2025 INSC 111
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
VIKRAM NATH, J., HON’BLE SANJAY KAROL, J. AND HON’BLE SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.)
DEEN DAYAL TIWARI
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Respondent
Criminal
Appeal Nos.2220-2221 OF 2022-Decided on 16-01-2025
Criminal, Murder
(A)
Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 Section 106 - Murder –
Circumstantial evidence -
Appreciation of evidence - Upon a cumulative evaluation of the circumstances,
it appears that: (i) the victims were last seen alive in the Appellant’s
exclusive custody (his own house) on that fateful night - (ii) the Appellant
was found inside the same house soon after the murders, with a blood-stained
axe, - (iii) the postmortem reports confirm cause of death by repeated blows of
sharp-edged weapons, - (iv) no satisfactory explanation has been provided by
the Appellant to displace the inference of guilt – Held that these
circumstances form an unbroken chain pointing unmistakably to the Appellant as
the perpetrator of the crime - Find no cogent basis to disturb the concurrent
findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the Appellant committed the
murders of his wife and four minor daughters in the intervening night of
11/12.11.2011 - Conviction of the
Appellant under Section 302 IPC is fully justified and does not
warrant any interference at this stage.
(Para 16)
(B)
Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Death sentence – Rarest of rare case - Appellant has been found guilty of murdering
five persons his own wife and four minor daughters - This crime, by its very
nature, is undeniably grave and horrific - The deceased were defenseless,
particularly the four minor daughters, placing a moral onus on the Appellant to
protect them - Instead, they were brutally killed in their own home – Held that
while the offence is undoubtedly 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 - There is no material demonstrating
that he would remain a perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond reform
- Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the Superintendent of District
Jail’s report show a potentially reformable individual - Further, 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 - Weighing
the totality of circumstances and having regard to the legal principles
discussed 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 - While confirming the
conviction of the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC, consider it appropriate to commute the death sentence to one of
life imprisonment till his last breath.
(Para 19 to 22 and 24)
(C)
Constitution of India, Article 136 – Death Sentence - Commutation of – Held that while
exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, Apex Court possesses the authority to scrutinize not
only the conviction of an accused but also the appropriateness of the sentence
imposed - 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 - 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 this Court and the High
Court - 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.
(Para
23)
ORDER
1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before
us.
2.
The present Criminal Appeals arise out of the impugned Judgment and final Order
dated 09.05.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow
Bench) in Capital Case No. 01 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 1776 of 2016,
whereby the High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence of death
imposed upon the Appellant by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2013 (arising out of Case Crime No. 748 of
2011, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).
3.
The relevant facts are summarized hereunder:
3.1
The Appellant, Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari, resided in village Pure Brijlal Tiwari
Moiya Kapurpur, Police Station Pura Kalandar, District Faizabad (now Ayodhya),
Uttar Pradesh. He was married to one Smt. Siyallali and had four minor
daughters, namely (i) Mani, (ii) Riya, (iii) Guddan, and (iv) Mahima.
3.2
Incident day : In the intervening night of 11/12.11.2011, at around 2:30 a.m.,
the Appellant’s brother, PW-1 (Shri Dinanath Tiwari), and PW-1’s wife, PW-2
(Smt. Suneeta alias Anita), purportedly heard frantic cries of “bachao-bachao”
(save-save) emanating from the Appellant’s house, which was adjacent to their
own. Alarmed by these cries, PW-1 and PW-2 rushed towards the Appellant’s
house. They 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.
3.3
PW-1’s Version/Lodging of FIR: According to PW-1, when they continued 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. Sometime
thereafter, PW-1 proceeded to the Police Station Pura Kalandar, located about
14–15 km away, and claims to have lodged a written complaint (Ex. Ka-1) at
around 6:10 a.m. on 12.11.2011. A formal FIR (Case Crime No. 748 of 2011)
under Section 302 IPC was registered against the Appellant at the
said police station.
3.4
Arrival of Police & Arrest of the Appellant: On receiving information about
the gruesome incident, PW-5 (Station Officer, Ajay Prakash Mishra) reached the
Appellant’s house on the morning of 12.11.2011. Villagers had assembled in
large numbers. The inner room, where the Appellant allegedly remained, was
bolted. PW-5, with the help of the villagers, forced the door open and
found the Appellant inside the room, holding an axe with fresh blood stains on
it. The Appellant was immediately apprehended on the spot. Inside the same
room, five bodies— those of the Appellant’s wife (Smt. Siyallali) and their
four minor daughters—were lying in pools of blood.
