"Trial Court Swayed By The Fact That Women-Victims Merit Greater Reparation": Patna HC Acquits Death-Row Prisoner

In a judgment rendered on Wednesday, the Patna High Court acquitted a death-row prisoner, setting aside conviction for murder.The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar iterated that the quality and strength of the evidence and the case of the prosecution not only have a bearing on the decision of conviction or acquittal but also very much on the quantum of sentencing- "Residual doubt becomes a factor for commuting sentence, especially where evidence is purely circumstantial. Judicial approach on the death penalty ought to be cautious, circumspect and careful more so because the decision is permanent and irreversible"The bench stated that the Trial Court has ascribed the fact of the victim is an unmarried woman who was taken "advantage" of as an aggravating factor which is a fact that has neither been proved nor alleged in the case- "Such a stance reflects the paternalistic attitude of society towards women, who are always considered as a helpless victim. The Court must be mindful of this""The Court has also laid great emphasis on the collective consciousness of society and a call for maximum punishment as a legal remedy where vicious and brutal crimes are committed against women. The Court also seems to be swayed by the fact that the victims are women thereby meriting greater reparations for the crime, however, in this case, the alleged reason of the crime was with respect to a property dispute and not necessarily related to the fact that they were women. The Court has failed to realise that the courts are not oracles of public opinion and the role of the courts is not to soothe public sentiment. Courts have to exercise restraint and first ensure that individual rights guaranteed by the constitution are kept at a higher pedestal than public opinion", said the bench.The division bench was hearing the Death Reference for confirmation of such sentence, where allegedly in the night intervening 23rd-24th June 2015, accused Niranjan @ Alakhdeo Kumar (hereinafter referred to as Niranjan) and accused Birendra Kumar (hereinafter referred to as Birendra) murdered Smt. Rekha Devi and her two daughters, namely, Ms. Komal Kumari and Ms. Anshu Kumari. As such both of them were charged for committing offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 18th January 2018 found the Prosecution not to have established its case against accused Birendra and as such acquitted him. But, however, found sufficient evidence, though not direct but circumstantial, against accused Niranjan and convicted him for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the gravity of the crime, accused Niranjan was awarded sentence of death, to be hanged by the neck till death, along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.The bench noted that the trial court had, stating that the principles laid down by the SC in the 2017 Nirbhaya case [Mukesh v. NCT] were guiding the decision on quantum sentence for the Court, went on to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances that weighed in the case. It found the following facts as aggravating circumstances for this case: (1) After the death of the husband of Rekha Devi, the convict took advantage of her loneliness and started living in her house; (2) While living with the widow, he assaulted and tortured her to get her property transferred in his name; (3) On failure of his attempt to get the property transferred, he committed the brutal act of murdering the three helpless family members and; (4) That the gruesome nature of the murder of all three victims, with the total number of 10, 27 and 16 incision wounds being found on the bodies of the deceased, showing the brazenness and coldness with which, the acts were committed. This reflected the fact that the convict had little scope of reform and would be a threat to society if not appropriately punished.The Trial Court then went on to consider the mitigating circumstances for the case. It observed them to be three - (1) the fact that the accused is 32 years old, is an unmarried shopkeeper, (2) has no criminal antecedent and (3) the family circumstances such as the fact that he is from a rural background.The HC noted that again citing the Apex Court in Mukesh, the trial Court observed that in order to ensure justice,courts ought to impose punishment that befits the crime; thus factors such as young age of the accused, absence of criminal antecedent and poor background cannot be said to be mitigating circumstances. Relying on this principle, the trial Court found that the crime committed in the instant case was diabolic in nature, and the manner of achieving it, where helpless family members were murdered by brutally inflicting dozens of injuries on their bodies, made the cruelty of the convict apparent. Such acts were bound to shock the conscience of society. The Court also stated that ...

"Trial Court Swayed By The Fact That Women-Victims Merit Greater Reparation": Patna HC Acquits Death-Row Prisoner

Mehal Jain

Tags