P&H HC Commutes 4 Death Sentences In Doctor’s Wife’s Murder To Minimum 30 Years Without Remission, Acquits Former Maid

On 9 January 2023, armed intruders entered the complainant’s residence, restrained and assaulted him, took cash and jewellery, and his wife, Vanita, was found dead with a fatal head injury.

The complainant identified four men in a test identification parade (TIP) and in court. Police recovered jewellery following disclosures by the accused; CCTV footage and call-detail records were also relied upon.

The trial court convicted Sunil Kumar, Manish Kumar, Vikramjeet @ Bittu, Vikram @ Vicky and Poonam, acquitted Ket Ram and Umesh Kumar, and imposed death sentences for murder.

The High Court heard the State’s death-sentence reference, the convicts’ appeals and the complainant’s appeal against Ket Ram’s acquittal.

The Court applied Sections 120-A–120-B, 302, 323, 390–397, 441–443, 452 and 460 IPC; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; and Sections 3, 10, 27, 65-B, 106 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

It treated in-court identification as substantive evidence and a TIP as corroborative evidence; it held that simultaneous disclosures are not automatically excluded from Section 27, but their credibility depends on the evidence.

It relied on *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra* for the requirements governing circumstantial evidence; on *Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana* and related authorities for the rule that an objection to the mode of proof of electronic evidence should ordinarily be raised when the evidence is tendered; and on Section 114(a) for the permissible inference from recent, unexplained possession of stolen property.

Dacoity requires five or more persons acting conjointly.

Section 460 requires lurking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night and the specified resulting harm.

Under *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab*, death is reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases where life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate; a fixed-term sentence without remission may be imposed as an alternative.

The Court accepted the complainant’s identification, finding the TIP conducted under the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s supervision sufficiently reliable; it also treated the CCTV footage as corroborative and rejected the late challenge to its mode of proof because no timely objection had been raised.

It accepted the joint recovery of identified jewellery and drew an adverse inference from the accused’s failure to explain their recent possession.

However, the prosecution did not establish an agreement or other reliable link showing Poonam’s participation in the conspiracy, and the evidence against Ket Ram likewise did not rise above suspicion; both therefore could not be counted as participants.

With only four accused remaining, dacoity was not made out; the Court substituted robbery-related convictions. It also found the statutory elements of Section 460 unproved, while treating the failed recovery of firearms in the separate case as preventing reliance on those weapons here, setting aside the Arms Act convictions.

The Court nevertheless found the evidence sufficient to sustain murder liability against the four accused in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Considering the mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reform, it held that the case did not warrant capital punishment.

Their convictions were modified: they were held guilty under Sections 120-B, 323, 394, 392, 201 and 452 IPC, with the specified sections read with Section 120-B where ordered; convictions under Sections 395, 396, 397 and 460 IPC and the Arms Act were set aside.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Poonam was acquitted, and the complainant’s appeal against Ket Ram’s acquittal was dismissed.