Death Penalty an Exception Even in Multiple Murders, Commutes Sentence of Man Who Killed Wife & Daughters

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that capital punishment should remain an exception and not the rule, even in cases involving multiple murders. The Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of killing his wife and four minor daughters, converting it into life imprisonment without remission. This decision was based on the convict’s lack of criminal antecedents, positive prison conduct, and the legal precedents favoring reformation over execution.

The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, emphasized that even in the most heinous crimes, the possibility of reformation must be considered before awarding the death penalty.

Key Observations of the Court

• The Supreme Court reiterated that capital punishment is an exception, not the norm. Even in multiple murder cases, if there exists a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be considered.
• The Court noted: "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 convict, though guilty of a grave crime, was not found to be beyond reformation, based on prison reports and other mitigating factors.

Case Background and Judicial Proceedings

• The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife and four minor daughters. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence.
• The Trial Court sentenced him to death, a verdict that was subsequently upheld by the High Court.
• The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the case fell within the "rarest of rare" category warranting capital punishment.
• The appellant challenged the death penalty, arguing that his case did not meet the criteria established under the rarest of rare doctrine.

Supreme Court’s Legal Reasoning

• The Court referred to the landmark judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), which laid down the doctrine of rarest of rare.
• It emphasized that the death penalty should be imposed only in cases where:
  • The crime is extremely brutal, grotesque, or diabolical, shocking the collective conscience of society.
  • The offence shows extreme depravity or inhumanity, such as mass murders, heinous sexual offences followed by murder, or the killing of law enforcement officers.
  • There is no possibility of reform, making life imprisonment inadequate for justice.
• The Court observed: "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."

Mitigating Factors Considered for Commutation

• The absence of past criminal history.
• Reports from prison authorities indicating the convict’s potential for reform.
• Precedents favoring reformation over execution, such as:
  • State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 324.
  • Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 35.
• The Court rejected the State's argument that the nature of the crime alone warranted capital punishment.

Final Verdict

• The Supreme Court modified the sentence, converting the death penalty into life imprisonment without remission, following the precedent set in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008).
• The appeal was partially allowed, upholding the conviction but altering the punishment.

Case Title: DEEN DAYAL TIWARI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2220-2221 OF 2022

Attachment: