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.

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.

Justice Rajnish Kumar

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.

Justice Rajeev Singh J. J. 

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

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the appellant: Government Advocate V.K. Singh and Additional Government Advocate Raj Deep Singh

For the respondent: Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi.

Source:

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

‘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/

Capital punishment highest in murder cases, sexual violence next: Death penalty lawyer Shreya Rastogi

Rastogi says the grounds for commuting a death penalty to life imprisonment includes a jail conduct report, a psychological evaluation, and a probation officer's report.

Written by Jagriti Rai

New Delhi | Updated: November 21, 2025 09:35 PM IST

Capital punishment in India: While upholding the conviction of a man in a rape and murder case involving a minor, the Allahabad High Court recently commuted his death penalty to a life term, noting his lack of criminal history and no evidence of premeditated act.

Aggravating and mitigating factors significantly influence criminal sentencing. Commuting capital punishments plays a crucial role not only in preserving life but also in setting precedents for cases that do not meet the “rarest of rare” category. The Indian Express spoke to advocate Shreya Rastogi, who specialises in death penalty cases and is associated with Project 39A, to understand how the capital punishment landscape has evolved in recent years.

Edited excerpts follow:

Q1. What does “commuting a judicial sentence” mean?

In the context of judicial, “commutation” means a reduction of sentence by the court. Commutations, which is reduction of sentence, which can be done by the highest executive bodies and offices that are the governor and the president. They also have the powers to commute under Articles 72 and 161 of the constitution. So the word commute or commutation has been used in these different contexts.

It is mostly in the provisions for which the death sentence can be given. They may have a range of offenses, sometimes there are provisions which even have a fixed term sentence.

For instance the minimum sentence would be 20 years, like in cases under the POCSO Act, Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) has a minimum of 20 years sentence. Then the range is 20 years of life to till the end of natural life and death sentence. So a “commutation” in a case can mean that the court can reduce the death sentence to either life imprisonment till the end of natural life or to 20 years in prison. It depends on what is the legislation, what is the range, which is provided. Any reduction of sentence is supposed to be a commutation.

Q2. In the case at hand, the high court noted the absence of premeditation and lack of criminal antecedents to arrive at its decision. What other factors are recognised by courts while commuting sentences?

In the non sentencing there are multiple things that the court can consider. And, while the most clarity in our legal system is actually in the context of death penalty sentencing law because outside the death penalty, I would say that if one can study judgments around sentencing in non death penalty cases, not enough attention has been given to how sentencing will be done.

Procedures are there in the sense that you will hear the accused on sentencing. But if you look at judicial practice, if you look at the way in which even sentences are being given, it’s not as if the court necessarily calls for material from the state or allows the accused the opportunity to submit materials, an opportunity, meaning giving them time and giving them resources, appointing people.

All of that actually now in our system happens in case of the death penalty. But in non death penalty cases, that doesn’t happen.

In a death sentence matter, what has been clarified for decades now, is that the court reserves the death penalty for cases which are “rarest to rare”.

One of the grounds for commuting a death penalty to life imprisonment is a jail conduct report. The second one is a psychological evaluation. The third one is a probation officer’s report. In this particular case, also the court mentioned these reports and lack of these reports.

Apart from this, you have to also give the accused a chance, based on evidence and their actual conduct. Now, since the judgment in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement, 2022, the Supreme Court has followed the practice of giving access for mitigation investigators.

These are people who are trained in different social science disciplines like psychology or social work or anthropology or sociology or accused for an interview that they can bring out their life history because this kind of social science approach is not something that lawyers are capable of.

Q3. What are the legal standards when the court considers the death penalty?

In Bachan Singh v. the state of Punjab in 1980, It was the second time that the constitutionality of the death penalty was challenged. In a 4:1 judgment, the court upheld the constitutionality and right towards the very end of the judgment they use the word “rarest of rare”, saying that sentence should be reserved in “rarest of rare” cases where the alternate option of life imprisonment has not been unquestionably foreclosed. But what does “rarest of rare” mean, and what does unquestionably foreclosed mean?

That has then been a subject matter of more judicial expansion in the decades since the Bachan Singh judgement. In the last more than 40 years now since Bachan Singh, courts have explained that we will look at “aggravating and mitigating” factors because it is clearly stated in Bachan Singh that we have to consider crime as well as the criminal factors. The idea is not to think of it in a straight jacketed manner.

In our law that’s amalgamated after independence, It made that very clear. What it also, the 1973 code did in comparison to the 1898 code. In the 1898 code, the death sentence would be the norm and life would be the exception, but in the post independence code of criminal procedure, 1973 was changed. Now, the life imprisonment would be the norm and for giving the death sentence, the court would have to give special reasons. It means they are making it more exceptional because it is recognizing that life is more sacrosanct.

Courts look at both “aggravating and mitigating” factors. Courts are supposed to make sure that mitigating factors actually get a very expansive and liberal interpretation. Because, even in Bachan Singh, in 1980, the majority itself held that judges should never be blood thirsty.

Q4. What are the legal grounds for the death penalty in the cases of rape and murder under the POCSO Act?

We look at aggravating and mitigating factors and whether the alternate option of life imprisonment has been unquestionably foreclosed. It’s the gravity. The law is the same in these cases also.

Q5. Does the rape and murder cases always make a ground for death penalty?

No, not in every case the death penalty is given. But if we look at the statistics, murder is the highest category and the second category where most of death penalty given is sexual violence.

Q6. How often do courts in India actually commute death sentences on the basis of “no premeditation” or “lack of reports from probation, jail, and psychology”?

It’s not a lack of reports always. The courts look at the reports that come, but in most cases, this does not even come. Over the last 40 years, there has been a lot of development and the most recent one was in the case of Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022, where in death penalty cases, the Supreme Court laid down very extensive guidelines.

Ever since that has been created, converting that law into judicial practice across the country is a whole different battle. We have to create a capacity on district level in trail courts across the country. It is also about changing judicial practice. It is about changing mindsets that you have to do before imposing the death sentence. Those are changes, which will take time. It has been almost three and half years now since Manoj judgement. But in most trial courts across the country, courts still don’t follow these guidelines. These guidelines were for trial courts. It is binding to the trial court to follow that.

Q7. Do probation officers and psychological evaluations make a real difference in sentencing? How reliable are these reports in Indian prisons?

It does make a difference because at least those are questions we can go into. More cases are done where reports are submitted. Whether reports are prepared correctly or not is going to be the next question, and how much we are increasing the capacity of our probation officers and psychological evaluations, because psychological evaluations are commonly conducted at district hospitals or district mental health facilities. I can tell you by experience of the cases that we have done, many of the mental health professionals may not understand, what is it that the court is asking?

A mental health professional can’t answer the question of reformation. Reformation is not a term of psychology. It’s a legal thing. As a mental health professional, you are answering different things and then the court has to make sense of that. There is obviously a need for improving the capacity, both on the side of probation officers, on Mental health professionals who do the psychological evaluation and for them to understand what is it, what are the questions that the law is interested in, so that they can provide better assistance. But equally judicial training is also needed so that judges know and have a much better sense of how sentencing should be done.

Q8. Does commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment till natural life without remission sufficiently address both retribution and reform? How do you see this?

That is something that many people raise concerns about. Even the Supreme Court itself has in many cases said that if you don’t give anyone any possibility of parole, furlough, remission, then it takes away hope of a person entirely. If the person does not have any hope that they will ever be able to reintegrate into society, then it may be detrimental to the point of reform. They have no reason to look forward to improving themselves. I think that is certainly a question which has to be looked at from many different lenses. Constitutional, legal and sociological. How we give life imprisonment until the end of natural life and restrict the powers of remission the power of parole, furlough is something that I think is the next battle.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/capital-punishment-highest-in-murder-cases-sexual-violence-next-death-penalty-lawyer-shreya-rastogi-10377844/

Hanged At Dawn, Cremated In Secret: Inside Nathuram Godse's Execution

Curated By : Satyaki Baidya

Translation Desk

Last Updated: November 15, 2025, 17:57 IST

Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were hanged before sunrise on November 15 at Ambala Central Jail. Godse appeared inconsolable, while Apte remained composed.

Nathuram Godse admitted his crime in court. (News 18 Hindi)

On the morning of November 15, 1949, an unusual atmosphere enveloped Ambala Jail. Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte, convicted for Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, were executed early that day. Following the hanging, officials discreetly performed their last rites inside the jail. Despite repeated pleas from their families, the bodies were not released. The ashes were then covertly immersed in the Ghaggar river. Godse believed Gandhi’s non-violent policies and efforts to promote Hindu-Muslim unity were detrimental to the nation, especially during Partition, feeling Gandhi was jeopardising Hindu interests. Historian Hama Gebe noted that Godse saw Gandhi’s policy of religious equality as a ‘betrayal’. Godse was a staunch critic of Gandhi’s defence of Muslim rights and his efforts for bilateral relations. Over time, more individuals have come to sympathise with Godse’s views. Some groups now portray Godse as a role model and call him a nationalist.

