Not “Rarest Of Rare”: SC Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Killing His Wife & 4 Minor Daughters To Life Imprisonment Till His Last Breath
The Supreme Court emphasised that even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred.
The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man to life imprisonment, who was convicted for murder of his wife and four minor daughters.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which confirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the said convict by the Trial Court.
The three-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, “Weighing the totality of circumstances and having regard to the legal principles discussed above, we are of the view that while the crime is heinous and deserves the highest degree of condemnation, it does not meet the threshold of “the rarest of rare” so as to irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment.”
The Bench noted that there is no material demonstrating that the said convict would remain a perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond reform and that the Probation Officer’s input and the Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a potentially reformable individual.
Advocate Shree Singh appeared for the Appellant/Convict while AOR Rohit K. Singh appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant-convict was married to the deceased (wife) and had four minor daughters. In 2011, at night, the Appellant’s brother and others purportedly heard frantic cries of “bachao-bachao” (save-save) emanating from the Appellant’s house which was adjacent to their own. They rushed towards his house and noticed that the door to the Appellant’s room was locked from inside. Despite knocking and threatening to break the door, it was not opened. According to the Appellant’s brother, on continuing to demand that the door be opened, the Appellant emerged briefly from within, allegedly holding a blood-stained axe and warned them to leave or face the risk of being killed. He then went back inside and locked the door again.
Thereafter, a Complaint was lodged by his brother and an FIR was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the Appellant. Pursuantly, the Station Officer reached the Appellant’s house and the villagers had assembled in large numbers. The inner room was bolted and the same was forcefully opened with the help of villagers. The Appellant was allegedly found holding an axe with fresh blood stains on it and hence, he was immediately apprehended on the spot. Inside the room, 5 bodies – those of the Appellant’s wife and their 4 minor daughters were lying in pools of blood. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and awarded death penalty to him. The Appellant preferred an Appeal and the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s Judgment. Being aggrieved, he was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “… this Court has consistently recognized that the imposition of capital punishment is an exception and not the rule. Even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred.”
The Court said that, while the offence is brutal, certain mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation.
“Guided by the above facts, we must scrutinize not only the nature of the offence but also the totality of the offender’s circumstances. … This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, possesses the authority to scrutinize not only the conviction of an accused but also the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. As articulated in the principles laid down in Swamy Shraddananda, the power to impose or modify a sentence within the prescribed framework of the Penal Code is exclusively vested in the High Court and this Court”, it further noted.
The Court enunciated that the alternate punishment for offences punishable by death, such as imprisonment for a specific term exceeding 14 years or until the natural life of the convict, remains within the judicial conscience of the Supreme Court and the High Court and this ensures that the gravity of the offence, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the possibility of reformation are thoroughly assessed before irrevocable sentences such as capital punishment are affirmed.
“Therefore, the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, as an alternative to death, is well within the judicial prerogative of this Court and adheres to the constitutional mandate of ensuring justice”, it added.
The Court, therefore, confirmed the conviction of the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC but commuted the death sentence to one of life imprisonment till his last breath.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Appeals, upheld the concurrent findings of the High Court and Trial Court, and commuted the death sentence.
Cause Title- Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 111)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Prateek K Chadha, Advocates Shree Singh, Sakshi Jain, Malvika Awasthi, Sreekar Aechuri, Surbhi Soni, and Aniket Chauhaan.
Respondent: AORs Rohit K. Singh, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocates Pritam Bishwas, Mani Munjal, Marbiang Khongwir, Parth Yadav, and Ashish Kumar Dwivedi.
