age as the victim. The court also noted that the accused had been trying to lure the victim for around six days before the crime by offering her biscuits and chocolates. Medical evidence, witness testimonies, and other circumstantial proof together helped strengthen the prosecution’s case.

Girl went missing while going to meet grandfather

The incident took place on 23rd October 2023. That day, the young girl had left her home around 11:15 am to go and meet her grandfather. When she did not return for hours, her mother went to the grandfather’s workplace but learnt that the child had left more than an hour earlier. Worried family members and neighbours began searching for her but could not find the girl. Later, her mother filed a kidnapping complaint at the local police station.

Police and locals launch massive search; child’s body found in bushes

Soon after, the Valsad district police formed multiple search teams. More than 250 residents from the area joined the late-night search operation. Later, the child’s body was found near a pond, hidden in bushes. She was identified by her mother and grandfather. Based on the medical examination, police registered an offence of kidnapping, rape and murder under the harsh IPC and POCSO sections.

FIR details and sections applied in the case

The FIR was registered in 2023 at Dungara Police Station in Valsad district of Gujarat. Charges were applied under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 363 (kidnapping), Section 302 (murder), Section 376AB (rape of a minor under 12), and Section 377. Also, sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, were added for aggravated sexual assault of a child.

Accused arrested within two days

Police analysed CCTV footage from nearby areas and spotted a man walking with the victim. After a two-day manhunt, the accused, Razak Khan, was arrested on 26th October 2023. He was sent to nine days’ police custody for interrogation and medical tests. DNA samples of both the accused and the victim were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Surat. All required procedures were followed, evidence collected, and a chargesheet was soon submitted in the special POCSO court. Sukhadwala was later appointed as the special government pleader to handle the trial from the prosecution’s side. According to the media reports, Defence lawyer H. D. Modi called the punishment “too harsh” and said the court had not considered some major points raised by the defence. He confirmed that the convict will challenge the death sentence in the Gujarat High Court after receiving the full judgment copy.

Supreme Court denies mercy plea of ‘Swami’ serving life for killing Shakereh Khaleeli

Swami Shraddhanand was convicted in 2000 for murdering his wife, Shakereh Khaleeli, in 1991 with the motive of taking control of her property

Updated - December 05, 2025 09:10 pm IST - NEW DELHI

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Shakereh Khaleeli. File photo. Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 5, 2025) declined to entertain a petition seeking a direction to the government to take an expeditious decision on the mercy plea of Swami Shraddhanand alias Murli Manohar Mishra, the 87-year-old self-styled godman serving a sentence of imprisonment for burying his wife Shakereh Khaleeli alive in Bengaluru in 1991. Shakereh Khaleeli, the granddaughter of the former Dewan of Mysore, had earlier been married to a senior diplomat and was the mother of four daughters. She divorced him in 1986 and subsequently married Shraddhanand. Her gruesome murder later became the subject of a 2023 Amazon Prime Video docuseries titled Dancing on the Grave.

A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the petition as withdrawn after expressing dissatisfaction with the submissions of advocate Varun Thakur, appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Thakur contended that the convict had spent 31 years in prison without a single day of parole and was now in a significantly deteriorated state of health. Questioning the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, Justice Maheshwari observed that the petition had been adjourned on six earlier occasions at the petitioner’s behest. “Had this come before us earlier, we would have dismissed it on the very first day,” he remarked.

The Bench further noted that Shraddhanand had repeatedly failed to secure relief in the past, referring to earlier orders dismissing his review petition challenging the sentence of life imprisonment without remission, as well as multiple unsuccessful applications for parole. Additional Solicitor-General K.M. Nataraj informed the Bench that the Union Government was awaiting the Karnataka Government’s opinion, since the State is the prosecuting authority in the case. “Once their response comes, we will process it immediately,” he said.

Three decades in prison

Opposing the Bench’s reluctance to intervene, Mr. Thakur argued that the self-styled godman had spent over three decades in prison “for a single incident,” even as those convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case had since been released. He then requested liberty to approach the State authorities. The Bench, however, dismissed the petition as withdrawn, declining to grant the permission sought. Shraddhanand was convicted in 2000 for murdering his wife, Shakereh Khaleeli, in 1991 with the motive of taking control of her property. The crime came to light only in 1994, when the police exhumed her body from a 100-foot-deep ditch in the courtyard of her bungalow on Bengaluru’s Richmond Road. According to the prosecution, Shraddhanand had drugged her tea and buried her while she was unconscious.

In 2008, a three-judge Bench of the top court commuted the death sentence earlier confirmed by the High Court to “imprisonment for life,” and directed that Shraddhanand “shall not be released from prison for the rest of his natural life.” In October last year, the court dismissed a review petition challenging the sentence imposed. It reiterated that this special category of sentence had been affirmed in subsequent judgments, including the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India V.V. Sriharan (2015). In his review plea, Shraddhanand had contended that the sentence imposed upon him was not recognised in law, arguing that the court could either impose the death penalty or life imprisonment, but not imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-denies-mercy-plea-of-swami-serving-life-for-killing-shakereh-khaleeli/article70361974.ece

Madhurai - HC con­firms death to man for mur­der­ing wit­ness

The Hindu (Madurai)

The Hindu Bur­eau

30 Nov 2025

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Fri­day con­firmed the death sen­tence awar­ded to a man by the trial court in Tirunelveli for the murder of a wit­ness in an attempt-to-murder case in which the man was an accused.

The court was hear­ing the referred trial seek­ing con­firm­a­tion of the judg­ment of con­vic­tion and death sen­tence awar­ded to R. Selva­raj by the Second Addi­tional Ses­sions Court in Tirunelveli.

The court was also hear­ing the appeal filed by Selva­raj and his fam­ily mem­bers Ant­ony Raj, Arul Philip Raj, Anto Nal­laiah and Babu Alex­an­der who were awar­ded life sen­tences and Jac­queline, Rajan and Sel­valeela who were awar­ded two months of impris­on­ment.

The case of the pro­sec­u­tion was that there was polit­ical rivalry between the accused per­sons and R. Vaikun­dam since he tendered evid­ence against the accused per­sons in an attempt-to murder case. They threatened him not to depose against them. He did not heed to their threat and test­i­fied his exam­in­a­tion in chief against the accused per­sons before the trial court. The case was pos­ted for cross exam­in­a­tion. Enraged, the accused per­sons murdered him in 2022 on the banks of canal.

A Divi­sion Bench of Justices P. Velmur­ugan and L. Vic­toria Gowri observed that due to polit­ical rivalry there was enmity between both the groups. The crime was com­mit­ted in order to pre­vent the wit­ness from giv­ing evid­ence against the accused per­sons on the day of cross exam­in­a­tion.

The pur­pose for which the wit­ness was bru­tally murdered that too on the date of hear­ing prior to going to the court for ten­der­ing evid­ence was shock­ing. If this situ­ation was allowed to pre­vail no wit­nesses would come for­ward to give evid­ence out of fear, the court observed.

The court observed that by mur­der­ing the wit­ness, the appel­lants had instilled ter­ror in the minds of the remain­ing wit­nesses. The Wit­ness Pro­tec­tion Scheme was estab­lished in 2018. The main object­ive was to pro­tect the wit­ness. From a care­ful ana­lysis of the aggrav­at­ing and the mit­ig­at­ing cir­cum­stances, the court con­cluded that the case falls within the cat­egory of ‘the rarest of rare cases’ war­rant­ing impos­i­tion of death sen­tence on the main accused.

If such acts of the accused are not pun­ished by giv­ing major pun­ish­ment of death sen­tence, in future, in every case, no one will come for­ward to stand as wit­ness and the very object­ive and pur­pose of the Wit­ness Pro­tec­tion Scheme 2018, will be defeated, the court observed while con­firm­ing the death sen­tence imposed by the trial court. The crim­inal appeals were dis­missed.

Source: Hindu: https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-hindu-madurai-9WWB/20251130/281586656900940

Opinion: The death penalty must be abolished!

Published Nov 30, 2025 | 9:19 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 01, 2025 | 7:04 AM

The modern debate over capital punishment took shape in Andhra Pradesh, following the execution of Naxalite prisoners K Bhoomaiah and Kishta Goud during the early months of the Emergency in the mid-1970s.

Kalpana Kannabiran

Amnesty International first raised the issue of capital punishment with the Indian government through an appeal dated 22 November 1974.

Synopsis: The decades long campaign has its roots in the broader struggle for civil liberties. It brought together people from different walks of life and political persuasions, united by a clear belief in abolition. The Campaign for the Abolition of the Death Penalty in India marks 50 years on 1 December 2025.

The modern debate over capital punishment took shape in Andhra Pradesh, following the execution of Naxalite prisoners K Bhoomaiah and Kishta Goud during the early months of the Emergency in the mid-1970s. Amnesty International’s then Secretary-General Martin Ennals raised the issue of capital punishment with the Indian government for the first time in this case, through an appeal dated 22 November 1974. On 5 December 1975, just four days after Bhoomaiah and Kishta Goud were executed, Amnesty International “cabled its deep concern at the hanging” (see Amnesty International Annual Reports 1973–74).

The campaign has its roots in the broader struggle for civil liberties. It brought together people from different walks of life and political persuasions, united by a clear belief in abolition. American journalist Lawrence Lifschultz, film personalities KA Abbas, Mrinal Sen and Utpal Dutt, and political leaders Bhupesh Gupta, Chandra Rajeshwar Rao, P Sundarayya, Mohit Sen and George Fernandes were among those outside Andhra Pradesh who led efforts to commute the death sentences awarded to Bhoomaiah and Kishta Goud. Advocates KG Kannabiran and Pattipati Venkateswara Rao represented the two men in Andhra Pradesh. Justices Chinnappa Reddy and Gangadhar Rao granted stays on more than one occasion.

The last appeal

After the first stay secured by Pattipati Venkateswarlu on 25 November 1974, the movement for the abolition of the death penalty gathered momentum rapidly. Meetings and conferences were held across the state. Political parties, trade unions and student organisations joined the call for abolition. The execution was repeatedly deferred, held back by the sheer force of this campaign. After June 1975, KG Kannabiran took over the case, as Pattipati Venkateswarlu was arrested on the night the Emergency was declared. Advocate RK Garg represented the matter in the Supreme Court, arguing for commutation. Justices VR Krishna Iyer and AC Gupta heard the case and ultimately confirmed the death sentence.

They were executed on 1 December 1975.

Senior scholar Sumanta Banerjee was among the last people to see them in jail. He had been placed in a neighbouring solitary cell, awaiting transfer to West Bengal, as no other cells were available.

In a personal conversation with this author, he recalled exchanging beedis and “Lal Salaams” with them during their walks, when they passed each other’s cells.

Half-century on, the call remains

There have been many twists and turns in the campaign, and mobilisations that would today be branded “anti-national”. But we must recall, remember and cherish a past that can serve as a wayfinder in the troubled future ahead. What better way to close than with the poetry of Sivasagar (KG Satyamurthy), for few have voiced a more eloquent call for abolition:

The gallows trembled

This night

the scaffold trembled violently

Hearing the progress report of mankind

spoken proudly by the hanging head

This night

the gallows trembled in fear

Seeing the soft unbroken smile

on the lips of the hanging head

This night

the hanging head

hanged the noose

(Written in 1975, immediately after the execution; translated from Telugu by Vasanth Kannabiran, who, along with KG Kannabiran and others, kept vigil on the pavement outside Mushirabad Jail, Secunderabad, on the night of 30 November–1 December 1975.)

The death penalty must be abolished. Fifty years is too long.

(Edited by Dese Gowda)

The modern debate over capital punishment took shape in Andhra Pradesh, following the execution of Naxalite prisoners K Bhoomaiah and Kishta Goud during the early months of the Emergency in the mid-1970s.

Source: https://thesouthfirst.com/opinion/telangana-two-years-on-will-the-rating-change/

Kerala Court Issues Death Sentence in Murder of Pregnant Woman Anita

Prabeesh & Rajani 

Published on Nov 29, 2025, 04:18 PM | 2 min read

ALAPPUZHA: The Alappuzha Additional Sessions Court–III on Monday awarded death penalty to the first accused in the Anitha murder case that took place in Kainakari.

Prabeesh (37), of Pookodan House, Nilambur, was sentenced to death for the murder of Anitha (32), of Thekkemadam House, Punnapra South panchayat.

Rajani (38), of Pathissery House, Thottuvathala, Kainakari, is the second accused in the case. A close friend of Prabeesh, she is currently lodged in an Odisha jail in connection with an NDPS case.

Judge M Shuhaib directed the prosecution to produce her in court on November 29 on the basis of a production warrant, after which the quantum of punishment to Rajani will be pronounced.

According to the prosecution, Prabeesh strangled Anitha to death while engaging in sexual intercourse, with the intent of removing her from his life so he could continue living with Rajani.

A driver by profession, Prabeesh had been cohabiting with Rajani. The murder was allegedly executed at Rajani’s house on July 7, 2021.

Prosecution reports state that Anitha became unconscious after being strangled. Believing she had died, the accused transported her body in a country boat to Pallathuruthy and dumped it in the canal near the Arayanthodu bridge. Local residents discovered the body the next evening. Initially registered as a case of unnatural death, the woman remained unidentified until Anitha’s brother recognised the body the following day.

A postmortem examination revealed injuries to the throat and damage to the thyroid gland, raising suspicion among doctors, who alerted the police.

An analysis of Anitha’s mobile phone data showed that the last call came from Prabeesh. Further investigation traced his phone location to Kainakari, and records indicated online transactions made using the device. Police later arrested both Prabeesh and Rajani, who reportedly confessed to the crime.

Anitha, who was married and the mother of two children, had separated from her husband Aneesh and was living with Prabeesh at Rajani’s house. She became pregnant, and attempts by the accused to terminate the pregnancy allegedly failed.

This led to escalating conflict, ultimately resulting in the murder, according to the prosecution.

The prosecution further stated that after Anitha fell unconscious, the accused placed her body in a fibre boat, intending to abandon it in the middle of the lake. However, the boat capsized, and the body drifted away before washing ashore at Arayanthodu bridge.

The court examined 82 witnesses out of a total of 112, and reviewed 131 documents, including the fibre boat used in the crime. The investigation was led by Nedumudi SHO A V Biju, while government pleader N B Shari represented the prosecution.

Source: https://www.deshabhimani.com/deshabhimani-english-/crime-16192/kerala-court-death-sentence-pregnant-anita-murder-23257

Mother Sentenced to Death in Bihar’s Araria for Poisoning Minor Daughter After Being Caught With Another Man

A Bihar mother was handed a death sentence for murdering her young daughter who threatened to reveal her illicit affair to the absent father.

Ananya Ganotra

November 29, 2025

In Bihar’s Araria district, 35-year-old Poonam Devi received a death sentence on November 27, 2025, from District Additional Sessions Judge-IV Rabi Kumar for the brutal murder of her 10-year-old daughter Shivani on July 10, 2023, after the child witnessed her mother’s affair with villager Rupesh Singh and threatened to inform her father Chandan Singh, who was earning in Punjab.

The court classified it as a “rarest of rare” case that “shakes society’s conscience,” citing extreme brutality where Poonam poisoned Shivani with organophosphorus pesticide mixed in fish, slit her throat with Rupesh’s aid, and hid the body in a maize field; evidence included five prosecution witnesses, post-mortem reports showing poisoning and throat injury, and Forensic Science Laboratory viscera analysis. Narpatganj police filed the FIR on chowkidar Bhagwan Kumar’s report the same day, submitted a chargesheet on September 22, 2023, framed charges by December 23, and completed the fast-track trial by January 2024; Additional Public Prosecutor Prabha Kumari stated “motherhood itself stood defeated” amid the convict’s lust, with no appeals or stays reported yet as the sentence awaits high court confirmation under Section 302 IPC, alongside fines and imprisonment for related charges.​

Court’s Stern Verdict 

The Narpatganj sessions court packed with observers delivered the death penalty, ruling the crime’s manner, poisoning to unconsciousness followed by near-decapitation, demonstrated profound moral collapse and brutality unfit for reform. Judge Rabi Kumar emphasised how the act shattered human bonds, supported by 12 documentary exhibits like the post-mortem and FSL reports confirming the toxic pesticide. Prosecutor Prabha Kumari argued for capital punishment, noting Poonam’s denial during charge-framing on January 2, 2024, but all witnesses corroborated the prosecution, leading to conviction; defence counsel Kishor Kumar Das sought leniency, yet the bench prioritised societal shock over mercy.​

Detailed Timeline of Horror

The tragedy ignited on June 21, 2023, when Shivani accidentally saw her mother in a compromising position with Rupesh Singh, whispering her intent to tell Chandan upon his Punjab return, heightening Poonam’s panic as he neared homecoming. On July 10, she purchased pesticide from a nearby market, cooked it into fish to sedate the child, then with Rupesh’s help slit the throat, stabbed the abdomen, and concealed the body behind their Ram Ghat Kashipur home in a maize field. No relatives reported the disappearance initially, but chowkidar Bhagwan Kumar’s alert prompted swift police action, recovery of the body, and arrest, exposing the plot amid rural silence.

Rural Strains and Legal Swiftness

This incident reflects deeper vulnerabilities in Bihar’s villages, where male migration for livelihood, like Chandan’s Punjab stint, leaves families isolated, fostering breakdowns as in parallel cases from Muzaffarpur or Saharsa. The fast-track process, from FIR to sentencing in under 2.5 years, showcases efficient justice via witness testimonies and forensics, yet underscores gaps in preventive counselling. Community roles, via chowkidars, proved pivotal, highlighting needs for vigilance networks amid economic pressures.​

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

This gut-wrenching betrayal demands urgent, empathy-led reforms: expanding rural counselling hubs, community dialogues on family strains from migration, and awareness campaigns promoting kindness over concealment to safeguard children and nurture harmony. While justice via death penalty deters, true coexistence requires restorative support systems fostering dialogue and positive change, preventing such defeats of motherhood. ​

A new lease of life under the sun for death row prisoners

For the third year in a row, the Supreme Court has not confirmed a single death sentence. This year alone, it has acquitted nine prisoners on death row, commuted five death sentences to life imprisonment, and remanded two cases to the trial courts for fresh consideration. Aaratrika Bhaumik reports on those who have been acquitted, and whose stories underline how the justice system can condemn innocent people to death

Updated - November 29, 2025 02:31 pm IST

Aaratrika Bhaumik 

Summary

The article discusses how, for the third consecutive year, the Supreme Court of India has not confirmed any death sentences handed down by lower courts, resulting in a number of death row inmates being acquitted or having their sentences commuted instead. It highlights that nine prisoners were acquitted and five had their death sentences commuted over this period, giving them a “new lease of life” outside of the threat of execution. The piece explores the implications of this trend for capital punishment in India and notes that the Supreme Court’s increased scrutiny and reluctance to uphold death sentences has translated into more executions being avoided, even while many prisoners remain on death row awaiting appeals or review.

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-new-lease-of-life-under-the-sun-for-death-row-prisoners/article70334987.ece

Madras HC commutes death sentence of man accused of killing ex-girlfriend

Chennai, Nov 28 (PTI) The Madras High Court has commuted to life term, the death sentence of a man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend by pushing her before a train here in 2022.

D Sathish had pushed the woman, a student, on the track at St Thomas Mount here after she disowned him. Before she got up, a train ran over her.

A division bench comprising Justices N Sathish Kumar and M Jothiraman passed the order on Thursday while partly allowing an appeal filed by the accused.

The bench directed that the appellant/accused shall not be entitled for any statutory remission or commutation until he serves incarceration for a period of 20 years. The motive of pushing the deceased on the railway track, particularly on noticing that the train was entering the railway station has also been clearly established. The accused had “love affair” with the deceased, a fact which has been clearly established not only by prosecution witnesses but also by the evidence of others who have been examined to prove the previous complaints given against the accused that he was stalking her and giving trouble, the bench said.

He had created ruckus in front of the college where the victim was studying. Therefore, the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime by eliminating the deceased in view of the fact that she disowned him, has been clearly established, it added.

The bench said it was clear from the analysis of the deposition of witnesses and the materials found that only the accused had pushed the deceased in a fit of rage due to the failure in love affair as she had disowned him.

