'Death Penalty Not Warranted': Chhattisgarh HC Commutes Capital Sentence Awarded To Man For Murder Of Wife & Three Minor Children
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently commuted the extreme sentence of death awarded by a Sessions Court to a man who was found guilty for commission of murder of his wife and three minor children.
While finding the crime to be heinous but not 'rarest of rare', the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Singh and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed –
“Though it shocks the conscious of the society at large, but, yet, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the young age of the appellant, upon thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that extreme sentence of death penalty is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Prosecution Case
The appellant Umesh Kewat had married the deceased Sukrita Kewat in the year 2017 and out of their wedlock, they had three children aged five years, three years and eighteen months respectively.
On the night of 02.01.2024, at about 03:30 AM, the brother-in-law of the appellant came to know that the appellant had strangled his wife as well as three minor children to death due to his doubt on the character of his deceased wife.
The police took up investigation, conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased persons, seized incriminating materials and upon completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
The trial Court, after thorough examination of the evidence on record, came to the definite conclusion that the appellant was last seen with the four deceased persons and he also had a strong motive behind commission of the crime.
Furthermore, the Court also took into account the conduct of the appellant pursuant to the crime so also his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC and held him guilty for the heinous murder of his wife and three minor children. Considering the diabolic nature of crime, the trial Court deemed it proper to sentence him to death. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the High Court, which was heard along with the confirmation reference made by the trial Court under Section 366 of the CrPC.
Observations of Court vis-à-vis Circumstantial Evidence
At the outset, to confirm the nature of death of the deceased persons, the Court went through the post-mortem reports prepared by the doctor, which categorically concluded that all the deceased met with homicidal death due to suffocation/asphyxia caused by strangulation.
So far as involvement of the appellant in commission of the brutal crime is concerned, there was no eye-witness account to prove the same and the entire prosecution case was based solely upon circumstantial evidence.
To prove motive behind the murders, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of the informant who stated that the appellant doubted the character of the deceased for which he used to beat her many a times since their marriage. To resolve the issue, a meeting was convened in the village.
Apart from the informant, prosecution examined witnesses like the parents and brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the appellant. The father of the appellant stated that the family had congregated to cut a cake on that night to celebrate his wedding anniversary. As per his version, the deceased persons were there while the cake was cut but the appellant was in his room.
Subsequent to the cake-cutting, everyone had food and the deceased-wife had taken food for the appellant to their room. But he was unaware as to when the appellant went out of the house. However, he clearly stated that the appellant returned back to the house along with police. The mother of the appellant also deposed similarly.
Considering the above evidence, the Court found the following circumstantial evidence to have been proved against the appellant –
- there was dispute between the accused and his deceased wife in relation to suspicion over her character;
- the bodies of the deceased were found in the house wherein the accused was living and was also present soon before the incident;
- ropes, which were used for strangulation, were recovered as per the discovery statement made by the appellant and blood stains were found on it as per forensic report;
- post-mortem doctor opined the cause of death of all of the deceased to be asphyxia due to strangulation, which is homicidal in nature.
Burden on Appellant U/S 106 of Evidence Act & Last Seen Theory
From the evidence of the witnesses, the Court underlined that on the date of the incident, the deceased-wife went to their room with food for the appellant and everyone was sleeping in their respective rooms. But the appellant failed to explain as to how he got information about the incident.
The Division Bench found the conduct of the appellant suspicious in not waking up the family members when he got information about the murder of the deceased persons and straightway proceeded to police station.
“Even if it is assumed for the sake of logic that the accused went to report the incident, why did he not inform his family members, parents and daughter-in-law about it? It is an unusual conduct of the accused that on getting information about the incident, instead of waking up his family members while they were sleeping, he went straight to the police station to report the incident,” it observed.
It was further highlighted that the appellant himself admitted in statement made under Section 313 that after committing the murder, he tried to commit suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling of the room but the rope broke and he fell down.
Above all, the Court noted that the appellant was present in his room on the said night and he was the one who was seen together with the deceased persons immediately before their tragic homicidal deaths. Thus, it held that the failure on his part to explain as to under which circumstances the deceased persons died, makes the prosecution case even stronger.
Accordingly, the Bench was of the view that the prosecution has established a strong chain of circumstances which points out towards the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, it upheld his conviction for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC.
On Imposition Of Death Penalty
Lastly, the question cropped up as to whether the trial Court was justified in imposing the severest form of punishment i.e. death penalty and if the case fell under the category of 'rarest of rare'.
To answer the question, the Court went through the observations made by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments including Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka and Sachin Kumar Singhraha v. State of MP.
It also relied upon Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein the Apex Court, while commuting the death sentence awarded to a man for commission of rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, had infamously held that “every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”.
After examining the precedents against the backdrop of aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case in hand, the Court emphasized that the appellant tried to commit suicide after killing his wife and children, which is a mitigating factor.
“We are of the opinion that this is not the 'rarest of rare case' in which major penalty of sentence of death awarded has to be confirmed. In our view, imprisonment for life would be completely adequate and would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we direct commutation of death sentence into imprisonment for life,” it concluded.
Case Title: In Reference of State of Chhattisgarh v. Umend Kenvat
Case No: CRREF No. 1 of 2024 & CRA No. 1714 of 2024
Date of Judgment: December 09, 2024
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sourabh Sahu and Abhyuday Singh, Advocate and brief holder of Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General