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

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

December 7, 2023

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

Background

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

Analysis, Law, and Decision

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

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

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

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

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

*Judgment authored by- Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant: Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocates;

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

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

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

Madras High Court modifies convict’s death sentence into life imprisonment for sexually abusing his minor daughter

Summary AI

Division Bench says, it is not a rarest of rare case warranting imposition of capital punishment & there was nothing on record to prove that the convict is a menace to the society with no possibility of reformation

Published - November 21, 2023 11:28 pm IST - CHENNAI

The Hindu Bureau

The Madras High Court on Tuesday modified from death to life the sentence imposed on a convict for having sexually abused his minor daughter from the age of seven to 12 years when she attained puberty and thereafter subjecting her to penetrative sexual assault leading to pregnancy and forced miscarriage.

📌 What Happened

• The Madras High Court modified the death sentence earlier imposed on a man who had been convicted of sexually abusing his minor daughter and upheld his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

⚖️ High Court’s Reasoning

• The court noted that although the crime was heinous and serious, it did not qualify as a “rarest of rare” case under Indian law — the strict standard required for the death penalty. Therefore, the High Court commuted the sentence from death to life imprisonment.

• The “rarest of rare” doctrine comes from Supreme Court precedents that say the death penalty should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances where the alternative of life imprisonment is clearly inadequate.

🧑‍⚖️ Other Orders

• In related orders, the High Court also reviewed sentences of other family members connected to the case (in some reports, the mother’s conviction or sentence was varied or quashed on appeal).

📝 Legal Context

• Under the POCSO Act, aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a minor is among the most serious offences and can result in severe punishments including death or life imprisonment.

📍 Key Takeaways

• Conviction upheld — the court maintained that the evidence supported guilt.

• Sentence reduced — the death penalty was changed to life imprisonment, following legal standards that reserve capital punishment for only the most exceptional cases.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/madras-high-court-modifies-convicts-death-sentence-into-life-imprisonment-for-sexually-abusing-his-minor-daughter/article67558999.ece

Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court says prior conviction cannot be sole ground to impose death penalty; commutes murder convict's sentence

 Summary AI

🧑‍⚖️ Who was involved

• Accused: Madan (appellant) — originally sentenced to death for murder.

• Co-accused: Sudesh Pal and Ishwar were also convicted in the same case.

📍 What the case was about

• The offences arose from an incident of indiscriminate firing on a group of people in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh on 14 October 2003.

• The firing occurred after local panchayat election rivalry — Madan and others were on one side, and the victims were associated with the rival camp. Some victims were supporters or relatives of the winning candidates.

• Six people were killed in the incident.

🏛 Trial court & High Court decisions

• The trial court convicted Madan and co-accused for murder under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Madan and Sudesh Pal to death, while others received life sentences or lesser punishments.

• The Allahabad High Court later confirmed Madan’s death sentence, though it commuted Sudesh Pal’s death penalty to life imprisonment. 

⚖️ Case Outcome

• A three-judge bench (Justices B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna & Prashant Kumar Mishra) heard appeals from Madan and Sudesh Pal.

• The Supreme Court upheld Madan’s conviction for murder but commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment (to be served without remission for at least 20 years).

• The Court held that the High Court erred in keeping Madan’s death sentence while commuting Sudesh Pal’s, because the only distinguishing factor was that Madan had a prior conviction. The Supreme Court said a prior conviction alone cannot be the sole basis for imposing the death penalty.

• The Court emphasised that under Indian law the “rarest of rare” doctrine must be applied — meaning the death penalty should only be imposed when the crime’s circumstances truly demand it, and that mitigating factors (like potential for reform) must be considered. 

• The Supreme Court of India commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of murder to life imprisonment, holding that a defendant’s prior criminal conviction alone cannot be the sole basis for imposing the death penalty.

🧠 Legal Reasoning

• The Court emphasised that just because a person has a criminal history (prior conviction), that fact by itself does not automatically justify the death penalty.

• Instead, courts must carefully weigh all aggravating and mitigating factors in a case before deciding on capital punishment. This includes evaluating:

  • The nature and gravity of the offence

  • The individual’s background

  • The possibility of reform or rehabilitation

📌 Broader Legal Principle

• This decision aligns with the established “rarest of rare” doctrine in Indian law: the death penalty should be reserved only for cases where there is no reasonable possibility of reform, and the circumstances are truly exceptional. A mere history of prior wrongdoing does not automatically make a case fall into that category.

🧾 Key Takeaway

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that capital punishment requires nuanced judicial assessment, not just a mechanical reliance on prior convictions. Life imprisonment can be a more appropriate penalty when mitigating factors suggest potential for reform.

Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-commutes-death-sentence-murder-accused-prior-conviction-not-sole-ground-death?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bombay HC commutes death sentence of man convicted of killing minor girl

08 Feb 2022, 5:41 pm

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside the death penalty awarded to a man convicted of sexually assaulting and killing a minor girl and sentenced him to life imprisonment. A division bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and P K Chavan cited that the case did not fall in the rarest of rare category and the convict was not a hardened criminal and could be reformed, rehabilitated and reintegrated into the society. The court passed its judgment on the Maharashtra government's appeal seeking confirmation of the death penalty awarded to 23-year-old Mohammad Aabed Shaikh.

Justices Sadhana Jadhav

The court, in its order, noted that there was no evidence of sexual assault in the case and that the convict had suddenly thought of seeking vengeance for the humiliation that he had faced after being slapped by the victim's father for not repaying a loan. The bench quashed Shaikh's conviction on the charges of rape under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, but said the conviction on the murder charge needs to be maintained. As per the case details, on April 4, 2018, the victim's body was found in a decomposed state in the thorny bushes on an open land used by the locals to defecate.

Justice Prithviraj K Chavan

The victim had gone missing from her house in Bhiwandi town of neighbouring Thane district on April 2. The court noted that for parents, the loss of a child is a psychological loss that creates a vacuum within. "The death of the child was a harsh blow not only to the parents, but to the society as a whole," the order said. The police on April 6, 2018 arrested Shaikh, who was employed in a nearby weaving mill. The police claimed that Shaikh had confessed to his co-worker about committing the alleged offence.

According to the prosecution. 

Shaikh had harboured ill-feelings towards the victim's father, who had allegedly slapped him once for not returning his money. The court observed that while the act committed by the convict was brutal and deserves no lenience, the mitigating circumstances also need to be considered as far as the accused was concerned. "Although the offence is barbaric and heinous, what falls for consideration is whether death penalty is the only punishment that needs to be imposed. The State has failed to bring before us any material to show that there is no scope for reformation or rehabilitation," the bench said.

"It is a settled cardinal principle that it is not just the crime which the Court should take into consideration, but also the criminal, the state of his mind and his socio-economic background," it said. "The accused is a young man. At the time of the commission of the offence, the accused was hardly 20 years of age. Satisfaction of personal vendetta had overpowered him momentarily and in that moment of deprivation of self-control, he had committed the offence," the order said.

Source: 

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/mumbai/2022/Feb/08/bombay-hc-commutes-death-sentence-of-man-convicted-of-killing-minor-girl-2416989.html

Bombay High Court commutes death verdict for two women death penalty convicts - Kids' kidnap-murder case

18 Jan 2022

Bombay HC commuted death sentences of two prime accused - both step-sisters - to life term till death in jail, in the sensational case of kidnapping 13 minor children and murdering at least 5 of them.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentences of two prime accused - both step-sisters - to life term till death in jail, in the sensational case of kidnapping 13 minor children and murdering at least 5 of them, that rocked the state in the early 1990s. The accused are Seema Gavit and Renuka Shinde who were arrested by Maharashtra Police in 1996 and have so far spent around 25 years in prison.

Another prime accused and their mother, Anjana, who was also arrested and charged in the case, passed away in 1998 during the pendency of the trial. A division bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sarang Kotwal commuted the death penalty owing to delays by the government authorities in taking a decision on their mercy pleas. The half-sisters were convicted by the Kolhapur Sessions Court for the stunning kidnappings of 13 children and killing 5 of them brutally, and sentenced them to death in 2001.

Justice Nitin Jamda

The death sentence was later confirmed by the Bombay High Court in 2004 and then the Supreme Court in 2006.

