Rajasthan High Court commutes death sentence for brothers convicted in brutal double murder, citing family dispute and mitigating factors

On 3 March 2023, Pahad Singh and Dungar Singh allegedly went to the residence of Indira Kanwar and assaulted her with axes following a dispute concerning an Aata-Sata marriage proposal involving her daughter.

When Hari Singh intervened, the accused allegedly inflicted axe blows upon him, causing his death.

They thereafter assaulted and chased other persons, including Jaswant Singh, Rinku Kanwar and police personnel who arrived at the scene.

The police filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

After examining 29 prosecution witnesses and considering the documentary and medical evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, convicted both accused and awarded death sentences for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, besides sentences for the other offences.

The Trial Court thereafter submitted a death reference under Section 366 CrPC, while the accused preferred a criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentences.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murders of Indira Kanwar and Hari Singh and attempted to murder and injure the other victims?

2. Whether the prosecution evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, recoveries and forensic material, was reliable despite the alleged contradictions, interested witnesses and hostile formal witnesses?

3. Whether Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC relating to grave and sudden provocation or any other exception to Section 300 IPC applied to the occurrence?

4. Whether the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court was justified under the “rarest of rare” doctrine?

5. Whether the death sentence should be confirmed or commuted after balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the mitigation reports?

The Court applied Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that murder and the other offences could be established through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.

Section 27 of the Evidence Act was applied to the recoveries of the blood-stained axes pursuant to the accused’s disclosure statements, subject to corroboration by the surrounding evidence.

The Court considered Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, under which culpable homicide is not murder where death is caused under grave and sudden provocation depriving the offender of self-control.

For sentencing, the Court relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab and Lehna v. State of Haryana, which require death penalty to be imposed only where the case is one of the “rarest of rare” and life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.

The Court also considered the mitigation assessment mandated by Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, including the accused’s background, criminal antecedents, mental condition and prospects of reform.

The death reference was considered under Section 366 CrPC, and the appeal under the applicable appellate provisions.

The Court found the testimony of the complainant, injured eyewitnesses, natural witnesses, the police officer who reached the scene, and Chandramohan to be consistent, natural and trustworthy.

Their evidence established the presence and participation of both accused and was corroborated by the prompt FIR, post-mortem reports, injury reports, site inspection, recoveries and FSL evidence.

The medical evidence showed repeated fatal chop injuries to the heads and necks of both deceased, consistent with assault by heavy sharp-edged weapons.

The recovery of two blood-stained axes pursuant to the accused’s disclosures, together with the detection of human blood on the weapons, provided additional corroboration, even though blood grouping was inconclusive.

The Court rejected the defence of false implication and held that the hostility of formal witnesses did not undermine the prosecution case.

It also rejected the plea of grave and sudden provocation because the deceased had merely declined to immediately accept the marriage proposal and had suggested discussing it after her husband’s return; this conduct could not reasonably deprive the accused of self-control.

The accused had arrived armed and continued attacking multiple victims, demonstrating a common intention to cause death.

However, on sentence, the Court held that brutality alone could not justify capital punishment.

The occurrence arose from a personal and familial dispute rather than a contract killing, organised criminal activity or an attempt to terrorise the community.

The accused were first-time offenders from modest rural backgrounds, had no prior criminal antecedents or mental disorder, and had spent more than three years in custody.

These mitigating circumstances did not reduce their culpability but prevented the Court from concluding that life imprisonment was unquestionably inadequate.

It answered the death reference in the negative and rejected confirmation of the death sentence.

The death sentences imposed under Section 302/34 IPC were commuted to imprisonment for life for the remainder of the accused’s natural lives, subject to the fines imposed by the Trial Court; the sentences for the remaining offences were left unaltered.

The appeal was accordingly partly allowed only to the extent of modification of sentence, and the Trial Court record was directed to be returned.