Gandhi’s Assassination And Godse’s Trial

On January 30, 1948, Gandhi’s assassination marked a controversial and tragic chapter in Indian history. Godse shot Gandhi three times during a prayer meeting, without harming anyone else. The trial against Godse began soon after, on January 22, 1948, at Delhi’s Red Fort.

Death Sentence Awarded

The government prosecutor successfully argued that Gandhi’s murder was a premeditated conspiracy. On October 10, 1949, Judge Atma Charan sentenced Godse and Apte to death, while others involved were also found guilty. During the appeal, Godse delivered an extensive speech criticising Gandhi’s policies and contended they led to India’s partition.

Godse And Apte’s Final Moments

Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were hanged at Ambala Central Jail before sunrise on November 15. Eyewitnesses recall that when Godse’s name was called, he appeared somewhat inconsolable and spoke weakly, while Apte seemed far more composed. As they walked toward the gallows, Godse shouted ‘Akhand Bharat,’ to which Apte responded with a stronger and more resonant ‘Amar Rahe.’ According to Robert Paine’s ‘The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi’, Apte had conducted himself as a model prisoner and even authored a book on Indian thought. Despite the chants, both men remained remarkably composed in their final moments.

Execution And Secret Funeral

Both were hanged simultaneously; Apte died instantly, but it took Godse a few moments. A member of the verification team described the scene as distressing and said it haunted him for days. Under special instructions from Delhi, the district magistrate’s staff performed the last rites within hours. They collected the ashes, placed them in an armoured vehicle, and transported them to the Ghaggar river for immersion, accompanied by police for security. The immersion was carried out with utmost secrecy, ensuring no witnesses. The vehicle first drove to the river, moved ahead to mislead any observers, then returned to immerse the ashes in a fast-flowing, unidentified part of the river, making retrieval impossible. Even for the team members, returning to the spot would be challenging. This secrecy highlighted the intent to keep everything confidential.

Role Of The District Magistrate’s Staff Post-Execution

At that time, when someone was hanged, the district magistrate and staff had to be present to officially confirm the death. If the body was not handed over to the family or went unclaimed, the staff was responsible for the last rites. In the case of Godse and Apte, the staff managed the cremation and immersion of ashes. They also recorded the final wishes of those sentenced to death.

Bodies Not Released To Families By Government

The Indian government decided not to release the bodies to the families to prevent Godse and Apte from being glorified or turned into political symbols. The country was still dealing with the aftermath of Partition, and the government wanted to avoid their bodies being used by radical or nationalist groups, which could cause social or political instability. Hence, the funeral was kept secret and strictly controlled by jail officials, excluding family members and adhering to government orders.

Gandhi Murder Case Verdict Date

On February 10, 1949, the special court delivered its verdict in Gandhi’s assassination case. Of the nine accused, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was acquitted, while the other eight were convicted for murder, conspiracy, and violence. Godse and Apte were sentenced to death, and six others, including Godse’s brother Gopal Godse, received life imprisonment.

Gopal Godse Wrote A Book Post-Sentence

Gopal Godse, Viyabio Karkare, Madnisi Puhi, Shankar Kistaya, and Dattatreya Parchure were sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving their sentences, they were released. Nathuram Godse admitted his crime in court but argued his actions were motivated by Gandhi’s policies, which he believed weakened India. Gopal Godse completed his sentence in 1966 and published a book detailing the events and reasons behind Gandhi’s assassination.

Was Narayan Apte A British Intelligence Agent?

In 1966, when the government reopened the Gandhi murder case, a commission led by Justice J.L. Kapur was formed. The Kapur Commission expressed doubts about Narayan Apte’s identity, describing him as a former Indian Air Force employee. Based on this, the Abhinav Bharat Mumbai organisation asked Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar for information. Parrikar replied that records showed Apte was never in the Air Force. Later, Dr Pankaj Phadnis of Abhinav Bharat claimed Apte was a member of British intelligence agency Force 136 and that Apte fired the fourth shot at Gandhi, not Godse.