3.5
Discovery & Recovery of Weapons:According to the prosecution, the
Appellant, upon interrogation by PW-5, confessed to having killed his wife and
daughters. On the Appellant’s pointing out, the police recovered two knives
from the same room. The axe, initially seen in the Appellant’s hand, was also
seized. Recovery memos (Ex. Ka-7, Ka-8, and Ka-9) pertaining to the axe,
knives, blood-stained clothes, and soil samples were prepared by PW-5 in the
presence of witnesses, including PW-3 (Shri Visheshwar Nath Mishra).
3.6
Condition of the Deceased & Panchayatnama: PW-5 prepared separate inquest
reports (panchayatnama) for each of the five deceased. Photographs were
taken, and blood-stained soil as well as plain soil samples were collected from
the place of occurrence. The bodies were dispatched for postmortem examination
at the District Women Hospital, Faizabad, between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on
12.11.2011.
3.7
Postmortem Findings (PW-4, Dr. S.K. Shukla): Multiple incised and lacerated
wounds were found on each deceased victim—indicating that at least one
sharp-edged weapon (axe/knives) had been used. Some injuries also suggested
blunt force or wide-edged impact, but overall, the cause of death in each case
was determined to be shock and hemorrhage due to the ante-mortem injuries. The
estimated time of death for all five deceased aligned with the early morning
hours of 12.11.2011, broadly corroborating the prosecution’s timeline.
3.8
Charge-Sheet & Commencement of Trial: Pursuant to the investigation, PW-5
filed a charge-sheet against the Appellant under
Section 302 IPC before the competent Magistrate, who committed
the case to the Court of Sessions.vThe learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad, proceeded with Sessions Trial No. 24 of
2013. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses:-
• PW-1, the informant
and younger brother of the Appellant;
• PW-2, wife of PW-1,
who was present near the scene;
• PW-3, an independent
witness who reached the spot after receiving a call around 2:30–3:00 a.m.;
• PW-4, Dr. S.K.
Shukla, who conducted the postmortem; and • PW-5, Investigating Officer
(Station Officer).
• PW-1 and PW-2
testified about hearing the cries from the Appellant’s house and seeing the
Appellant with a blood-stained axe. PW-3 corroborated the fact that the
Appellant was found inside his locked room, walking around with the axe,
while the five bodies lay on the floor.
• PW-5 deposed on the arrest
of the Appellant at the spot, the recovery of incriminating weapons, and the
subsequent investigative steps.
3.9
Appellant’s Defence: In his statement recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied committing the murders. He
contended that he was sleeping in the barn (khalihan) to guard paddy on the
night of the incident and that unknown miscreants killed his wife and children.
The Appellant also alleged false implication by his brother (PW-1) and certain
villagers, ostensibly due to jealousy and property disputes.
3.10
Trial Court Verdict: By Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2014/30.01.2014, the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad,
convicted the Appellant under Section 302 IPC for the murders of his
wife and four minor daughters. The Trial Court awarded the death penalty,
observing that the case fell under the “rarest of rare” category.
3.11
Appeal & Confirmation (High Court): The Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal
No. 1776 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow
Bench). Additionally, the Trial Court made a reference (Capital Case No. 01 of
2014) for confirmation of the death sentence. On 09.05.2022, the High Court
dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, confirmed the findings of guilt, and upheld
the sentence of death, concurring with the Trial Court that the murders were
committed in an extremely brutal and diabolical manner.
4.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s Judgment and final Order, the Appellant
approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Appeal challenging the
conviction as well as the sentence imposed upon.
5.
Mr. Shree Singh, the learned counsel for the Appellant , submitted a broad
range of contentions challenging both the conviction and the sentence
of death. The principal arguments are summarized hereunder:
5.1.
Entirely Circumstantial Evidence It is urged that there is no direct or ocular
evidence linking the Appellant to the crime. The prosecution’s case is premised
solely on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel contends that the chain of
circumstances is far from complete and cannot form the basis for a conviction
According to the Appellant, the prosecution failed to establish each link of
the chain in a manner that unequivocally points to the Appellant’s guilt and
excludes every other hypothesis.
5.2.
Contradictions & Lacunae in Ocular Evidence The Appellant highlights
material inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-1 (the informant and brother
of the Appellant), PW-2 (the wife of PW-1), and PW-3 (an independent witness).
It is argued that PW-1 gave multiple versions regarding the events of the night
and subsequent lodging of the FIR, rendering his account unreliable. Likewise,
PW-2’s and PW-3’s depositions are said to suffer from contradictions about
who first arrived at the scene, how the door was opened, and when the police
reached. These inconsistencies, according to learned counsel, create serious
doubts about the veracity of the prosecution story.
5.3.
FIR Allegedly Ante-Timed- The Counsel for the appellant questions the
authenticity of the FIR (Case Crime No. 748 of 2011), contending that it was
lodged after the Appellant’s arrest, yet shown to have been registered at 6:10
a.m. on 12.11.2011. Learned counsel submits that no credible explanation has
been given as to how the police arrived at the crime scene well before the FIR
was purportedly lodged, thereby indicating that the FIR was manipulated to suit
the prosecution’s narrative.
5.4.
Inadmissibility of Confessional Statement- The Appellant’s alleged confession
to the police is assailed as inadmissible under Sections
25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly since
it was made while in police custody. Even if such a statement had been
made, learned counsel stresses that it must be corroborated by unimpeachable
independent evidence, which is lacking in the present case.
5.5.
Unreliable Recovery of Weapons- The Appellant further contends that the
purported recovery of the axe and two knives is fraught with discrepancies. No
independent witness has credibly deposed that the Appellant led the police to
discover these items from a concealed location. Rather, the weapons were
allegedly lying in plain sight, thereby raising the possibility of planting or
fabrication. It is further emphasized that no disclosure memo bearing the
Appellant’s signature has been produced, undermining the credibility of the
prosecution’s recovery memos.
5.6.
Gaps in Forensic Evidence- Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not
conclusively established that the bloodstains on the weapons or clothes belong
to the deceased. In the absence of any serological report confirming that the
blood was human and matched the victims, the link between the Appellant
and the weapons remains unproved. Moreover, the presence of certain injuries
(as noted by PW-4, the autopsy doctor) that could have been caused by a broader
instrument (like a stick) further casts doubt on the theory that only an axe
and knives were used.
5.7.
Possibility of Alibi- The Appellant has consistently maintained that he was
sleeping in the barn (khalihan) to protect his paddy at the time of the
murders, and that unknown miscreants entered the house and killed his wife and
daughters. Learned counsel argues that the prosecution failed to disprove this
defence or to show why it was impossible for the crime to have been committed
by others.
5.8.
Sentencing: Death Not Warranted- Without prejudice to the plea of innocence,
learned counsel assails the imposition of capital punishment as violative of
guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
684 and subsequent decisions, including Machhi Singh v. State of
Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 and Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022
SCC OnLine SC 677. It is urged that the Courts below overlooked mitigating
factors, such as the Appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, and
possibility of reformation. Death penalty is said to be an exception, not the
norm, and must be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is
“unquestionably foreclosed.”
6.
Learned Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh has opposed the appeal and
supported the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, making
the following submissions:
6.1
Gravity and Heinous Nature of Offence-It is contended that the present case
involves an extremely grave and heinous crime, wherein the Appellant brutally
murdered his wife and four minor daughters using an axe. The very nature of
this offense, committed against helpless and vulnerable family members,
underscores the severity and depravity of the crime.
6.2 Clear Evidence of Guilt- The prosecution
relies on the fact that PW-1 (the Informant and the Appellant’s own brother)
and PW-2 reached the Appellant’s house upon hearing cries for help. Despite the
door being locked, the Appellant is stated to have briefly emerged with a
blood-stained axe, threatened them, and retreated inside. Subsequently, PW-1
and PW-5 (Investigating Officer) forced the door open and found the Appellant
walking in the room while holding the axe. According to learned counsel, the
evidence on record, both oral and documentary, amply demonstrates that the
Appellant alone is responsible for committing the murders. The Trial Court and
High Court have rightly appreciated these facts to conclude the Appellant’s
guilt under Section 302 IPC.
6.3
Recovery of Weapons & Medical Corroboration- The prosecution points out
that the murder weapon (axe), allegedly used by the Appellant, was recovered
from him at the spot, and two knives were also discovered from the same room.
These recoveries are said to be corroborated by the postmortem reports
(PW-4, Dr. S.K. Shukla), indicating that the injuries on the deceased were
consistent with the use of sharp-edged weapons. Forensic and medical evidence
collectively establish that the immediate cause of death was massive blood loss
resulting from incised wounds caused by an axe or knives, which were seized in
the presence of witnesses (PW-3 and PW-5).
