UP Court Sentences Man, His Son To Death For Mercilessly Killing Brother, Cites Lord Rama's Exile, Sacrifices By Bharata, Lakshmana

The court observed that while Lord Rama's brothers Lakshman and Bharata fulfilled their duties as brothers, setting an example of great sacrifice and devotion, the actions of the accused, on the other hand, starkly contrast with this ideal.

Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bareilly Ravi Diwakar, in his judgment, drew a stark contrast to the revered values of brotherly love and sacrifice depicted in the Ramcharitmanas.

He noted that Lord Ram's younger brother, Lakshman, accompanied him into exile, and Bharata ruled the kingdom for 14 years in Lord Rama's absence, placing Lord Rama's sandals (Khadau) on the throne as a symbol of his authority.

On the other hand, the Court added that the convict-Raghuveer Singh (brother of the deceased), acted contrary to the conduct of the brothers of Lord Rama, and thus, it would be better for such a merciless convict to be given a death sentence rather than being kept alive.

Only through the death penalty can the society be freed from such persons, the Court said.

The Court remarked thus : “मानवीय जीवन भगवान के द्वारा प्रदत्त बहुत ही सुन्दर जीवन है, इसीलिए सभी व्यक्तियों को जीवित रहने का समान अधिकार है। जीवन ईश्वर देता है, तो जीवन केवल ईश्वर ही ले सकता है। यदि कोई व्यक्ति किसी अन्य व्यक्ति की जान ले लेता है, तो ऐसे व्यक्ति को भी कोई जीने का अधिकार नहीं रह जाता है। समाज में ऐसा व्यक्ति दया का पात्र नहीं रह जाता है और चाहें वह कोई भी क्यों न हो, यह न्यायसंगत भी है कि उसे अपनी करनी का वैसा ही फल मिलना ही चाहिए। प्रश्नगत मामले में सिद्धदोषों के द्वारा सम्पत्ति के लालच में पाश्विक तरीके से हत्या की गयी हैं, इसलिए भी उन्हें मृत्यु दण्ड दिया जाना एकमात्र उपाय है। [Translation : Human life is a beautiful gift from God, and everyone has an equal right to live. God gives life, and only God has the authority to take it away. If a person takes another's life, they no longer have a right to live. Such an individual does not deserve sympathy in society, and regardless of who they are, it is only fair that get the same result of his action. In the case in question, convicted criminals have committed murder in a brutal manner out of greed for property, hence giving them death penalty is the only solution.”

In its analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the testimony of the witnesses and the relevant circumstances, the Court concluded that the deceased (Charan Singh) was brutally murdered out of greed for property by convicted criminals (Raghuveer Singh and his son, Monu alias Tejpal Singh).

The Court noted that the deceased Charan Singh was first shot twice in the chest by convict Monu, and then his father killed the deceased by slitting his throat with an axe, due to which his neck was almost completely separated from his body.

The Court opined that in the instant case, the murder had been committed in a very brutal manner, and to prevent killing an innocent person, the court must give death penalty in such cases.

“विधि का यह भी स्थापित सिद्धान्त है कि कोई व्यक्ति कानून को अपने हाथों में न ले। किन्तु यह तभी सम्भव है, जब कानून का सख्ती से पालन हो। यदि पशुवत हत्या करने वाले व्यक्ति को न्यायालय के द्वारा समुचित दण्ड नहीं दिया जाता है, तो निश्चय ही समाज में गलत संदेश जायेगा। [Translation: It is an established principle of law that no person should take the law into their own hands. However, this can only be ensured when the law is strictly enforced. If a person who commits a brutal, animalistic murder is not given appropriate punishment by the court, it will undoubtedly send a wrong message to society.]

Furthermore, to emphasize the brutality of the incident, where a man, along with his son, killed his brother out of greed for property, the Court referred to the sacrifices made by Lord Rama, his brother Lakshman, and the guilt of Bharata.

The Court noted that Lord Shri Rama, in order to honour his father King Dashrath's promise, willingly accepted a 14-year exile and Lord Lakshmana, though not required to go, chose to accompany Lord Shri Rama in exile.

Later, when Bharata returned and learned of this, he was shocked and deeply saddened, and he was filled with guilt and reproached his mother, Kaikeyi, the Court underscored.

The Court further highlighted that despite getting the opportunity, Bharata refused to become king in Lord Rama's absence. Instead, he ruled Ayodhya with Lord Rama's sandals (khadi) as a symbol of his devotion towards him.

“भगवान श्री राम के भाई भरत ने 14 वर्ष तक भगवान श्री राम की अनुपस्थिति में भगवान श्री राम की खड़ाऊ रखकर अयोध्या राज्य का संचालन किया और 14 वर्ष वनवास काटने के पश्चात भगवान श्री राम अयोध्या के राजा बने। इस प्रकार भगवान श्री राम के भाई लक्ष्मण व भरत ने भाई होने का वास्तविक कर्तव्य निभाया और लोगों के सामने एक आदर्श उदाहरण पेश किया, जो महान त्याग एवं समर्पण का भी प्रतीक है। उपरोक्त प्रसंग से यह स्पष्ट है कि एक भाई अर्थात् भरत ने राज-पाठ को लेने से मना कर दिया, क्योंकि उस अयोध्या राज्य पर तो भगवान श्री राम को राजपाठ करने का अधिकार प्राप्त था।” [Translation : Lord Rama's brother, Bharata, ruled the kingdom of Ayodhya for 14 years in Lord Rama's absence, keeping Lord Rama's khadau on the throne as a symbol of his devotion. After completing his exile, Lord Rama returned and became the king of Ayodhya. In this way, Lord Rama's brothers, Lakshman and Bharata, fulfilled their true duty as brothers, setting an exemplary standard of great sacrifice and devotion. This clearly shows that Bharata refused to take the throne, as Lord Rama had the rightful claim to rule Ayodhya.]

The Court also referred to the sacrifice made by Lord Rama, who went to exile even though he was to become the king the next day when his Rajyabhishek was scheduled.

The Court also referred to the following two chaupayis from the Ramcharitmanas signifying the sacrifices made by Lord Rama and his brother Bharata:

नव गयंदु रघुबीर मनु राजु अलान समान। छूट जानि बन गवनु सुनि उर अनंदु अधिकान II [The mind of Lord Shri Rama is like a newly captured elephant, and the coronation is like a barbed iron shackle used to bind that elephant. Upon hearing that he had to go to the forest, the idea of freeing himself from bondage brought joy to his heart.]

प्रभु करि कृपा पाँवरीं दीन्हीं। सादर भरत सीस धरि लीन्हींII [Lord Shri Rama gave his Khadau to Bharata and Bharata kept the Khadau on his head with full respect.]

On the other hand, the Court noted that in the case at hand, not only a person had been killed, but even family values ​​have also been killed by the convicts where one brother murdered his own another brother in an animalistic manner due to greed for property by slitting his throat and shooting, but the murder was also pre-planned.

The Court also highlighted that earlier, while living in a joint family, one brother used to solve the problems of the other brother together. Still, in the present case, the accused, Raghuveer Singh, had not only murdered his own brother along with his son but also committed a brutal animalistic murder by slitting the throat.

Against this backdrop, the Court convicted both the accused under Section 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to death.