Apte Hailed From A Family Of Sanskrit Scholars

According to Wikipedia, Narayan Apte had a charming personality, graduated in science from Bombay University, and worked in teaching and other jobs. He belonged to a respected Brahmin family in Pune known for Sanskrit scholarship. In 1939, while working as a teacher in Ahmednagar, Apte joined the Hindu Mahasabha. Due to family responsibilities, he returned to his ancestral home in Pune to care for his joint family. His wife was also from an influential family, and their married life was reported to be happy. They had a son who often suffered from health issues.

Source: https://www.news18.com/india/hanged-at-dawn-cremated-in-secret-inside-nathuram-godses-execution-ws-dkl-9710271.html

HC commutes death sentence of Nagpur man who murdered daughter by hanging

By: Pradip Kumar Maitra, Nagpur
Updated on: Nov 14, 2022 08:36 am IST

Kalamna police station in-charge Vinod Patil said Guddu Chhotelal Rajak, a labourer, used to live with his second wife Kaushalya (38) and three children – Mahi (16), Ziya (12) and Gaurav (10) – in the east Nagpur locality. He remarried a few years ago after his first wife died by suicide in 2016.

Guddu Chhotelal Rajak

A 42-year-old man in Nagpur was arrested for allegedly killing his 16-year-old daughter and staging it as a suicide to “teach a lesson” to his wife and her family, police said on Sunday. The accused was reportedly inspired by an episode of popular television crime series CID as he committed the crime, they added. Providing details, Kalamna police station in-charge Vinod Patil said Guddu Chhotelal Rajak, a labourer, used to live with his second wife Kaushalya (38) and three children – Mahi (16), Ziya (12) and Gaurav (10) – in the east Nagpur locality. He remarried a few years ago after his first wife died by suicide in 2016. However, Kaushalya left home on October 10 this year due to alleged mental and physical torture by her husband, Patil said.

On November 6, Mahi was found hanging from a ceiling raft, Patil said. After Kalamna police rushed to the spot, they recovered five suicide notes blaming her stepmother, maternal uncle, aunt and grandfather for “forcing her to marry”. The suicide notes also accused her maternal uncle, Santosh Piparde (47), of molestation, he said. Subsequently, police filed a case under section 306 (abetment of suicide) of Indian Penal Code and provisions of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act against the concerned family members – Kaushalya, Santosh and his wife Kalpana (40) and grandfather Dasharath (68) – and arrested them, Patil said.

“Police, however, grew suspicious and seized Guddu’s phone for investigation. They found a photo of Mahi alive, with a noose around her neck. Upon further interrogation, he confessed to killing Mahi,” Patil said. “The accused hatched the conspiracy after seeing an episode of CID to teach a lesson to his relatives and his second wife after she refused to come back, and shared his plan with his daughters. He asked Mahi to write suicide notes with a concocted narrative,” he added.

Nagpur additional commissioner of police Naveen Reddy said on November 6, Guddu woke up his daughters at 3am and told them he needed Mahi’s photograph to submit it to the police. “He then allegedly tied a rope to the ceiling raft and asked his daughter to stand on a table. Ziya took a photograph on his mobile phone as Mahi stood with the noose around her neck,” he said.

“Guddu then kicked the table. As Mahi hung from the ceiling raft, she cried for help but Guddu did not save her,” he added. Police found Mahi’s photograph of enacting the suicide bid on the accused’s mobile phone. “He had told his daughter to act, claiming he wanted to teach a lesson to their relatives,” Patil said. Following Guddu’s confession, police added section 302 (murder) of IPC in the case and arrested him, Patil said. “We have released his wife and relatives. He is in police custody till November 16. A probe is underway,” he said.

Source: https://www.nagpurtoday.in/hc-commutes-death-sentence-of-nagpur-man-who-murdered-daughter-by-hanging/11121557

Looking for alternatives to hanging: Centre to SC (Summary)

Published on: Nov 12, 2025 05:26 am IST

The Union government told the Supreme Court that it is exploring whether more humane execution methods than hanging could be adopted for carrying out death sentences in India, though no final decision has been made yet. Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that deliberations are ongoing and asked for more time before the government presents a concrete position. 