6.4
Witness Credibility and Corroboration- Learned counsel refutes the suggestion
that prosecution witnesses are unreliable. Minor discrepancies, if any, are
argued to be non-fatal. Relying on settled precedents, it is submitted that
minor contradictions do not vitiate the core prosecution story when the overall
version is consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
Moreover, PW-1’s version is termed natural and credible: upon discovering such
a grisly scene involving his own close relatives, PW-1 fainted, further
highlighting the horrific nature of the incident.
6.5 Concurrent Findings of Fact- Both the
Trial Court and the High Court have carried out a thorough examination of the
evidence, including the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and the postmortem reports
of PW-4. According to the State, these findings cannot be characterized as
perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, in the absence of any new or
exculpatory evidence, no interference is warranted by this Court.
6.6
Case Falling Under ‘Rarest of Rare’- Emphasizing the brutality and the sheer
number of victims: five murders committed in one night within the confines of
the Appellant’s home, the State asserts that this case satisfies the guidelines
laid down in Bachan Singh (supra) and Machhi Singh (supra)
guidelines for awarding the death penalty. The High Court specifically noted
that the Appellant’s conduct and the diabolical manner of execution rendered
life imprisonment insufficient. The Respondent supports this conclusion,
arguing that the Appellant’s actions shock the collective conscience of
society and mark him as a menace.
6.7
Compliance with Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022 SCC
OnLine SC 677- Learned counsel apprises the Court that reports from the
Superintendent of District Jail and the Probation Officer have been placed on
record in compliance with the directive of this Hon’ble Court. While the
Appellant’s prison conduct is reported as “satisfactory,” the State insists that
these factors do not outweigh the magnitude, brutality, and impact of the
crime.
7.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides and carefully perused the evidence
on record, the findings of the Trial Court, and the impugned judgment of the
High Court. The primary question that arises at this stage is whether the
prosecution has established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Appellant is
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
8.
It is not in dispute that the prosecution case rests predominantly on
circumstantial evidence. The law on conviction based on circumstantial
evidence is well-settled: the prosecution must establish each circumstance
forming a complete chain that unerringly points to the guilt of the accused and
excludes every other hypothesis of innocence. We have therefore tested the
circumstances put forth by the prosecution to determine whether the chain of
events proves the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
9.
The relevant factors in the present case include: (i) the fact that five
deceased persons (the Appellant’s wife and four minor daughters) were found
lying in a pool of blood inside the Appellant’s house; (ii) the prompt presence
of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 at or near the scene; (iii) the Appellant’s own
presence, allegedly armed with a blood-stained axe; (iv) the subsequent
recovery of incriminating weapons; and (v) the Appellant’s failure to furnish a
satisfactory explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act.
10.
FIR & Timing- The defense contends that the FIR was ante-timed and lodged
after the Appellant’s arrest. However, from the record, including the
General Diary (GD) entries, it transpires that PW-1’s written complaint was
registered at around 6:10 a.m. on 12.11.2011. That timeframe is not so delayed
or unusual as to cast inherent doubt on the entire prosecution case, especially
given that the place of occurrence is about 14–15 km from the police station.
It is also relevant that the witnesses had to gather sufficient courage and
assistance to even approach the house, which the Appellant had allegedly locked
from inside. Viewed cumulatively, we do not find any material or glaring
inconsistency to conclude that the FIR was fabricated or manipulated merely on
the ground of timing.
11.
Presence of the Appellant and Discovery of Bodies- PW-1 (brother of the
Appellant), PW-2 (wife of PW-1), and PW-3 (independent witness) have uniformly
deposed that, upon hearing screams from inside the Appellant’s house on the
night of 11/12.11.2011, they rushed there. The door was said to be locked from
inside, and when threatened with breaking it open, the Appellant himself
emerged, allegedly holding an axe stained with fresh blood.Shortly thereafter,
PW-5 (the Investigating Officer) arrived with other police personnel. The room
was forcibly opened in the presence of villagers, and the dead bodies of the
Appellant’s wife and four minor daughters were found lying therein. The
Appellant was still present inside, apprehended on the spot, and allegedly in
possession of the same blood-stained axe.
