Allahabad HC Commutes Death Sentences To Life For 3 Men Convicted In 4-Murder Mazar Attack, Finding Case Not Rarest Of Rare

In brief

The question

Whether the eyewitness and medical evidence proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding alleged inconsistencies and the acquittal of a co-accused.

The court held

The High Court found the convictions supported by the evidence but held that the case did not qualify as “rarest of rare.”

It also directed

It rejected Capital Reference No. 15 of 2022 and commuted Amzad’s, Ramzan’s and Arshad’s death sentences to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, affirming the Trial Court’s findings and sentences for the other offences; Capital Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2022 was partly allowed.

Shakeela’s conviction and life sentence were affirmed, and her appeal was dismissed.

01Facts

On 16 June 2012, during a dispute concerning graveyard land, the accused allegedly assaulted members of the informant’s family and a caretaker at Baba Rahim Shah Mazar with bamboo sticks.

¶ 6–10, 24–25

Four victims died and injured witness Md. Saif alias Shalu (PW-2) survived.

¶ 6–10, 24–25

The Sessions Court convicted Amzad, Ramzan and Arshad and sentenced them to death under Section 302 IPC; it sentenced Shakeela to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and acquitted Iqbal Rain.

¶ 6–10, 24–25

The three death sentences were referred to the High Court for confirmation

¶ 6–10, 24–25

02Issues

i.Whether the eyewitness and medical evidence proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding alleged inconsistencies and the acquittal of a co-accused.

¶ 26–32, 37–74

ii.Whether the killings fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, or otherwise warranted alteration of the convictions or benefit of private defence.

¶ 56–68

iii.Whether the case met the “rarest of rare” standard for confirming the death sentences imposed on Amzad, Ramzan and Arshad.

¶ 75–84

iv.Whether the convictions and sentences, including Shakeela’s life sentence, should be disturbed on appeal.

¶ 85–89

03Law Applied

Section 302 IPC governs punishment for murder; Sections 147, 148, 149 and 34 IPC address unlawful assembly, rioting and joint or vicarious liability.

¶ 87

Under Section 149 IPC, a member of an unlawful assembly may be liable for an offence committed in prosecution of its common object, or one the members knew was likely, without proof of an individual overt act.

¶ 87

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC excludes murder where culpable homicide occurs without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct.

¶ 56–57

Under Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, the relevant inquiry under Section 300 “Thirdly” includes whether the accused intended the bodily injury found and whether that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

¶ 64

The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a rule of caution, not a mandatory rule requiring wholesale rejection of a witness’s testimony (Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.; Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab).

¶ 69–73

The death penalty is reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases; life imprisonment is the rule, and courts must weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances (Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Swami Shraddananda and Santosh Kumar Satibhushan Bariyar).

¶ 75–78

Provisions in the judgment · 15 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 13 provisions

Section 147 Section 148 Section 302 Section 34 Section 307 Section 323 Section 504 Section 506 Section 149 Section 386 Section 325 Section 300 Section 304

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161 Section 313

04Reasoning

The High Court accepted PW-1’s and injured eyewitness PW-2’s testimony as reliable and mutually corroborative, supported by the medical evidence; it held that minor inconsistencies and Iqbal Rain’s acquittal did not require rejection of their evidence against the appellants.

¶ 54–55, 68–74

The Court rejected Exception 4 because the victims suffered repeated injuries concentrated on vital parts, and found the assault cruel and excessive; it also found no basis for private defence.

¶ 58–61, 67

However, the death sentences were not justified: the Sessions Court had not properly balanced aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the assault was carried out with bamboo sticks found at the scene, and the record did not establish that the appellants were habitual or dangerous offenders.

¶ 78–83