SC sets aside death penalty to man convicted of killing wife, daughter
The bench said that capital punishment, being the most severe penalty in the judicial system, must only be imposed when there is absolute certainty about guilt, which was absent in the present case
India’s criminal justice system disproportionately disadvantages the accused, especially those who are economically or socially vulnerable, the Supreme Court has lamented while setting aside the death penalty awarded to a man convicted of murdering his wife and 12-year-old daughter.
Citing serious lapses in the conduct of his trial, a three-judge bench comprising justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta held that the accused was denied a fair trial due to procedural deficiencies, including the absence of legal representation at crucial stages of the proceedings.
“The Indian criminal justice system places the accused person at a comparative disadvantage which is more so exacerbated when the person is economically or socially less fortunate as in the present case,” noted the bench, underscoring the systemic hurdles faced by marginalised individuals in the judicial process.
The bench highlighted that capital punishment, being the most severe penalty in the judicial system, must only be imposed when there is absolute certainty about guilt, which was absent in the present case.
The judgment also emphasised the responsibility of trial courts to ensure due process, noting that the trial judge must proactively intervene to prevent procedural lapses. “On numerous occasions, this court has highlighted the duty of a trial court to be an active participant to seek out the truth, ensuring that a balance is struck between the role and responsibility of the prosecution as also the rights of the accused,” the bench held.
It also underscored the pivotal role of high courts that need to confirm the death sentence awarded by trial courts. “When particularly concerned with cases of capital punishment, naturally, since a person’s life hangs in the balance, the high court’s responsibility is accordingly enhanced/heightened. It must carefully examine all relevant and material circumstances before upholding the conviction and confirming the sentence of death,” said the bench in its February 4 judgment, released later.
The ruling also aligned with international legal principles, particularly Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees equality before the law. The top court highlighted that even in cases involving the gravest crimes, an accused person is entitled to due process protections.
In the present case, the man was sentenced to death by a Mainpuri trial court in March 2017 for murdering his wife and minor daughter three years ago. The Allahabad high court confirmed the punishment in October 2018.
Senior counsel and former Delhi high court judge Rajiv Shakdher, appearing for the accused in the Supreme Court, flagged numerous lapses in the conduct of the trial and justifiability of the punishment.
Agreeing with him, the bench noted that not only the defence counsel was absent during the examination of key prosecution witnesses, significantly impairing the accused’s ability to challenge the evidence against him, the legal aid counsel appointed for him was also assigned at a belated stage and was changed multiple times. The accused was not given an adequate opportunity to present his defence, as the trial court summarily closed the opportunity for him to produce witnesses without considering the practical difficulties in securing their attendance, the apex court further pointed out.
The bench found these lapses to be in violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial, which is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Given these serious procedural flaws, the court ruled that the imposition of the death penalty in such circumstances was untenable.
“To us, the imposition of the death penalty here appears fraught with danger and should not be sustained,” held the bench, adding that the frequent change in defence counsel and the rushed trial process created a situation where the accused’s legal representation was inadequate. It ordered a fresh trial in the matter, starting March 18 and preferably on a day-to-day basis.
“In conclusion, we may observe the importance of compliance with the principles of law and procedural rigours, since now, due to such clear noncompliance all parties to the dispute shall have to go through the process of trial once more and relive the horrific offence committed against the two deceased persons…Courts must give due regard to such aspects and not be swayed by the emotions that the offence may evoke,” it stated.