The bench said on a perusal of the entire evidence and also looking at the manner in which the accused pushed her and was waiting in the railway station not only on the occurrence date but also on the previous day, “this court is of the view that the accused has meticulously executed his plan of doing away (with) the deceased.” “Therefore, his act will not fall within the ambit of any of the exceptions as contended by the senior counsel appearing for the accused”.

Sathish was certainly liable for punishment under section 302 of IPC (death penalty). Accordingly, the charge against the accused under section 302 of IPC has been clearly established, the bench added.

The bench said no doubt, the accused had decided to eliminate the woman. At the same time, it was pertinent to note that it was the choice of a woman to select her spouse. Merely because the deceased girl disowned him will not give licence to the accused to take away her life.

Due to her death, the woman’s father had committed suicide and her mother who was suffering from cancer also died. The entire family of the deceased was devastated and shattered due to the act of the accused. The act of the accused clearly indicates that he was mentally and emotionally disturbed due to frustration on account of the failure of his relationship with the deceased, the bench added.

The court said that considering the age of the accused and also taking note of the fact that he has no bad antecedents prior to the occurrence, the possibility of his reformation was higher. He has better chance of being reformed. The very sentencing policy itself was only for reformative justice and not retributive justice, the bench added.

The bench said considering the reports of the Probation Officer and the Superintendent of Prisons and considering the entire occurrence which was due to frustration of the accused because of love failure, “we are of the view that the death sentence is not warranted and if life imprisonment is awarded, that will meet the ends of justice”. PTI CORR SA

This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

‘Offence was not pre-meditated’; Allahabad HC commutes death sentence to life imprisonment of man who raped and killed his 5-month-old cousin

The Court reiterated that though in a rape and murder case based on circumstantial evidence, the death penalty can be awarded in the ‘rarest of rare’, normally imprisonment for life without any remission may be awarded, unless a death sentence is inevitable.

Published on November 21, 2025 

By Sonali Ahuja

Allahabad High Court: In a capital case filed for confirmation of death sentence to a man who raped his 5-month-old cousin, the Single Judge Bench of Rajnish Kumar* and Rajiv Singh, JJ., upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment till the natural life of convict without remission, holding that the convict had no criminal history and there was no evidence that offence was pre-meditated.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Kumar

    

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Singh

Background

In 2020, the complaint had gone to a wedding in their village with his family when his nephew, the convict, took away his 5-month-old daughter on the pretext of playing with her. When the convict did not return for a long time, the complainant’s wife searched for them and after an extensive search for a long time, the baby was found lying unconscious in the bushes of a vacant plot at some distance from the marriage lawn. The victim was admitted to the hospital, where she died.

The prosecution stated that the convict had killed the victim after kidnapping and raping her. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 364, 376 (2) (i) of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted him under Sections 302, 376(1) and (2), and 364 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to death by hanging along with a fine of Rs 70,000 to be paid to the complainant. Aggrieved, he filed the present criminal appeal against his conviction, and the State filed the present capital case to confirm the death sentence.

Analysis and Decision

At the outset, the Court affirmed the Trial Court’s finding that the deceased victim was aged 5 months and 13 days on the date of the incident, as proved by the birth certificate and supporting testimony of the computer operator at Community Health Center who registered the same. Upon examining the witness testimonies and the opinion of the members of the inquest report, the Court held that it was proved that the convict had taken the deceased victim away from her mother from the marriage venue and found her with her in a vacant plot at some distance. The deceased was found without clothes on the lower part of her body, and the remaining clothes were wet and were taken away by her cousin brother. Eyewitnesses also saw the convict at the scene of the crime and running away subsequently. Therefore, the presence of the convict at both places and in the intervening period could not be denied.

The Court noted that when the deceased victim was found, she was sent for medical examination, and her clothes were sent for forensic examination. However, the samples could only generate a partial DNA profile; thus, they could not be matched with the convict. However, biological fluid of a female origin was found on the convict’s clothes, which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, and the Investigating Officer proved that the clothes were the same that he was wearing at the wedding when he took the deceased away from her mother. Additionally, the convict was unable to explain or dispute the presence of such biological fluid on his clothes. The Court further noted that the FSL report indicated that two buttons of the shirt of the deceased were missing, and the button on the convict’s shirt matched the button that was recovered from the open plot from where the deceased victim was recovered. Thus, the Court held that the convict’s presence at the place of the crime and the recovery of the victim from him were proved. Regarding the partial generation of the DNA profile, the Court referred to Veerendra v. State of M.P., (2022) 8 SCC 668, wherein the Supreme Court held that solely on account of defects or shortcomings in investigation, an accused is not entitled to get acquitted. Thus, lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape, especially when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder.

Even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the Court still has a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it are enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution. It was further held that in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to consider whether, despite such a lapse, the various links in the chain of circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused alone in exclusion of all hypothesis of innocence in his favour. The Court also referred to State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382, wherein the Court observed that it is almost impossible to come across a single case wherein the investigation was conducted completely flawlessly or absolutely foolproof. The function of the criminal courts should not be wasted in picking out the lapses in investigation and by expressing unsavoury criticism against investigating officers. If offenders are acquitted only on account of flaws or defects in the investigation, the cause of criminal justice becomes the victim. Regarding the aspect of rape, the Court held that, as per the witness testimonies, testimonies of the medical experts, and medical reports, including the post-mortem report, it was proven that rape was committed with the victim. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and based on evidence and material on record, the Court held that it was proved that the convict committed the brutal crime with the victim.

The Court held that the prosecution proved their case based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances referred only to the guilt of the convict without any reasonable doubt. Thus, the Trial Court rightly recorded the findings on the basis of evidence and material available on record, thereby holding the convict guilty and convicting him. The Court held that it did not find any illegality, error, or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. On the aspect of sentencing, the Court stated that, undisputedly, the heinous crime of rape was committed by the convict with a five-month-old girl and, thereafter, the convict put the victim in such a condition that she died during treatment. Furthermore, the Court noted that the conviction was made based on circumstantial evidence, except for the conviction and sentence under Section 364 of the IPC. The Court referred to Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, wherein the Supreme Court indicated that numerous other circumstances are justifying the passing of the lighter sentence; as there are countervailing circumstances of aggravation, and has held that death penalty ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. Similarly, in Sundar v. State, (2024) 12 SCC 764, wherein the appellant was convicted with the death penalty under Sections 302, 364-A, and 201 of the IPC, for the murder of a 7-year-old child, but the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence, reiterating the rarest of rare cases principle. The Court also referred to Veerendra (Supra), wherein the Court observed that where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the death penalty would rarely be awarded if the conclusion on the connection of the accused with the offence(s) is fixed based on circumstantial evidence. It is true that even in such cases, the existence of exceptional circumstances/special circumstances would make the death penalty awardable.

The Court further highlighted the requirement of application of ‘crime test’, ‘criminal test’, and ‘rarest of rare test’, and the aggravating circumstances (crime test) and the mitigating circumstances (criminal test) have been narrated. Considering the aforesaid, the Court reiterated that though in a rape and murder case based on circumstantial evidence, the death penalty can be awarded in the ‘rarest of rare’, normally imprisonment for life without any remission may be awarded, unless a death sentence is inevitable. Dealing with the ‘aggravating’ and ‘mitigating’ circumstances, the Court may choose to give primacy to life imprisonment over the death penalty after inquiring to enable the consideration of the facts. Noting that the convict had no criminal history and there was no evidence that the offence was committed with a premeditated mind, the Court held that the death penalty was liable to be commuted to life imprisonment till the natural life of the convict without remission. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the convict and did not confirm the capital case. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302, 364, and 376 (1)(2) of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. While the Court confirmed the sentence awarded under Section 364 of the IPC, the death sentences awarded under Section 302 and under Section 376(1)(2) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act were commuted to life imprisonment for his remaining natural life without remission. Other terms of the sentence, including the fines awarded with default stipulation, were also confirmed. [State of U.P. v. Premchandra, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7562, decided on 18-11-2025]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajnish Kumar...

Source: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/11/21/all-hc-commutes-death-sentence-man-who-raped-killed-5-month-old-cousin/