Noose 

A detailed hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2026 on a plea challenging the constitutionality of hanging and seeking options such as lethal injection or other less painful methods. The petitioner argues that hanging is archaic and causes prolonged suffering that may violate the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Centre previously said hanging remains the “safest and quickest” method but has agreed to review the system and is considering forming a committee to study alternatives. Hindustan Times

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/looking-for-alternatives-to-hanging-centre-to-sc-101762887100827.html

Nithari killings: Surendra Koli walks out of jail, lawyer says flawed system ‘almost executed’ him twice

Updated on: Nov 12, 2025 10:29 pm IST

Surendra Koli’s lawyer said the verdict highlighted serious flaws in India’s criminal justice system due to which his client was ‘almost executed twice’.

Surendra Koli walked out of the Luksar Jail in Greater Noida on Wednesday after the Supreme Court of India acquitted him in last case in Noida, India, on Wednesday, November 12, 2025. (Sunil Ghosh/Hindustan Times)

Surendra Koli, accused in the 2006 Nithari serial killings, walked out of Gautam Budhh Nagar’s Luksar Jail after the Supreme Court acquitted him in last of the 13 cases pertailing to the crime, allowing his curative petition challenging his conviction. Surendra Koli’s lawyer, Payoshi Roy, said the verdict highlighted serious flaws in India’s criminal justice system. “This case exposes the deep fissures in our criminal justice. It reveals how easy it is to fabricate evidence and falsely implicate a poor man and numb judicial scrutiny by making sensational claims of cannibalism. Koli was almost executed twice,” said Koli's lawyer. "Had he been executed we would have never learnt the truth of his innocence. This judgment should make us rethink the death penalty in India and how marginalized and impoverished people are treated within the criminal justice system," Roy added.

What did the Supreme Court say?

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath passed the order, which read: "For the reasons recorded above, the curative petition is allowed." The court quashed Koli’s conviction, sentence, and fine, and directed his immediate release, “if not required in any other case or proceeding.” Koli had been convicted of raping and murdering a 15-year-old girl in Noida’s Nithari village, a conviction upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011.

His review plea was dismissed in 2014, and his death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Allahabad High Court in 2015 due to delays in deciding his mercy petition. In October 2023, the Allahabad high court acquitted Koli and co-accused Moninder Singh Pandher in several other Nithari cases, overturning their death sentences. The CBI and the victims’ families challenged those acquittals, but the Supreme Court dismissed all 14 appeals in July this year.

On October 7, the top court reserved its verdict on Koli’s curative plea, observing that it “deserves to be allowed.” It noted that his conviction rested largely on a statement and the recovery of a kitchen knife, raising questions about the adequacy of evidence.

What is the Nithari case?

The Nithari killings came to light on December 29, 2006, when skeletal remains of eight children were found in a drain behind Pandher’s house in Nithari, Noida. These were serial killings that happened in Noida’s Sector-31 near Nithari village between 2005 and 2006. Koli was employed as a domestic help in the area. Further searches around Pandher’s residence led to the recovery of more skulls, bones, and body parts, which were of poor children and young women who had gone missing from the area.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/nithari-killings-surendra-koli-walks-out-of-jail-lawyer-says-flawed-system-almost-executed-him-twice-101762957692053.html

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Rape–Robbery–Murder Case: “Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Replace Proof” — Court Finds Missing Links in Circumstantial Chain

November 7, 2025

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Kerala High Court in a case involving allegations of house trespass, sexual assault, robbery, and murder of an elderly woman. This case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

After examining all material on record, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of circumstances. Multiple gaps existed in the investigation; crucial witnesses were not examined; scientific evidence linking the accused to the crime was absent; recoveries were doubtful; and last-seen evidence lacked reliability.

The Court held that the findings of the courts below were unsustainable because the evidence produced left open “other plausible hypotheses” and therefore did not meet the high standard of proof required in a circumstantial case. The accused was acquitted and ordered to be released.

Facts

The case arose from the death of an 85-year-old woman living alone in a house near her daughter’s residence. According to the prosecution, she was last seen alive at 9:00 p.m., when dinner was served. At about 5:30 a.m. the next day, she was found lying dead with signs of strangulation by a towel. Two gold bangles normally worn by her were missing.

The FIR was registered shortly thereafter. Investigation involved inspection of the crime scene, seizure of blood-stained items, inquest, and post-mortem. Medical evidence indicated cause of death as asphyxiation due to compression of the neck and signs of sexual assault. However, forensic analysis revealed no semen and no biological trace identifying the assailant.

