News Updates

Supreme Court commutes Death Sentence of U.P Police Constable, instead awarded 30 years imprisonment, without remission [Read the Judgment]

Nirmal Mathew
3 July 2014 3:44 AM GMT
Supreme Court commutes Death Sentence of U.P Police Constable, instead awarded 30 years imprisonment, without remission [Read the Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment has commuted the death sentence of Amar Singh Yadav , convicted for the death of his wife and two children to life in jail. The Division bench said that death sentence awarded by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is not warranted in this particular case and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Amar Singh Yadav, a Police Constable of the Uttar Pradesh Police was convicted for the brutal murder of his wife and children. Amar Singh had developed illicit relationship with two other women and this caused the family to get half of his salary to sustain them.  This angered Amar Singh and with the intention to kill them took his family in a car with the pretext of doing shopping for the marriage of one of the daughters. He then with the help of his friend sprinkled petrol all around the van after locking the doors and set fire burning all occupants of the Maruti van to death and pushed the burning car into a pit with an intention to not let them escape. But in the meanwhile a Police Inspector was patrolling the area reached the spot and pulled them out. The wife and two children except one died at the hospital. They gave dying declarations and an FIR was filed. The Sessions Court of Kanpur found Amar Singh guilty for the offences under Section 302, 307 and 436 IPC. The accused was  convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life  on  count  of  Section  307IPC. He was further convicted and sentenced to  rigorous  imprisonment  for seven years on count of Section 436 IPC. The accused was  further  convicted and sentenced to death and Rs.10,000/- fine on count of Section 302 IPC  and it was directed that he  shall  be  hanged  by  the  neck  till  death. The High Court upheld the conviction and death  sentence  of  Amar Singh.

The bench consisting of Justice  Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadyay and Justice Dipak Mishra while commuting the death sentence incident held that this “does not fall within the category of “rarest of the rare case”, and, therefore, death  penalty  was uncalled for. “This is not a fit case to impose a death penalty.” The Court further said, “But there is no room but  to suggest that the accused caused  the  death  of  the  deceased”.   The  dying declarations  clearly  implicate  the  accused.   Though we are convinced that the prosecution has proved the  guilt  of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused committed the crime  in a most cruel and inhuman manner. The helpless wife and young  children,  though who fell victims to the avaricious conduct and lust of the appellant, the Court held that  the case does not fall within the four corners of the principle of  “the  rarest of the rare case”, though no leniency can be shown to the appellant.”. The Court while relying upon Ronny  alias  Ronald  James  Alwaris  and  others  vs.  State  of Maharashtra, 1998 (3) SCC  625,  found that  nature of the crime and circumstances of the offender do not reveal  that  he is a menace to the society and the death sentence should be reserved for  exceptional  cases only. The Court found that though the killings were brutal, these did not fall under the rarest of rare category.

While commuting the death sentence the Supreme Court also ordered Amar Singh to serve a minimum 30 years in jail before considerations for premature release after significantly relying on earlier precedents set up the Supreme Court itself in cases of Sandeep vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC  107 and of Haresh Mohandas Rajput vs. State Of  Maharashtra,  2011  (12) SCC 56.

Next Story