"He Slayed 6 Lives To Quench His Thirst": Allahabad High Court Confirms Death Penalty Awarded To Man Who Killed Wife, Own Children

The Allahabad High Court today confirmed the death penalty awarded to a man who committed the murder of his wife and children on account of an illicit relationship with his bhabhi (sister-in-law) in the year 2009.

The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav concluded that in view of the manner in which offence was committed and also the magnitude of the crime, it could be placed under the category of anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of crime.

With this, the Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the convict had killed six persons in the most brutal, grotesque, diabolical, and dastardly manner arousing indignation and abhorrence of society which calls for exemplary punishment.

The Court further observed that the convict had killed three of his minor children, her wife, and two of his neighbors when they were helpless. The Court also noted that nothing was on record to show that they had aggravated the situation so as to arise sudden and grave passion on the part of convict/appellant Sarvan to commit such a dastardly crime.

"The above conduct, attitude and manner in which murder of four persons of his family and two persons of his neighbours was committed by convict/appellant Sarvan shows that convict/appellant Sarvan is a menace to the Society and if he is not awarded death penalty, others members of the Society may not be safe. He slayed six lives to quench his thirst. The entire incident is extremely revolting and shocks the collective conscience of the community," the Court further remarked.

The Court also took into account the fact that no report regarding any chance of rehabilitation was received from the Jail Authorities, and thus, it concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances by all canons of logic.

"Here is a case which can be said to be in the category of "rarest of rare" case and justify award of death punishment to convict/appellant Sarvan. We are also clearly of the view that convict/appellant Sarvan is a menace to the society and there is no chance of his rehabilitation or reformation and no leniency in imposing punishment is called for," the Court further held.

The background of the case

The informant Kolai (P.W.1) gave a written statement to the Police that in front of his house, the house of Sarvan (convict/appellant) was situated and that he had an illicit relationship with his bhabhi (sister-in-law) Suman, on account of which, there was a lot of quarrel between Sarvan (convict/appellant) and his wife Santoshi (deceased).

On the morning of April 25, 2009, at 06:30 a.m., an altercation took place between Sarvan (convict/appellant) and his wife (deceased Santoshi) and after that, a sound of shouting came from their house. Sarvan (convict/ appellant), while yelling inside his house, told his wife Santoshi (deceased) that he would not leave her and her children alive.

On hearing the screams, Madhuri (informant's wife) ran to save her (deceased Santoshi) and at that moment, Sarvan (convict/ appellant) armed with blood stained 'axe' came out of his house saying to Madhuri (wife of the informant) that she intervenes a lot.

Further, he assaulted Madhuri (informant's wife) with the same 'axe' many times, as a consequence of which she fell down on the road and succumbed to her injuries on the spot. When Rajendra (informant's son) and Sangeeta (informant's daughter) ran to save their mother Madhuri (deceased), Sarvan (convict/ appellant) also assaulted and injured them.

Consequently, a First Information Report was lodged by PW-1-Kolai after approximately one hour of the incident, wherein it was stated that five deceased persons, namely, Ramroop (son), Santoshi (wife), Ravi (Son), Sumiran (daughter), and Madhuri (informant's wife), were brutally murdered and two persons, namely, Rajendra and Sangeeta, got injured by the convict/appellant Sarvan. Later on, Rajendra (son of the informant) also died.

Court's observations

The Court observed that the first information report was lodged within one hour of the incident-in-question and that the written report given by PW1 contained a graphic description of the convict/ appellant Sarvan with a weapon in his hand and the manner in which the six deceased were murdered and one got injured as also the place of occurrence.

The Court noted that PW-1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 stood firm as a rock of Gibraltar by supporting the case of the prosecution and that there was no inconsistency in the oral testimony of PW-1 P.W.2 and P.W.3, the medical evidence and the testimony of the P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13 and C.W.1 and the reports such as inquest, site plan with regard to the injuries of the deceased and the place of occurrence.

Further, the Court also noted that the medical evidence fully corroborated with the evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 with regard to the antemortem injuries sustained by six deceased persons. With this, the Court held that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court also affirmed the Conviction of the sister-in-law of the convict under Section 201 IPC, who, with an intention of saving the convict from legal punishment, concealed the weapon of assault 'axe' and on the pointing out of both the convicts/appellants, Sarvan and Suman, the weapon of assault 'axe' was recovered. 

As it upheld the conviction of the convict, the Court examined the available 'aggravating' and 'mitigating' circumstances in the case and found that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances as it noted that the convict had committed the murder of not only his wife but also his three minor children and two of his neighbors and in the postmortem report, it was disclosed that it was a case of brutal, grotesque, diabolical murders, which clearly reflected the mindset of the convict.

Consequently, the Court held that the death punishment imposed upon convict/appellant Sarvan for the offence under Sections 302, 323 and 201 IPC was liable to be confirmed and with this, the Capital Case was allowed and accepted to the extent of confirmation of the death penalty.

Case title - State of U.P. v. Sarvan and connected appeals

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 420

Click Here To Read/Download Order