Justice Sarang Kotwal

Source: https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/kids-kidnap-murder-case-bombay-hc-commutes-death-verdict-for-2-to-life#google_vignette

Rajasthan - Man Gets Death Sentence For Raping Minor Girl

PTI 

Mar 17, 2021

According to police, 21-year-old Sunil Kumar kidnapped the girl who was playing in an agriculture farm near her house in the evening of February 19. 

Jaipur: A special Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court on Wednesday awarded death sentence to a man for raping a 5-year-old girl in Jhunjhunu district of Rajasthan. The court also applauded the police for swift action in the case. According to police, 21-year-old Sunil Kumar kidnapped the girl who was playing in an agriculture farm near her house in the evening of February 19. He took her away on his scooty.

Other children informed her parents, who in turn informed the police, police officer Suresh Sharma said. All police stations were alerted and the girl was later found in an injured state at an isolated area. Kumar was arrested after five hours, he said. The officer said the court convicted Kumar under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on Tuesday and pronounced the sentence on Wednesday. "Swift action was taken in the case and all the evidence was collected. The charge sheet was filed within 10 days of the incident and the court pronounced the judgment today," Mr Sharma said.

The court appreciated the investigation conducted by the police, saying it was the example of an ideal probe which contained direct evidence, scientific evidence, electronic evidence and circumstantial evidence. It observed that circumstantial evidence collected by the police was enough to crack the case.

Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/man-gets-death-sentence-for-raping-minor-girl-in-rajasthan-2392998

Bengal serial ‘chain’ killer sentenced to death for raping, killing schoolgirl

Bardhaman | ByPress Trust of India | Posted by Kanishka

Jul 08, 2020 10:22 am IST

The alleged serial killer who targeted women when they were alone at home, was arrested in the town of Kalna in Purba Bardhaman district in June last year.A man, accused in a series of murders and sexual assaults on women, was sentenced to death by a court here for the rape and killing of a schoolgirl in West Bengal’s Purba Bardhaman district.

Serial killer Kamruzzaman Sarkar at Kalna court in East Burdwan district of West Bengal.(Samir Jana/HT File Photo)

Kamaruzzaman Sarkar, who gained notoriety as a serial ‘chain’ killer for strangling his victims with bicycle chains, was sentenced to be hanged to death by the additional district and sessions judge Tapan Kumar Mondal of Kalna court after being found guilty of the rape and murder of the girl. Sarkar, a small-time trader of discarded materials, is being tried in other courts for alleged sexual assault and murder of at least five other women and murderous attacks on at least three other women in Purba Bardhaman and neighbouring Hooghly districts. Following the order on Monday, Sarkar’s lawyer said that an appeal will be filed before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the conviction and sentence.

The alleged serial killer who targeted women when they were alone at home, was arrested in the town of Kalna in Purba Bardhaman district in June last year. The 42-year-old, attired in trendy clothes, would allegedly enter homes during afternoon hours on the pretext of taking electricity meter readings and then pounce upon the women with a cycle chain and an iron rod, according to the prosecution. Some women had managed to escape attacks by the diminutive man, whose modus operandi was to strangulate them with a chain and then hit them on the head to ensure death. Though he would escape with some valuables from the houses of his victims, theft does not seem to be the motive.

Murdering the women seemed to be his main target, according to district police sources. Police said that Sarkar, married with three children, had even allegedly inserted sharp materials into the genitals of some of his victims following their deaths. Following the murder of a middle-aged woman, the district police had circulated CCTV footage of a suspect wearing a red helmet and riding a red motorbike to all police stations, following which he was apprehended at a check-point. Sarkar is suspected to have killed a woman of Anukhal area on January 27 last year, police said.

On April 4, 2019, two women were killed within a few hours of each other in the Memari police station area of Purba Bardhaman. Another woman of Memari was also killed in the same manner, the police said. Swarupa Bibi of Rongpara here was one of the lucky few to have escaped a similar attack. She was allegedly attacked from behind with a cycle chain, but she managed to shrug off the attacker and raise an alarm.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bengal-serial-chain-killer-sentenced-to-death-for-raping-killing-schoolgirl/story-eunpVa3QBMD4w9DLswzCpI.html