Medical
Evidence -PW-4 (Dr. S.K. Shukla), who conducted the postmortem examinations,
found multiple incised and lacerated injuries on each of the deceased,
consistent with weapons like an axe and knives. The stated cause of death was
“shock and hemorrhage” due to these ante-mortem injuries. It is contended on
behalf of the Appellant that the presence of certain blunt-force injuries
creates a discrepancy in the prosecution’s version. However, a closer look at
the postmortem findings reveals that these blunt-force injuries can be
attributed to the blunt side of the very same axe which caused the incised
wounds. Consequently, the medical evidence remains consistent with the
prosecution theory that all the injuries, including both sharp-edged
and blunt trauma, were inflicted by the same weapon recovered at the
scene, thus reinforcing the conclusion that the assault was brutal and matched
the nature of the weapons seized.
12.
Recovery of Incriminating Material- The Appellant questions the validity of the
recovery memos, contending that the weapons could have been planted. However,
the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5 details the seizure of the blood-stained axe from
the Appellant’s hand and the subsequent recovery of two knives from within the
same room on the Appellant’s pointing out. While the Appellant argues that his
signature on the recovery memos is absent, such a procedural gap by itself does
not necessarily vitiate the entire process. The presence of independent witness
PW-3 at the spot, as well as the contemporaneous nature of the recovery, lends
credence to the prosecution’s version.
13.
Alibi & Section 106 of the Evidence Act- The Appellant’s
principal defense is that he was sleeping in his barn (khalihan) at the time of
the murders, thereby suggesting a possibility that unknown miscreants
killed his family. However, he has produced neither documentary evidence nor
any witness to substantiate this claim. Once it is established that the
Appellant was found at the scene and his family members were discovered
murdered in the very room to which he had access and control, the burden to
explain how the murders occurred within his locked premises shifts to him
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. His failure to offer a
plausible explanation—particularly when there is no material on record
supporting his alibi— fortifies the prosecution’s case.
14.
Reliability of Prosecution Witnesses- The defense asserts inconsistencies and
contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3. We find that most of
these so-called contradictions are minor in nature, pertaining to peripheral or
non-critical details such as exact times or the manner in which the villagers
gathered. Material particulars, namely, that the Appellant was inside the
house, armed with a blood-stained axe, while his wife and daughters lay
murdered- are consistently spoken to by these witnesses. Minor
discrepancies do not, in our view, vitiate the core narrative.
15.
Motive- An additional factor that emerges from the record is the Appellant’s
alleged suspicion regarding his wife’s moral character. The prosecution claims
that the Appellant believed his wife was engaged in an illicit relationship,
which caused frequent discord within the family. This suspicion is said to have
motivated the Appellant to eliminate his wife, and in the course of events, he
also killed his four minor daughters when they intervened or witnessed the
assault. Though the presence of a motive is not an indispensable requirement
for conviction in every case, proof of motive here reinforces the prosecution’s
version that the Appellant acted with a deliberate intention to commit these
crimes.
16.
Chain of Circumstances- Upon a cumulative evaluation of the circumstances, it
appears that:
o (i) the victims were
last seen alive in the Appellant’s exclusive custody (his own house) on that
fateful night,
o (ii) the Appellant was found inside the same
house soon after the murders, with a blood-stained axe,
o (iii) the postmortem
reports confirm cause of death by repeated blows of sharp-edged weapons, and
o (iv) no satisfactory
explanation has been provided by the Appellant to displace the inference of
guilt.
We are therefore of
the considered view that these circumstances form an unbroken chain pointing
unmistakably to the Appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
17.
In light of the evidence in its entirety, we find no cogent basis to disturb
the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the
Appellant committed the murders of his wife and four minor daughters in the
intervening night of 11/12.11.2011. Consequently, we hold that the conviction
of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC is fully justified and does
not warrant any interference at this stage.
18.
The only question that remains is whether the present case falls under the
rarest of rare category so as to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
We have carefully weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in
light of the sentencing framework delineated in the judgements of Bachan Singh
v. State of Punjab (Supra) , and Machhi Singh (supra), and subsequent precedents.
19.
Aggravating Factors
19.1
Brutal multiple murders: The Appellant has been found guilty of murdering five
persons—his own wife and four minor daughters. This crime, by its very nature,
is undeniably grave and horrific.
19.2
Position of trust and vulnerability of victims: The deceased were defenseless,
particularly the four minor daughters, placing a moral onus on the Appellant to
protect them. Instead, they were brutally killed in their own home.
19.3 Impact on societal conscience:
Undeniably, such a
crime of multiple homicides within a family can shock the collective conscience
of the society.
20.
Mitigating Factors
20.1
Absence of previous criminal antecedents: The record does not disclose any
prior conviction or past criminal history on the part of the Appellant.
20.2
Reports suggesting scope for reformation: In compliance with our directions,
the State has placed on record the report of the Superintendent of District
Jail, Ayodhya. It indicates that the Appellant’s behavior in custody has been
“satisfactory” and “normal,” noting that he has been performing assigned duties
(such as cleaning/sweeper tasks) without any adverse conduct. While prison
conduct alone is not determinative, it is a factor supportive of the possibility
of reformation.
20.3
Socio-economic and personal circumstances: Nothing on record suggests that the
Appellant is incapable of rehabilitation. He does not appear to be a hardened
criminal who poses an enduring menace to society.
20.4
Possibility of commutation- In several cases involving multiple homicides, this
Court has nonetheless commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment,
acknowledging the potential for reformation or considering other mitigating
factors. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master & Ors.,
(2010) 12 SCC 324, the accused wiped out almost an entire family, six persons
on the ground of saving “honour.” Despite the heinous nature of the crime, this
Court commuted the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life along with
a fine. Similarly, in Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 35, the Appellant therein had annihilated his
brother’s entire family, but this Court held that although the crime was
heinous, it could not be classified as ‘rarest of rare.’ It was emphasized
that there existed a possibility of reforming the offender.
21.
Guided by the above facts, we must scrutinize not only the nature of the
offence but also the totality of the offender’s circumstances. In the instant
case, while the offence is undoubtedly 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. There is no
material demonstrating that he would remain a perpetual threat to society or
that he is beyond reform. Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the
Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a potentially reformable
individual. Further, 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.
22.
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.
23.
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 [(2008) 13 scc 767], 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. 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 this Court and the High Court. 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. The Constitution Bench of this court in Union of
India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1 have propounded upon these principles.
The relevant paras from the same have been reproduced hereunder:
“103. In fact, while
saying so we must also point out that such exercise of power in the imposition
of death penalty or life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge will get the
scrutiny by the Division Bench of the High Court mandatorily when the penalty
is death and invariably even in respect of life imprisonment gets scrutinised
by the Division Bench by virtue of the appeal remedy provided in the Criminal
Procedure Code. Therefore, our conclusion as stated above can be reinforced by
stating that the punishment part of such specified offences are always examined
at least once after the Sessions Court's verdict by the High Court and that too
by a Division Bench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges.
104. That apart, in
most of such cases where death penalty or life imprisonment is
the punishment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court, the convict concerned will get an opportunity to get
such verdict tested by filing further appeal by way of special leave to this
Court. By way of abundant caution and as per the prescribed law of the Code and
the criminal jurisprudence, we can assert that after the initial finding of
guilt of such specified grave offences and the imposition of penalty either
death or life imprisonment, when comes under the scrutiny of the Division Bench
of the High Court, it is only the High Court which derives the power under the
Penal Code, which prescribes the capital and alternate punishment, to alter the
said punishment with one either for the entirety of the convict's life or for
any specific period of more than 14 years, say 20, 30 or so on depending upon
the gravity of the crime committed and the exercise of judicial conscience
befitting such offence found proved to have been committed.
105. We, therefore,
reiterate that the power derived from the Penal Code for any modified
punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such
specified offences can only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of
further appeal only by the Supreme Court and not by any other court in this
country. To put it differently, the power to impose a modified punishment
providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the
convict's life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the
High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court.
106. Viewed in that
respect, we state that the ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda
(2) [Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3
SCC (Cri) 113] that a special category of sentence;instead of death; for a term
exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond application of remission is
well founded and we answer the said question in the affirmative. We are,
therefore, not in agreement with the opinion expressed by this Court
in Sangeet v. State of Haryana [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2
SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] that the deprival of remission power of the
appropriate Government by awarding sentences of 20 or 25 years or without any
remission as not permissible is not in consonance with the law and we
specifically overrule the same.”
24.
In the result, while confirming the conviction of the Appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC, we consider it appropriate to
commute the death sentence to one of life imprisonment till his last breath.
25.
The Trial Court’s and the High Court’s concurrent finding of guilt is thus
upheld. However, the sentence
of death is modified to imprisonment for life
until the end of the Appellant’s natural lifespan.
26.
The appeals stand partly allowed as above.
------