Not “Rarest Of Rare Case”- Allahabad HC Commutes Death Sentence Of Father & Son To Life Imprisonment In 2005 Murder Case
The Allahabad High Court has commuted the death sentence of father and son to imprisonment for the whole of the remaining natural life in 2005 murder case.
The Lucknow Bench was dealing with a capital sentence reference and criminal appeals filed by the accused persons arising out of a common factual matrix and judgment or orders.
A Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I said, “Testing the facts of the instant appeal on the touchstone of guidelines as cited above and on consideration of the totality of circumstances, we are of the firm view that the present case does not fall within the category of 'rarest of rare cases' attracting death penalty due to presence of two factors; firstly, the present case, undisputedly is one of the circumstantial evidence and secondly, both the appellants have no prior criminal antecedent. Therefore, it appears expedient in the interest of justice that the extreme punishment of death penalty awarded to the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. be substituted with sentence of imprisonment for life.”
The Bench noted that the mere fact that a death sentence can be awarded does not mean that it has to be awarded, particularly, when the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is an adequate punishment.
Advocates Nadeem Murtaza and Aditya Vikram Singh represented the appellants while Advocates Ajeet Kumar and Dinesh Kumar represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The accused persons (father-son duo) were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Vide judgment and order, they were convicted and were sentenced to be hanged to death till they are dead along with a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs each. Being aggrieved by the death penalty, they filed appeals before the High Court. As per the prosecution case, the informant was an architect and builder and an agreement was executed between him and the deceased for construction of shops and office. The appellant-father was the owner of Bajrang Security Agency and V.I.P. Security Agency and its office was situated appurtenant to other portion of the said place of construction.
The informant gave a written complaint stating that the construction of shops was almost completed in the said place. During construction, the appellant often used to come and allegedly threaten the deceased that the construction place of shops belonged to a company upon which Rs. 17 lakhs was outstanding and in lieu thereof, he would have to give three shops to him. On this, the deceased used to say that he had bought the place and hence, the appellant did not have any right on it. This led to dispute and the appellant-son ran and picked up a double barrel gun from his office and gave the gun to his father (appellant). Thereafter, the father shot with gun on the deceased’s chest and seeing this, the deceased’s son got into a tussle. However, he was also shot dead.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “As stated earlier the story made up by appellants that on misunderstanding of the police, they were implicated in the case were lying scattered, is also found false and concocted. Thus, it is clear that conduct of appellants is highly incriminating. The recovery of DBBL gun, soon after the incident, from appellant Vijay Prakash and unnatural conduct of him are highly incriminating circumstances against the appellant.”
The Court further said that, all the incriminating circumstances have been cogently and firmly established and these circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the appellants and when these circumstances have been taken cumulatively, it forms a complete chain so that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the murder of both the deceased was committed by the appellants and none else.
“The circumstantial evidence is incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the appellants and is inconsistent with his innocence. … In view of evidence on record we reach to the conclusion that conviction of appellants is based on evidence and there are no tangible reasons to interfere with the same and we uphold the conviction of the appellants as made out in the impugned judgment”, it held.
On coming to the question of death sentence, the Court noted that, when there is choice between a death sentence and a sentence of life imprisonment, the latter is the rule and the former is the exception.
“On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the death sentence awarded by learned trial Court appears excessive in view of the legal position that death sentence should be awarded in ‘rarest of rare cases’ and the Courts should follow the guidelines as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeals, confirmed the conviction, commuted the death penalty, and decided the reference made by the Trial Court.
Cause Title- State of U.P. v. Vijay Prakash Sharma and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:67054-DB)
