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/