'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 CaseThe 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 EvidenceAt 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 TheoryFrom 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,...

'Death Penalty Not Warranted': Chhattisgarh HC Commutes Capital Sentence Awarded To Man For Murder Of Wife & Three Minor Children

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Death Penalty Not Warranted': Chhattisgarh HC Commutes Capital Sentence Awarded To Man For Murder Of Wife & Three Minor Children

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers