8 Oct 2018 1:37 PM GMT
‘Two family members were murdered by accused-appellant in most brutal, grotesque, diabolical and dastardly manner arousing indignation and abhorrence of society which calls for an exemplary punishment.’The Allahabad High Court has upheld death penalty for a man accused of murdering his wife and a daughter.Sovaran Singh was convicted by the trial court finding him guilty of the double...
‘Two family members were murdered by accused-appellant in most brutal, grotesque, diabolical and dastardly manner arousing indignation and abhorrence of society which calls for an exemplary punishment.’
The Allahabad High Court has upheld death penalty for a man accused of murdering his wife and a daughter.
Sovaran Singh was convicted by the trial court finding him guilty of the double murder of his wife Mamta and minor daughter Sapna. His another daughter was a prime witness in this case against him.
In this case, the prosecution had admitted that at the time of the incident, Singh had consumed liquor and, according to them, a motive for the murder is that the wife did not accede to his demand for more money to buy more liquor.
Upholding the trial court view in this aspect, the bench of Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice Om Prakash said: “It is also settled legal position that voluntary drunkenness cannot excuse the commission of an offence. If the person had not gone so deep in drinking and from the facts it could be found that he knew what he was about, Court will apply the rule that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. Merely establishing that person's mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts.”
The bench observed that it was a brutal, grotesque, diabolical murder by doing violence with the private parts of wife and daughter. The bench said: “Incident commenced when appellant started beating his daughter Sapna (deceased) and then took her towards field. When he brought her back she was unconscious and in the lap of accused- 31 appellant. Thereafter appellant smashed her (Sapna) to brick floor. Sapna was crying with pain but appellant did not feel pity and put his feet on her neck till she died. She was bleeding from head, eyes, ear and nose. Appellant lifted dead body of Sapna (deceased daughter) and placed on the cot in the courtyard. Then he went on the roof and called his wife Mamta on the pretext that Sapna (deceased daughter) has suffered from fever and needs medicine. Thereupon Mamta came and as she reached the gate of the house, appellant took stone lying on the gate of the house and hit on the breast of his wife who fell down. Appellant started beating her with lathi (bamboo stick) and stone. Mamta, wife of appellant in order to save her life, tried to run and hide in Nala but appellant dragged her by leg and caused her to death by hitting with stone and bamboo stick. The manner in which offence was committed and also the magnitude of crime, in our view, places the present matter in the category of anti social or socially abhorrent nature of crime. We concur with the finding of Trial Court that two family members were murdered by accused-appellant in most brutal, grotesque, diabolical and dastardly manner arousing indignation and abhorrence of society which calls for an exemplary punishment. Wife and 12 years daughter have been murdered by appellant when both were helpless and there is nothing on record to show that they aggravated the situation so as to arouse sudden and grave passion on the part of appellant to commit such dastardly crime. Appellant has also not shown any remorse or repentance at any point of time, inasmuch as, he attempted to hide dead bodies by taking the same on the roof of his brother and behind cot and ran away from the house.”
The bench then upheld the death sentence observing that the accused has committed a crime in a really shocking manner showing the depravity of mind and that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances by all canons of logic and punishment of life imprisonment would neither serve the ends of justice nor will be an appropriate punishment.
Read the Order Here