The prosecution based its case on circumstances: the accused lived temporarily in a nearby compound; he was allegedly seen coming out of the compound around 2:45 a.m.; he allegedly left quietly during the night; and he was arrested three days later. The police claimed to have recovered two gold bangles from him at the hospital after his arrest. The accused denied the prosecution’s story, stating he was picked up earlier and tortured.

Issues

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence fulfilled the legal standard of forming a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to guilt.
2. Whether last-seen evidence was reliable in establishing the accused’s presence at the scene.
3. Whether the recovery of gold bangles was credible.
4. Whether failures in investigation created reasonable doubt.
5. Whether the accused’s alleged conduct before and after the incident was incriminating.
6. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction were perverse and warranted interference.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The convicted individual argued that the prosecution’s case was fabricated and based entirely on conjecture. There was no eyewitness, and no scientific evidence connected him to the crime. He argued that the forensic team found no fingerprints, footprints, hair, skin, or semen linking him to the deceased. He claimed that the alleged recovery of bangles was planted, as it was implausible he would be carrying stolen jewellery three days after the incident.

He further highlighted contradictions: one key person who accompanied him outside at 2:00 a.m. was never examined; the prosecution did not identify or produce the informant who allegedly spotted him; no test identification parade was conducted; and the last-seen witness only saw someone exiting the compound, not the house. He insisted that multiple missing links entitled him to the benefit of doubt.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State argued that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime and was last seen near the victim’s home around the estimated time of death. They asserted that he absconded, behaved suspiciously, and later confessed at the hospital. The recovery of the victim’s gold bangles was presented as a crucial incriminating link.

The State contended that medical evidence corroborated the nature of the crime and that circumstantial evidence formed an integrated whole. The State urged the Court to defer to concurrent findings of two courts and argued that the accused’s presence in the vicinity, his sudden disappearance, and his behaviour upon arrest established guilt.

Analysis of the Law

The Supreme Court extensively analysed the principles governing conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Drawing from authoritative precedents, the Court reiterated:

• Every link in the chain must be firmly proved;

• Suspicion cannot replace proof;

• Missing links or alternative hypotheses must compel acquittal;

• Last-seen evidence requires narrow time proximity and corroboration;

• Recovery must be credible and voluntary;

• Failure to examine material witnesses gravely undermines the case.

The Court found that the time of death (between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m.) did not conclusively place the accused with the deceased; last-seen testimony was vague and weak; and medical evidence did not narrow identification. The Court also emphasized that withheld witnesses, including the friend who accompanied the accused at 2:00 a.m., significantly weakened the prosecution case.

Precedent Analysis

Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer

Reaffirmed the five foundational “panchsheel” principles of circumstantial evidence. Applied to hold that the chain was incomplete. 18

Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy

Summarised essential standards for circumstantial conviction. The Court relied on these to emphasise that suspicion cannot replace proof.

State of U.P. v. Satish

Explained the narrow application of last-seen theory and need for corroboration. Used to reject the prosecution’s last-seen argument.

Bodhraj v. State of J&K

Warned against convicting solely on last-seen evidence without additional incriminating material. Reinforced acquittal.

Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Held that when two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail. This principle was decisive in the present case. 18

Court’s Reasoning

The Court meticulously examined each circumstance presented by the prosecution and found significant gaps:

• The accused was only seen exiting the compound, not the victim’s house.

• No forensic evidence connected him to the offence.

• No test identification parade was conducted.

• The informant who allegedly saw him before arrest was never identified or examined.

• The recovery of gold bangles was doubtful because the accused allegedly kept them for three days and produced them from his pocket in a hospital.

• Failure to examine the friend who was the “last seen” companion created a major lapse.

• Medical evidence proved the occurrence of rape and murder but did not identify the perpetrator.

• The accused’s explanation about being tortured could not be dismissed, especially when the arrest narrative lacked corroboration.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to satisfy the legal standard for circumstantial evidence. As multiple views were possible, benefit of doubt had to be extended.

Conclusion

The conviction for murder, rape, robbery, and house trespass was set aside. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances, produced no scientific evidence, and omitted key witnesses. The accused was acquitted and directed to be released unless required in any other case.

Implications

• Reinforces stringent safeguards in circumstantial evidence cases.

• Underscores the importance of forensic linkage.

• Reiterates that last-seen theory alone is insufficient.

• Highlights consequences of investigative lapses and non-examination of material witnesses.

• Strengthens presumption of innocence when reasonable doubt persists.