Former SDO who went on killing spree in Palwal awarded death penalty

There has been much speculation about how a man, described by his family as a “loving father”, “protective husband”, and “incorruptible officer”, went on to become a spree killer, who ended the lives of six strangers in the most brutal fashion on the night of January 2, 2018.

Holding that no cause justifies the deaths of innocent people, a district court in Palwal on Tuesday awarded the death penalty to a 48-year-old former government employee for bludgeoning six people to death with an iron rod in Palwal in January 2018.

Former SDO who went on killing spree in Palwal awarded death penalty

The judge also recommended the names of six police personnel for gallantry awards for arresting the convict at the risk of their own lives and without using excessive force, despite sustaining several blows with the iron pipe from the convict.

The convict, Naresh Dhankar, was a subdivisional officer (SDO) with the Haryana government’s agricultural department in Bhiwani. In 2003, he had taken voluntary retirement from the army as a lieutenant.

There has been much speculation about how a man, described by his family as a “loving father”, “protective husband”, and “incorruptible officer”, went on to become a spree killer, who ended the lives of six strangers in the most brutal fashion on the night of January 2, 2018.

That night, Dhankar entered a hospital with an iron pipe and first bludgeoned to death a woman attending to her sick relative outside the ICU. He then escaped from there and bludgeoned to death five more people, including three security guards of the hospital, before making his way to his wife’s parental home, from where he was eventually arrested while trying to attack more people.

Five of the victims were found dead in a 400 metre radius of the Palwal city police station. All victims had head injuries. Dhankar was caught by a police team when he was reportedly chasing his seventh victim on the streets outside his in-laws’ home, said police.

While awarding the convict the maximum sentence, the court of additional district and sessions judge Prashant Rana said, “No cause justifies the deaths of innocent people.”

“The manner of killing the victims was extremely brutal and barbaric. The convict crushed their skulls with repeated blows from the iron pipe and also broke their hands and legs. All victims expired immediately, on the spot. The skulls of the victims had multiple fractures and the portions of their brains were missing. All the victims were helpless and vulnerable. None of the victims had done any offence against the convict, and there was no reason for him to attack them,” the judge said in his order.

The sentencing has come at the end of a five-year long investigation and trial.

The convict told the court that he does not wish to lead any evidence on the quantum of sentencing and said he was discharged from the army on account of psychiatric issues. He is still undergoing treatment for physical and psychiatric issues, the court was told. However, his counsels failed to prove insanity at the time of commission of offence.

The counsels for the convict pleaded Dhankar’s defence citing his psychiatric issues. The counsel said Dhankar suffered from psychosis and is still under treatment. Psychosis is rudimentally described by doctors as a condition wherein people lose their connect with reality. This might involve seeing or hearing things that others cannot see or hear (hallucinations) and believing things that are not actually true (delusions).

In his five years of incarceration, Dhankar did not commit any incident of violence and there is every chance, he would be reformed, if given proper treatment, argued his lawyer.

“The crime was not committed for any greed or lust or torture of the victims. The convict had no motive to commit the murders. Even in multiple murders, life imprisonment has been granted to convicts,” his counsel KK Gupta argued.

But the ASJ in his order observed that the convict was an army officer trained at the expense of the public exchequer. “He was trained to defend the country and its citizens and not to mercilessly butcher them,” judge Rana said.

The judge also explained why Dhankar was mentioned as a spree killer and not a serial killer. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States, the general definition of “spree killer” is a person who commits two or more murders without a cooling-off period. The lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree killer and a serial killer.

The families of the six victims also demanded the death penalty for the convict. Most of the deceased had monthly income ranging from ₹10,000-15,000 and their families have been left destitute by the killings.

“The convict has also devastated six families and has created a number of widows and orphans. A number of children have been made fatherless and motherless by the convict. The society has to give an answer to those family members, who do not know till date, as to why their loved ones were snatched away in such barbaric manner,” the judge said.

Rana further said, “In such shocking nature of crimes as the one before us, which is so cruel, barbaric and revolting, it is necessary to impose such maximum punishment under the law as a measure of social necessity which may work as a deterrent to other potential offenders. Failure to impose the extreme penalty in such killings committed with extreme brutality which we think is the “rarest of the rare” cases would not meet the ends of justice.”

Rana said Dhankar did not commit the crime for any lust or greed. “What is the motive or enmity of a habitual thief or a rapist and killer? Everyone feels mentally and emotionally disturbed at times, but that does not give anyone the licence to kill fellow beings,” the judge said.

Before awarding the death penalty, the court said considering the barbaric nature of multiple murders done by the convict in a short span of 2-3 hours and the manner in which the helpless victims were murdered, the court has reason to believe that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. “The convict may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence, if not awarded death penalty,” the judge said.